Everybody has his or her own idea. I will appreaiciate if you can stop this from now on. I think this discussion is becoming too long and it seems it will never end.. If you would like to keep on discussing please unicast to those people that u like.
Regards Devvv ----- Original Message ----- From: "n rf" To: Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:03 AM Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328] > 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=70395&t=70328 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
