some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source. pray do not take offense, as none is intended.
""n rf"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :-> > > 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. most of us on this list would take any number we could get! ;-> > > 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. so there are some idiot recruiters who are lockstepping with what thweir idiot employer / clients are asking for. I can recall when CCNA became all the rage, and there were some employers / recruiters who were turning down people with CCNP's. Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. As a job seeker, it behooves someone to focus on identifying the kind of people they want to work with and for, and those who should be avoided. > > 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. in general I respect your observations. I agree with this particular comment. I believe your own particular status is irrelevant. I believe the source is typical human nature. Just because someone has achieved something does not necessarily mean their observation or opinion is more valid than those of someone who has not. But human nature being what it is, many people tend to take the advice of someone with the numbers or letters after tha name as better than that of someone who does not. > > 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. you're NOT that powerful? How disappointing :-> the job market is what you make of it. Yes there are external factors. In the grand scheme of things, comparative advantage comes into play somewhere along the line. I suggest that netwroking is to the point where fewer companies require on site support staff. They can outsource, colocate, purchase manged services, and in the end this means fewer staff jobs, and the remaining staff jobs requiring more expertise. Not saying it will happen tomorrow, but I can see the trend as well. > > > 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. I still disagree with your preemise - that the CCIE Lab is easier than ever. My own experience says otherwise. The existence of a plethora of study materials just means that on the average people are better prepared, and more knowledgable. It does not mean the test is easier. I don't have any recent statistics, but when I was keeping track, I was seeing about 100 new CCIE numbers being issued per month. This was steady over a period of two years. Towards the end of the time, there was a trend up[. This was prior to the elimination of IPX from the Lab, and during a time when there wasn't so much of a turnover in tests. So my unscientific conclusion at the time was that as the word got out, the test became easier. I'm willing to bet that a rigorous analysis would show that this was no different that previous historical periods. When the one day lab first came out, the passing numbers fell substantially over the period of a couple of months. As I said, I don't have current numbers, and the program managers at Cisco have refused to disclose any detail to me when I have asked. But I would suspect that the numbers may not be a lot different today than they were two yeares ago. > > 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. Let me be clear that I have no direct knowledge of cheating going on. I have had off line conversations in the past with someone ( I don't remember who ) who told me that major consulting firm ( I don't remember which one - may be out of buiness now ) had a regular program going on. all employees who went through the lab were debriefed in detail, and those schediled to go in used that information to prepare. This was back in the days of the 3500-4500 series of numbers, so it's not like this was a new thing. And just so the newsgroup police don't come asking, I have since changed computers, changed ISP's and changed e-mail clients, so I have no way of providing any of the information that resulted from that conversation. >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. One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that up? have passing rates gone up or down? over what time period? with what technologies being tested? >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. Again, very speculative on your part. The net result of preparation is a higher standard for all who have gone or who are going through the process. YTo be honest, I don't believe you have a real basis for this position. Without facts, statistics, all you have is your own prejudice. > 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. Again, not directly relevant. The SAT questions change, there are more people and of different backgrounds taking the test now, so that it is no longer the domain of east coast prep schools, as it was in the 50's and 60's. But toi return to networking, there really is only so much that can be tested. So I don't think I agree with your point here. > > 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? not a fair comparison. > > 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. at this point I'd take any number I can get. but I think you assume something about me in particular that is not true. That's another story, and one to discuss during a long walk on some nearby mountaintops, and not on an internet news group. > 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? it's not about trading numbers, its about earning numbers. Maybe because I'm older than a lot of the folks in this business, and I compete again 20 somethings with no life and no family to support, and maybe because I've been around the block more than once, but if hiring managers want to be idiots, they are free to do so. I, on the other hand, am free to choose not to deal with them. That philosophy has served me well so far. If enough people behaved in a sim,ilar manner, the pointy haired managers would find themselves on the wrng side of things, and they would be the endagered species. JMHO. gotta run. got some remodel work to finish up. Chuck Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70317&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
