nrf said: "Let's face it - no company is ever going to hire Charles Manson."
Didn't Routergod.com ;-) ""n rf"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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=70853&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
