yawn.
----- Original Message ----- From: n rf Date: Saturday, June 7, 2003 12:09 pm Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] > garrett allen wrote: > > > > you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower > > number > > cpa better than a higher numbered one? > > You got me wrong. I didn't say that lower is better at all times. > Read my > entire post again. > > I said that more rigorous equates to prestige. This is why I > included my > example of what would happen if Cisco decided to change the CCIE > exam to > become extremely rigorous - then eventually people would prize > "high-number" > CCIE's who passed the more rigorous version. The fact is, > prestige follows > rigor. If something is more rigorous, then it becomes rigorous > and vice > versa. This is why graduating from MIT is more prestigious than > graduatingfrom Podunk Community College. But the fact is, the > CCIE on the whole has > probably gotten more rigorous (i.e. chopping the test from 2 days > to 1, > eliminating the dedicated troubleshooting section, more > bootcamps/braindumps, more cheating, etc. etc.) which is why it > has become > less prestigious. > > > >actually, probably the > > inverse > > is true as the more recent the certification the more recent > > the > > material covered. this is balanced against with age comes > > opportunities and experiences. > > Unfortunately, the free market disagrees with you. The fact is, a > growingnumber of recruiters, headhunters, and HR people are > starting to give > preference to lower-number CCIE's. Go check out the > groupstudy.jobs forum. > Yet I have never heard of any recruiter giving preference to > higher-number > CCIE. It's always one-way, and that's my point. > > > > > > threads like this are like discussing the maximum number of > > angels > > dancing on the head of a pin. i vote we kill the thread before > > it > > spawn. > > > > later. > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: n rf > > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2003 5:16 pm > > Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] > > > > > Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the > > population > > > hasn'taccelerated THAT dramatically. > > > > > > Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely > > gotten > > less > > > rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this > > is > > > going to > > > greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, > > the > > > averagequality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is > > probably > > > lower than the > > > average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. > > > > > > Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask > > > yourself if > > > you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a > > lower > > > number,would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 > > and > > > you could trade > > > that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest > > with > > > yourself. > > > I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token > > we > > > also know > > > that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for > > a > > > higher one. > > > The movement is therefore all "one-way". If all CCIE's were > > > really "created > > > equal" then nobody would really care one way or another which > > > number they > > > had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's > > are not > > > createdequal and that intuitively that the lower number is > > more > > > desirable and the > > > higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does > > everybody > > > want a lower > > > number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was > > in > > > the past, > > > which is why lower numbers are preferred. > > > > > > Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting > > at > > > #12,000Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all > > > kinds of funky > > > technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some > > other > > > god-awful > > > number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around > > that > > > the "new" > > > CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to > > pass. > > > Eventually,numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and > > > everybody would want to > > > trade in their number for one greater than #12000. > > Recruiters and > > > HR people > > > would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater > > than > > > #12000. > > > The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and > > desirability > > > tends to > > > follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and > > desirability. > > > > > > > > > And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you > > alluded to > > > several factors. While it is still rather controversial > > exactly > > > how the > > > switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is > > widely > > > conceded that > > > it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these > > braindumps all > > > over the > > > Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. > > The > > > CCIE has > > > certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out > > how > > > to 'game' - > > > for example, for example, some people who live near test > > sites > > > just attempt > > > the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is > > the > > > consensusthat the CCIE program has simply not kept up with > > the > > > growing amount of > > > study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all > > know > > > there's an > > > entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to > > pass the > > > lab, and > > > while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does mean > > that > > > Cisco needs > > > to keep pace to maintain test rigor. To offer a parallel > > > situation, when > > > the MCSE bootcamps started to proliferate, the value of the > > MCSE > > > plummetedbecause Microsoft did not properly maintain the > > rigor of > > > the cert. > > > Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70315&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
