Babylon By The Bay wrote: > > This whole thread has a whole LOL effect to it does it not? > This seems to > pop up every 6/8 weeks or so on GS... > > I mean anyone who has been in the business for any amount of > time will be > able to see through bullshit factor be (he/she) CCIE or not. > Thats really > what is at the heart of this thread is it not? Is CCIE really > king of the > hill or not? I say out loud - NOT!
Absolutely true. I'm with you 110%. I think the CCIE has gotten far more hype than it deserves. I have said things to this effect time and time again, and famously so. For example, Jack Nalbandian is now apparently accusing me of using this whole thread as a 'flying-buttress' interconnect to my other posts about the value of certification vs. college (a bizarre accusation I must say - if I feel like talking about the value of college vs. certs, believe me, I'm going to talk about it). But I think you see on this thread that a lot of people apparently have a lot invested in the notion that the CCIE is the bee's knees and they simply will not suffer anybody who questions its value even just a little bit. "Hey, the value of certification is declining". "What! That's blasphemy - how dare you say such a thing!!!" > > An individual who has just achieved CCIE is going to be "hot" > or should I > say peaked in their skill sets -Cisco wise. But does that > translate into > "real world experience" or not? Not really. > > There is a CCIE training website that lists an individual who > achieved CCIE > with ONLY 6 months training. (I'm not naming names but there's > one for NFR.) > > OK, I have a simple solution to the perception of CCIE and > experience > question quasi CCIE after # so and so is not really a CCIE at > the same level > as CCIE# blah blah. > > Here's a couple of off the wall interview questions that will > throw the > uninitiated into doldrums - CCIE or NOT! > > How many CCIE's can explain why Sam Halabi is NOT a CCIE and > why they > worship him so???? > > How many CCIE's know who Tony Li is and upon who's door that he > nailed his > resignation letter upon??? I know the answers to all your questions. I also know some of the details of why Tony Li either left or got pushed out of(depending on whose version of the story you're hearing) another vendor which we'll just call 'J'. > > For those who keep belittling the CCIE or that Cisco should > create a super > CCIE - there already is - it's called a Cisco Fellow... And how many CCIE's have ever heard of them? Again, it all gets down to something I've been saying for awhile and that you agree with - that the CCIE is really only just a beginning. It's certainly not infallible. > > Headhunters are nothing more than used car sales > people...IMHO... Used car salespeople that can sometimes get you jobs, however. Hey, maybe you and I are living large, but we all know that there are quite a few network people who are just scraping by and they gotta take work wherever they can find it. If a smarmy headhunter says jump, they ask "how high and how many times?" > > Enough said............... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Road Goes Ever On" > To: > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM > Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] > > > > 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=70352&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
