Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > My friend NRF (what is your name anyhow?), > > Others have expressed concern, true, and most of them are > legitimate. You > mentioned that the MCSE was thought of as a means to get "easy > money" from a > relatively naive market faced with the new "IT" dimension. > > Expressing legitimate concern by citing facts has its value, > but I see that > you are indeed "peddling myths," but, so far (forgive me for > generalizing > due to limited exposure to your thoughts) you have been very > one-sided ad > biased in your "concerns." The "CCIE number" thread is based > on some > objective opinion of ONE person, you. You have also not > provided data to > back your "opinion," and doubt very much that you can provide > definitive > data on the matter.
It is not one-sided at all. Again, answer the question - all other things being equal, would you prefer a lower or a higher number for yourself or not? Of course you prefer a lower number. I know I do. Pretty much everybody does. So actually, I would say that the majority is on my side. The only difference is that some people like me are willing to admit it, and others aren't. But in our hearts, we all know what the truth is. Again, if you don't believe me, go look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly would you take a lower number if Cisco offered it to you? Be honest with yourself. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about and that's about as definitive as you're ever going to get. > > Who are those "some people," those who (allegedly) "required > lower number > CCIE's" and what percentage of the global population of "HR > managers" do > they constitute? Do they, furthermore, qualify to judge either > way? How > "expertly" knowledgable are they of the CCIE certification > process? How > familiar are you? Once again with the ad-hominem attacks. Why do people insist on attacking my character and my motives rather than my actual points? First of all, I obviously don't think it's stupid that people who do hiring prefer the lower number. I think it's actually entirely logical. But fine, let's have it your way. Even if it was illogical, what does that prove? You ask how what makes these HR people qualified to judge? Simple. The mere fact that HR managers have jobs to give makes that person qualified to judge. Why? Simple - the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. If you want a job, and they have the jobs to give, then they are the ones with the power. They are the ones who tell you what they are looking for, and if you refuse to play by their rules, then they won't give you the job, simple as that. Unfair? Maybe. But get over it. That's life. If you have your own company, then you can decide what criteria you will use to hire. But if you don't, then you have to dance to the tune of the piper. Let me put it to you another way. Surely we all know that many companies prefer that certain positions be filled by college graduates, despite the fact that those positions don't really require anything that you would learn in college. So you might then say that it's stupid that they do things this way. Yeah, but at the end of the day, so what? Since they are the ones who have the jobs, they get to decide what they want. Ranting and raving about how you think the requirement is stupid isn't going to change their minds. Do you seriously believe that you'll be able to go to these companies and use your power of persuasion to convince them that their own requirement is stupid? Of course not. You either have want they want, or you'll be passed by. The key, therefore, is if you want that job, you should get that thing that they want, even if you don't agree that it's necessary. Telling companies that you don't agree with their hiring practices doesn't help you in paying the rent. Sometimes you gotta put up with things you don't agree with in order to get something you want (like a job). That's life. You gotta be pragmatic here. I hate stopping at red lights at 3 AM when there's nobody around to crash into. But hey, if I run one and get pulled over, am I really going to win an argument with the cop over how I shouldn't need to obey the light because there's nobody around? Of course not. He's gonna hand me a ticket and I'm going to be out $300, end of story. I stop at red lights at 3AM simply because I don't want to get a ticket. I think it's stupid that I would get one because there's nobody around to crash into, but that's neither here nor there. In the final analysis, I don't want a ticket, so I don't run those lights. In the final analysis, people go to college because they want to get those jobs for which a company says that a degree is necessary. In the final analysis, people desire a lower number because some HR guys/recruiters say that they prefer them. Whether you personally agree that things should be this way is not the issue. If you want the thing that people are offering (a job, not getting ticketted), then you will need to jump through the hoops that they are dictating, even if you don't like it. That's life. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70389&t=70328 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
