Folks, The CCIE certification has really depreciated in value. There was a time when I proudly used to adorn my designation with my CCIE number. Not any more. Its value to impress is diminishing every day. Anyways, that was expected.
Aziz -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: June 10, 2003 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Mark E. Hayes wrote: > > I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading > in > numbers goes- > It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I > am only a > CCNA now and > working on my NP. I feel the reason for the headhunters and HR > types to > value a lower number > is due to pure ignorance. Like that matters. You know how it is. It doesn't matter whether you think they're being stupid or not. If they have the jobs and you want a job, then you have to play by their rules, simple as that. Whether you agree with those rules is beside the point. Think about it, when the rent comes due, you either have the money to pay or you don't. You really think your landlord wants to hear you whine that you're broke because you can't get a job because HR is stupid? That's my point exactly. I don't think they're being ignorant or stupid at all - but even if they were, that doesn't change much. At the end of the day you end up in the same place that I am - you admit to yourself that a lower number is better, it's just that we get to the same place for different reasons. My reason is that the lower number does tend to convey higher quality. Your reason is that while you think this is untrue, a lot of people who have hiring power believe it, so you prefer the lower number for yourself simply to satisfy those people. But so what? We still end up in the same place. >Most of them can't find their own ass > with > both hands and a GPS receiver. So? The reality is that they still have power over you, because they have the power to determine who gets a job and who doesn't. You can whine and moan about it all you want, and they will still have power over you. You don't like it? Too bad. It is what it is. Again, I would ask you to be pragmatic. At the end of the day, you want something (a job) that they have the power to grant, and therefore you need to jump through their hoops, no matter how stupid you might think they are. That's life. > This comment though insulting, is aimed at the hiring side of > IT. This > is not aimed at the rest of their > functions. I personally feel corp America should move to > Argentina and > Ecuador and hang out with the > rest of the surviving Nazis. 'Course then we'd have a Fourth > Reich to > contend with and anybody who tried > to make a decent living with anything less than a Bachelor's > Degree > would be castrated or asked to take > a shower. Heh! Well, tell us how you REALLY feel. Look, at the end of the day, there are things that corporate America dictates that they want out of their job candidates. Ranting and raving about it isn't going to change anything. They have the jobs so they set the rules. If you REALLY REALLY don't like the hiring practices of corporate America, then fine, start your own company and then you can dictate whatever terms you want out of the people you hire. I don't see anybody stopping you.. > > It's utter BS to believe a lower numbered CCIE is any better > than a > higher numbered CCIE. A lab is a lab > is a lab of course. Right Wilbur? As far as I know (famous last > words > but I am not pussing out), there are no BootCamps for the lab > portion. > The test portion yes, the lab no. Ahem. Ahem. Are you serious?? Did you just seriously say that? Man, I had to check my news client several times to make sure I heard you right. Uh, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but groupstudy itself was essentially started by one of the bigger lab bootcamp vendors around - CCbootcamp. I don't even think that groupstudy would have gotten off the ground without ccbootcamp. It's now sponsored by not only ccbootcamp, but also by HelloComputers, cyscoexperts, and IPexperts who all make a lot of money off their lab bootcamps. Trust me, all these companies enjoy thriving business off their lab bootcamp sales. And second of all, a lab is not a lab is not a lab. The fact is, there have been constant fluctuations in the overall rigor of the lab. Labs are not created equal. I remember back in the old days when people would 'game' the lab by deliberately travelling to what they thought were easier test locations where the proctors and the test gear (back in the old days, each location had different racks) were reputedly easier. For example, I seem to recall people saying that if you didn't know SNA well, then don't even think of attempting the lab in RTP because that's where all the stud-SNA CCIE proctors were. This forced Cisco to standardize racks in each location and to rein in certain rogue proctors. There have been numerous, shall we say, "security violations" in certain of the test locations in Asia, with some proctors being caught, shall we say, engaging in illicit behavior. And besides, even today there are unavoidable fluctuations. For example, just by luck of the draw you might happen to get a version of the test that deals with easy subjects, but you could just as easily have been handed a version that deals with subjects that are difficult. Obviously you are far more likely to pass the first version than the second one. The point is, tests are not created equal. There have always been and always will be fluctuations. Some versions of the test are simply easier than others, whether that was due to the nature of the proctor (especially in the old days) or simply due to luck. And nobody seriously disputes that these fluctuations exist. Therefore, if everybody agrees that these fluctuations exist, then why is it then so difficult to believe that it is possible that a long-term downward trend could also exist? >The CCIE should still be > regarded as > the > penultimate certification for networking. Not for System > Engineers but > for Network Engineers. A little shot > at RedHat there. I can't believe the way corp America has > turned it's > back on IT as a rule. I really love the > way salaries have gone tits up. A couple more years and you'll > have to > have a Phd and five major certs to > lick the urinal cakes in the men's room at a decent paying > company. I don't think that the PhD guy will be hurting. The guy with only certs may be a different story, however. But I digress... > > I am jaded if you couldn't tell, by the companies making > ridiculous > demands of time, money, and effort by > requesting people have one cert or another and then offering > them > nothing in return by means of > remuneration. Market forces, my friend, market forces. Companies won't pay unless they have to, because they know that if you don't like it, there's another guy who'll do your job for less pay. The simple fact is companies don't need as much IT investment as they did in the past. It is entirely logical that they therefore are not going to pay IT people very well. Honestly, why should they? They're not building out anymore. They don't need the latest and greatest new hardware. They also simply don't need a lot of guys who know a lot about networking. That's a sad but true fact. Besides, I didn't hear too many people complaining about market forces back in, say, 1999 when people were getting huge salaries for basically nothing. > And then, if it is the case, ranking people by > their cert > number ought to be grounds for > forcing them to be pivot heads in a circle jerk. Again, why don't you tell us how you really feel? I'm so proud to be part of a thread where I can respond to somebody's "circle-jerk" retort. Ranking people by their numbers is being done. We can either acknowledge it or we can hide our heads in the sand. But it's still being done. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70612&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
