Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself.
Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do that. And when did I ever compare networking to a software company? Seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. About me 'devaluing' networking - how could I really doing that? Are you saying it's my fault that networking is devalued? Seriously. I am only 1 person. How could 1 person acting alone devalue networking in any measurable way? If I really had the power to manipulate entire markets like that, I'd be a multimillionaire and I certainly wouldn't be hanging out here on this ng. I think the real fear that people have is that I am not alone - that I really am telling the truth. If networking has been devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it should be devalued, and what is the free market but many individual entities all acting in their own self-interest? Therefore if networking has been devalued, it is because many people have decided that it be so. Not just me alone. About the cpa argument - I would argue that whenever the cpa test happened to be more difficult, then it would be more prestigious. Whenever anything is more difficult, it becomes more prestigious. Is that particularly shocking? Why is a degree from MIT more prestigious than a degree from Podunk Community College? Simple - graduating from MIT is harder than graduating from PCC. I even stated that if the CCIE all of a sudden got very very difficult starting today, then anybody who passed starting today would earn more prestige. Simply put - prestige follows rigor. And Chuck, you said it yourself - "True, there are more cheaters out there, and more practice labs, and the like..." - and those kinds of things are exactly what I'm talking about. Bottom line - the CCIE is not as hard to attain today as it was in the past, whether because of cheating or more practice materials, or whatever. You also said that the test is just as difficult today as it was in the past. But it's not just the test that I'm talking about, but rather the entire CCIE procedure that I'm talking about. The tests themselves may be of equivalent difficulty, but if there are more bootcamps and whatnot today, then ultimately that means that the CCIE procedure of today is easier. Sure test A and test B might be equal in difficulty, but if people are more "bootcamp-ed" to take test B, then ultimately passing test B is easier. Again, I don't think bootcamps are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that if you want to maintain the same level of difficulty, you have to compensate for the bootcamps by making test B even harder than test A. Otherwise, you end up with a situation where people who passed test A were good, but people who passed test B may not be quite as good, but had the benefit of bootcamps. Or let me put it to you another way. Surely you would agree that companies like Princeton Review and Kaplan make the SAT's easier. The SAT's "fight back" by using relative scoring - where your scores are calculated not absolutely, but relative to your peers, according to percentiles. (Incidentally, I think relative scoring is something the CCIE program could use, but I digress). But if ETS (the administrators of the SAT) were to use absolute scoring, then surely you would agree that a score of 1500 achieved in, say, 1950, would not mean the same as a score of 1500 achieved today. I'll make it even more stark. Let's say you're giving prizes to runners who run 100 meters in 10 seconds. The first group of runners run without any nutritional or chemical supplements. The second group of runners use anabolic steroids, ala Ben Johnson. Which group will win more prizes? But the bottom line, Chuck, is still what I've said before. If you were CCIE #11,000, and Cisco offered you the chance to trade that number in for #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I don't think there's a person in the world who wouldn't take that trade. But what about the opposite - would you trade 1100 for 11,000? Again, nobody is going to do that. And that's what I'm talking about - it's all one-way. Before anybody argues with me further, ask yourself why is it one-way? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70240&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
