Mark W. Odette II wrote: > > Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR > People- Out of CCIE 1025-9999, how many of them do you think > are still actively with the program, still working in the > industry, still are at the top of their game (i.e., could go > back in and take the OLD LAB again), and are the Crhme of the > crop that they have so valued them as??!?!?! > > There are reasons of human physiology and psychology that > proves that the old saying is true... If you don't keep > practicing a skill or knowledge through repetition, you simply > will loose your "edge". My hat is off to CCIE #1058 if he can > still complete the OLD LAB blind folded and run circles around > CCIE #10,269 in regards to the complex multi-protocol setup of > DECNet, IPX, SNA, IP (w/ BGP, OSPF, EIGRP), and AppleTalk for a > 8-10+ router network that was the result of 2 or more > multi-hundred-thousand-node companies merging. But I must > insert my own pessimism that I seriously doubt this is the > case. This could be for any number of reasons, but I'm sure > the number one reason is that it was too time-consuming and > expensive to maintain such "prestige". Not to mention, they > probably got laid off for one reason or another in the past 3-5 > years.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The value of the CCIE program was never really its immediate technology relevance "per-se", but rather its rigor. Let me explain. Let's face it - in how many network jobs out there do you really configure a network from scratch? Honestly, how many? Only a small minority. And of that small minority, how many of those jobs would force you to set up said network under severe time pressure? Practically no network job is really like that. The vast majority of networking jobs involves maintaining an already-configured network. You most likely will not have to build a network, and you're almost certainly not going to have to do so in less than 8 hours. Furthermore, of those networks that you build, how many times are you actually going to be given excruciating details about how to do it. Is your boss really going to say "have R1 peer with R2 and R3 with EIGRP, but not R4, and then set up a GRE tunnel over here and redistribute this, that and the other thing, and over here you can use a floating static, but nowhere else, etc. etc. etc."? Almost certainly not. Your boss is probably going to say that he wants you to provide networking services to these particular devices, and it's up to you to decide how to do that. If he was going to give you excruciating, nitpicking details about precisely how to set up the network, then why doesn't he just set it up himself? He'll probably spend more time explaining to you exactly what he wants than if he just did it himself. Therefore the point is that the CCIE has always been an artificial construct. Practically no real-world networking job is going to be like the lab. Historically, the value of the lab has not been because it's real-world (because it's not and I think everybody agrees that it's not) but because it's rigorous and because it involves networking problem-solving. THAT is the value of the lab. But that leads to my thesis - what has happened to the rigor of the lab. Forget about true real-world relevance, because that, to be perfectly honest, was never the source of the value of the test in the first place - never has been, and probably never will be. The value of the test is that it served as a proxy for a person's network problem-solving skills. So the real question now becomes whether it measures these skills as good as it did before. I would say no, and my proof is, again, everybody wants to trade for a lower number and nobody wants to trade for a higher one. > > Headhunters and Recruiters are more arrogant than those CCIE's > that have been minted in the past 24 months. And they've been > that way for at least the last decade. An engineer with > Blah-blah-blah certifications is nothing but a potential for > them making a huge commission for "hooking up" that engineer > with the employer. And because of this arrogance, they have > these BS ideals that CCIE# 6328 is truly expert, and CCIE > #10524 doesn't deserve the respect of knowing much more than > how to power on a piece of Cisco equipment. To put in your > analogy format, that's like saying the M.D. that got his PHD 20 > years ago, but got bored with continually going back to those > medical conferences and continued education on advances in > medical science is more preferential than the Doctor that has > been practicing medicine for only the past 3 years. I bet is > that the older Doc is going to continue performing "tried and > true" procedures that have a greater risk of failure or > permanent damage of some sort (could be scars, amputated limb, > etc.) than the younger Doc that is current with procedures that > result in more favorable outcomes for the same medical > situations. So ask yourself why is it that all CCIE's would love to trade their number in for a lower one, but never vice versa? If what you say is true, then everybody would want to trade for a higher one, correct? Yet nobody wants to do that - why not? > > NRF- You've said yourself in the past that Cisco has changed > the CCIE program for financial reasons, be it for increased > revenue or wiser financial efficiency in maintaining the > equipment, facilities, etc. What about simple relevance? > True, not as many routing protocol technologies are being > tested on... but they make up for that by testing on new > technologies such as Voice, Security, etc. So, because Cisco > tests on new technologies, that makes it acceptable for the > "market" and all those Headhunters, Recruiters, and HR folks to > deem the CCIE not as valuable as it once was?!? They obviously > have a jaded/ill-informed point of reference in comparing the > "old" with the "new". But at the end of the day, that's neither here nor there. You can rant and rave about the market all you want - it's still the market. At the end of the day, HR has the jobs, and if you want to put food on the table, you have to jump through their hoops even if you think those hoops are stupid. Sometimes you gotta put up with things that you think are stupid. That's life. So maybe you think HR is being stupid. But when the rent is due, your landlord doesn't want to hear about your problems with HR. You either have the money to pay, or you don't. Bottom line - even if you think that HR is using the switch as an excuse to be stupid, that's still a good enough reason for Cisco not to have made the switch. Or to switch back. > > Out of curiosity, just exactly what are the names of all these > "brain-dump" groups/sites that make the CCIE LAB a > cake-walk?!? If they are so common knowledge, I have a hard > time believing that Cisco would allow them to continue > operating. I'm sure Mr. Chambers is intelligent enough to look > ahead and realize he would be preempting the demise of his own > company if his company perpetuated the cycle of > braindump-prepared CCIEs will equal less positive reputation > for support and value of the products themselves. Or in more > simplistic terms, surely he's smart enough to foresee the > cause-and-effect scenario of allowing hundreds of CCIE's to be > minted per month. Well, to be honest, this forum is one of them, and a big one. You got guys coming here all the time asking questions that are pretty obviously questions that they have seen on a test somewhere. Come on, I know you've been on this forum, so I know you know what I'm talking about. Also, I never used the word "cakewalk". I said "easier". And it is. Also, your analogy of John Chambers is a non-sequitur. I think we all agree that the MCSE is a totally braindumped and "paper-cert-ted" program, but has that hurt Microsoft? Mr. Gates seems to be doing OK. He doesn't seem to mind having hordes of new MCSE's being minted every month. The fact is, Cisco's success in the marketplace has practically nothing to do with the integrity of the CCIE program. So why would Chambers care one way or another? Hasn't hurt Mr. Gates, so why should Chambers care? > > If the economy is so dismal for a majority (read 70%+) of the > country, especially the IT industry, just exactly how are all > these New CCIE's affording to pay for braindump memberships, > Bootcamps, rack rentals and/or personal lab purchases to > prepare for the O-so-easy CCIE LAB?!?! I guess my point is, I > must be continuing to perpetuate myself in this little naove > bubble that makes me have a hard time believing/accepting the > CCIE program is being overran in record time with wannabe > CCIE's that just simply "bought" their certification rather > than earning it. Well, first of all, braindumps don't cost anything. Second of all, you're setting up a strawman. I never said that the CCIE lab was now "O-so-easy", I said it was easier than before. "Easier" is not the same as "easy". Third of all - how are they paying for it? Simple - Debt. Think about this. Right now, a growing number of people are going back to school, especially grad schools. Why? Simple. Because they can't get the jobs they want, so they decide to get more degrees and wait out the bad economy. For example, here are some articles: http://www.ccchronicle.com/back/2001-11-26/campus5.html http://www.bet.com/articles/1,,c6gb313-1101,00.html http://www.youngmoney.com/jobjump/100702_02.asp http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2003/03/31/focus1.html http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/96/13/01_4.html http://www.clickondetroit.com/sh/education/stories/education-124078720020218-170247.html You could just as easily ask how, in a bad economy, people are coming up with the funds to go to grad school. But the fact is, they are, and in growing numbers. These people obviously have no problem in piling up the debt. Just like a bad economy actually encourages people to spend money to go to school, I would argue that a bad economy would also encourage people to pay for a bootcamp. So you say you question whether people are really 'paying' for their cert. Asked and answered. If people are obviously willing to pile on the debt to go to grad school (because of the bad economy) then why is it so difficult to believe that they would be willing to pile on the debt for a bootcamp or 2? > > Give us some facts that can give merit to the "free market's" > delusion that Computer Networking isn't worth the nickel it > used to be. And yes, I believe the "free market" is under > delusional control. Most of which has been perpetuated by the > "Dot.Bomb" era (which has been nothing but pessimistic > influence of the US Media [and yes, I know part of it was a > result of bad financial decisions by some start-up companies > and some of the Telco's, but the ripple affects caused in short > by the media is why all the other businesses have experienced > demise]). Real Estate and Oil had its "big boom" period too, > but that hasn't seemed to have had an affect on the purchases > of houses and gas in the past 15 years... in fact, they've just > gotten ridiculously more expensive! Uh, are you trying to defy the free market? The fact is, we are all but slaves to the market. We can all say that we're worth a million bucks a year, but if nobody's willing to pay that to us, then we're not. So it doesn't matter if you think the market is being delusional - at the end of the day, you can't fight the market. You can get ticked off at the market all you want, and it won't change a thing. How do I know that networking is not what it used to be? Again, the simple thought exercise - if you could trade your CCIE number for a lower one, would you do it? Of course you would. I know I would. Everybody would. That's my point. > > As far as those questioning what YOUR CCIE number is... it's > only human nature to verify one's point of "authority" on the > subject/person at hand... especially when you single-handedly > give off the persona of having such a pessimistic/negative > point of view to the whole subject AND continue to blatantly > say that the LAB isn't anywhere near as hard as it once was... > for which the only way you could make such a statement with > validity is that you HAVE engaged in the OLD and NEW LAB, and > have passed. I have in fact taken both the new and old lab. But that still probably won't convince you, right? Therefore the whole ad-hominem route was really just a ruse. You won't listen to me if I don't have a certain background, but even if I did have that background, you probably still won't listen to me. That's the REAL problem I have with the ad-hominem attacks - that people are engaging in bad faith. >Bottom line is, when you make certain statements, > you open the board up to assumptions and questions that you > simply can't expect anybody to ignore- you expect everyone to > simply go on FAITH that you know what you're talking about. > And those elusive statements like "maybe I am and maybe I am > not, etc., etc." don't help your cause any. Perhaps your > career SHOULD be in Politics and such, rather than in > networking. One thing for sure, you are obviously one of those > graduates from the prestigious colleges you refer to so often, > and you either majored in social science/debate, or you minored > in it. - But hey, that's just my opinion. But you say that the argument is about just me. It is not. Again, ask yourself would you make the trade that I keep asking everybody to consider? Everybody wants to raise all these other points, but nobody wants to actually answer the question. But I think in our hearts, everybody knows what the truth really is, and if they simply admitted it to themselves, this whole thread would resolve itself. Again, if you still don't agree, then ask yourself the question - would you want to trade your number for a lower one if you had the chance. Just make sure to be honest with yourself. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70355&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
