This has been an entertaining thread, but the way I see it is this. Maybe the high/low CCIE would work with the headhunters and that is a different story, but we have interviewed/employed a number of IT guys over the past couple of months, CCIE's included and to be honest I do not look to the CCIE number for a reference of technical ability (I do look that it is a valid CCIE number). The candidates that we interview complete a test, written and lab, tiered in difficulty. We make an evaluation based on experience, team orientation, and test/lab results. There is no pressure to answer or complete the test/lab however that is how we determine the level/tier of the prospective candidate, not the CCIE number. That is just how we do it.
My two cents Doug -----Original Message----- From: Kaminski, Shawn G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328] STOP IT! Both of you! :-) Shawn K. P.S. This thread has been highly entertaining! -----Original Message----- From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328] >Jack Nalbandian wrote: Boy, for a guy who says that he wants to close the thread, you really have a lot to say. > > 1. Attacking his motives and attacking his character are > mutually exclusive > endeavors. I attack his motive of defaming the certification > process itself > in a series of different topics. I have not criticized any > such commentary > that balances all facts, but NRF's overall commentary does no > such thing. Uh, how's that? At the end of the day you are refusing to deal with the issues at hand. Whether you choose to attack my motives or my character - whatever you want to call it - it's still out of bounds. You are either talking about the actual issues at hand, or you're not. Simple as that. Besides, character and motives are basically one and the same. Wouldn't somebody with bad character necessarily have bad motives? Is there really such a thing as a guy with bad character having good motives? Or vice versa? I don't think so. So really, when you say that you're questioning my motives but not my character, that's really a distinction without a difference. Look, the bottom line is this. I don't question your motives or your character. Don't do it to me. > > 2. There is the issue of devaluation of certifications due to > the "forces > majeur" that you mention, but the actual argument, it seems, > you have missed > as well. The entire focus seems to be on "certification > tracks" and how > "worthless they are," not due to the actual market forces at > play, but due > to the very (alleged) "inherent weakness" of the certification > process > itself. Therefore, your well-thought out and long-winded (not > meant as a > pejorative) is too far off the mark. Why do you keep insisting on telling me what my own focus is? Don't you think I would know the focus of my own posts? When have I said in this particular thread that all certifications were worthless? In fact, you could easily say quite the opposite - I have said several times that certain certifications, namely low-number CCIE's, are in fact quite valuable. So how does that jive with your accusation that I am somehow painting all certifications as worthless, when in fact I have singled out a certification subset as worthy? Oh, but I get it, you keep insisting that I am actually bashing all certs as a "stealth undercurrent thesis", despite the fact that I think everybody in this ng would agree that I don't exactly "do" stealth. If I want to say something, I'm going to say it. Here's an idea, Jack. Instead of debating me on what you believe the undercurrents of my words are saying, why not debate me on what I'm ACTUALLY saying? To do otherwise is really to engage in that character assassination and shooting-of-the-messenger that is simply uncouth. > 2b. The second repetitively implied undertext is that of the > (alleged) > "superiority" of college education, the original method of > degradation and > defamation of the certificiation process itself. I dismissed > this as a > comparison between apples and oranges with the intent to > devalue oranges by > judging their value in apple terms. If you have read my posts > at all, you > will know my position on this. I can repost the relevant > content if you > wish. > There you go again with the implied undertext. How the heck am I supposed to prove a negative? You can always accuse anybody of using subliminal messages and codewords, and what the heck am I supposed to do about it? Nobody can prove a negative. But once again, I ask you, why not debate me on my actual words, rather than what you "insinuate" my words to mean? To me, this particular thread only has to do with the decline in value of the CCIE as related to the value of lower vs. higher-number CCIE's - the value of college education has nothing to do with it. If you want to start your own thread about that, I'm happy to oblige. But for now, let's stick to the subject at hand. > 2c. All (mostly alleged, some legitimately identifiable) flaws > of > certification were constantly addressed by NRF, but none of the > flaws > associated with the college degree programs were even cited. > Thus, a lack > of balance that is consistent in his writings. In a nutshell, I > have pointed > that all the ills that the MCSE or CCNA/CCNP/CCIE tracks are > plauged with > also plague the university programs. One example is that > plagiarism off the > web is a huge concern among college deans, so far forcing them > to hire > specialists who track down web-based term papers for sale. Why have I not addressed then? Surprise surprise, because I am not talking about the value of college in this thread. Only you are. Why are you stunned to discover that I have not discussed things thatare not related to the subject at hand? What exactly does the value of college have anything to do with the decline in value of the CCIE, as demonstrated by the value of lower and higher-number CCIE's? > > 3. The new topic of "number of CCIEs" appears to me to be a > part of a series > of attempts to degrade the idea of vendor certification as a > whole. That is > his pattern as far as I have observed. I would appreciate > genuine concern > and balanced commentary on the matter, but mythology is all I > read from his > angle. That is my observation, and you have not convinced me > otherwise. Really? If I really wanted to degrade vendor certification as a whole, why don't I do just that? Why do I say that some vendors certs, in particular the lower-number CCIE's, seem to be more valuable than other certs? If I really wanted to degrade vendor certs, isn't it far more logical for me to attack ALL of them? Are you accusing me of a fallacy in logic? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70530&t=70328 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
