Vikram JeetSingh wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some
> time. Quite
> a number of people have reverted back on this, but this one,
> (from Peter) is
> just kind of PERFECT. Priscilla also wrote on one of other
> threads, that for
> having a worthwhile career you just don't need good networking
> skills, but
> also "good networking of people". And I am sure it works. I
> have seen quite
> some useful mails from NRF, but this one is a losing battle
> (NRF: don't mind
> friend, nothing personal) and what Peter has stated is
> perfectly right (of
> course as per me) So a CCIE number, does matter, but more so,
> since all the
> chances are that the lower number ones would be having more
> experience and
> better "networking of people". And the higher numbered ones
> would be, in all
> chances, relatively new and also still into the stage of
> building their
> "networking of people". 
> 
> Just my 2 cents :)

I have never said that people-networking wasn't important.  In fact, I have
engaged in many newsgroup-post-wars where I have stated precisely that.  Go
reference some of my many posts on this newsgroup or on
alt.certification.cisco on this very subject.

However to talk about this subject is really to raise an issue that, for
purposes of this discussion, is neither here nor there. The issue at hand is
has the value of the CCIE declined over time, and the preponderance of the
evidence seems to be that the answer is 'yes', given the fact that
everybody, including myself, would like to trade their CCIE number for a
lower one.  Nor is the gambit that this has to do with the connection
between a lower number and more experience have much, if anything, to do
with it.  I would ask even the lower-number and highly experienced CCIE's
would they be neutral to trading their number for a higher one.  I'm not
asking them to think about trading their experience, just their number.  If
the CCIE hasn't declined, then they shouldn't care what number they are. 
But of course we all realize that they DO care, and care deeply.

Raising other issues that have to do with employment is not really relevant
in this thread.  After all, if we wanted to go down that road, then why
don't we raise ALL the issues that affect employment?  I would say that
certain other things are even more important than the people-networking in
terms of finding work.  For example, a criminal background.  I don't care if
you're the most brilliant engineer in the world, you're CCIE #1026, and
you're on a first name basis with John Chambers - if you're a convicted
serial-killer, you're going to have difficulty in finding work.  Let's face
it - no company is ever going to hire Charles Manson.  We could talk about
personal lifestyle choices.  If you're a coke fiend, finding a job might not
be easy for you.  If you can't speak the language of the country in which
you're trying to find a job, you will have great difficulty no matter how
wonderful your other credentials you are.  For example, surely you would
agree that if you want to get a job as a network guy in the USA, this might
be difficult if you can't speak English.

But should we really be talking about those kinds of things?  I don't think
so, for they are not relevant to the discussion.  The auspices of this
discussion are necessarily narrow - basically what has happened to the value
of the CCIE.  This is not a general discussion about how to find a job, for
which the first tenets should be don't commit crimes, don't make harmful
lifestyle choices, and learn the language of the country that you're in, and
then (and only then) can we talk about things like who-you-know and what
your CCIE number is. Surely you would agree that such a complete discussion
that talked about all these issues would be unnecessarily bloated and
top-heavy.


> 


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70799&t=70151
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to