> Carroll Kong wrote: > > Hey, I don't want to take either of them again if I don't have to. But if I > was forced to make a choice, I'd prefer to take the singlet over the > doublet. It's like being punched in the face once vs. being punched twice.
Well I cannot say anything specific against it since I was never in that situation. However, I guess you are right, anything to delay or prolong that nasty feeilng. ;) > I'm afraid I have to disagree about the speed aspect of the test. The fact > of the matter is that the speed component of the test is greatly overrated, > whether we're talking about the 1 or the 2-day versions. Take the 1-day > version of the test. The fact is, if you're not essentially done with > everything by 1 or 2 PM, you're probably DOA. I remember in both of my > successful 1-day tests, I sat around for about 2-3 hours at the end with > nothing to do - I checked all my work, reread the test questions over and > over again, and was quite frankly bored. The same was true of my 2-day > test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just > sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Nor is > my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're > not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I > would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually > required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. Actually, you are right. I was essentially done, with a fair chunk of time remaining as well, I just triple checked everything and tried to iron out some nuggets. ;) If you could compare it to driving a car, the last few hours was a much smoother ride, with less thinking going on. But, everyone does make mistakes occasionally, so that kind of stuff will somewhat cost you. I think some of the older CCIEs I worked with were probably not as fast in typing or were able to optimize as well in their thought processes. :( Why do I get a feeling I should throw you into the middle CCIE list (which I consider to be the better chunk to be honest!). :) In all seriousness though, I suppose the individual skillset and mindset matters a lot. Bad people were able to squeak by in both 2 day and 1 day exams. (Yes, I have met quite a few CCIES which had me scratching my head... you are a CCIE?) This is not to insult a lot of the lower number CCIE. Just that a VERY large percentage of them have taken up more managerial jobs, and have not kept up at all with the latest technologies. Their learning / thought processes seem so slow it is so hard for them to adopt new things since they are used to managerial work now. Some of them were saying how hard deploying IPSEC VPNs is (I think they are very easy) ... and "what is GRE?". (come on! this was in their 2 day lab I am sure, no?). Basically anyone who has taken the time to even contribute to this list, I put on the good list. A lot of the other CCIEs I know of insist it's a waste of time. With that kind of mindset, you can see that they aren't interested in learning all there is to know (even to a fair degree) just enough to get by and win the bids with their lower numbers. > What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or > they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make > mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby > making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're > careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. Well, take it from me, the Security train was not 100% straightforward, the lab itself had BUGS I had to report to the proctor, in which he vehemently denied there was (but I proved it to him there was later on, without that, I would have failed), some parts were vague and contradictory....I guess the Security one had less polish but definitely doable. However, for the most part, yes, it was pretty straight forward bugs and kinks aside. The layered effect, while necessary was pretty brutal. Fail or do not understand something earlier, you will fail the entire exam, even if you know the other 90% of it. I suppose though it is a reasonable request/requirement to acquire the daunting certification. :) > But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times > are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you > troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from > scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you > are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that > was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to > familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of > funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the > present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at > configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing networks. True, you are right, troubleshooting is FAR more realistic. However, I gained this skill a long time ago from doing many other things. Non-stop troubleshooting PCs at the hardware level, Unix software, Windows software, networking issues... I mean over time it is the same thought process just learning where your 'tools' are. In the cisco case it's sourced pings, controlled debugs... However, yes, not everyone has this, and it SHOULD be validated somehow. > > be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this > > is > > not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is > > becoming > > "more popular" and people have recently tapped into this > > market. The > > drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a > > LOT to > > do with bringing down this barrier to entry. > > Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that it's > conclusive. Think of it logically - why would people be willing to > consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if they don't > work? Either all these people are all stupidly throwing their money away, > or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test easier. PT > Barnum said that while you can fool all the people some of the time and > some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all the time. If > bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would be common > knowledge by now. Well, it is not so much if it was "no value" or not. It is more so is it worth the time and effort for people to develop bootcamps as a market. Back in the 2 day lab, sure, but not as big, since there were so few candidates. Now that we got the 1 day lab and "more candidates" you can "sell more". I am saying it is possible that the rise of the bootcamps came from the clearly larger candidate pool since more candidates were allowed to take it. I will admit, those bootcamps give people a really big/unfair advantage. No, I am not "complaining" just noting that it gives a big edge and I was happy to not really rely on them. In either event, as you put it the "thousand cuts" regardless what really caused which end, the end result is a cycle that is chomping away at the "rarity" of the CCIE. > My opinion- it's easier. Significantly easier. Another guy who has also > taken both, John Kaberna, has said the same thing. Well, I cannot really dispute it. All I can do is trust the honest opinions of people who have taken both and measure their skillsets to the others I have seen. I will just have to take your word for it. > But it's not just the 1-day vs. 2-day thing. It's an entire suite of > factors that together have degraded the difficulty of the cert. The CCIE is > suffering death by a thousand cuts, of which the format change is only one > cut (albeit a substantial one). Like I said, the proliferation of bootcamps > and dedicated practice labs, and all these other things all take their toll. Yeah, this I agree with. So the cycles of doom... 1) cheaper cisco gear on the used market, more tinkerers, easier entry to market. 2) more candidate openings, more bootcamps as a result 3) more braindumps as a result 4) harder for cisco to maintain difficult exams. > I believe that people place far too much emphasis on knowing the new > technology. Hey, don't get me wrong, it's important to keep up. But let's > not overemphasize this point too much. For example, take the case of the > R/S CCIE which is the CCIE that is supposedly geared to enterprise-level > networking (those guys who want to do service-provider work are supposed to > be looking at the C/S CCIE). Some people have retorted that the low-number > R/S CCIE's don't know, say, BGP, so they contend that the higher-number CCIE > is actually more relevant and useful. But let's be honest - how Well, this is why I wish there was a way to judge learning capacity. Of course, there really is not. Because that is what is seriously more important. I mean, honestly, nothing is stopping a low numbered CCIE from learning new technology. It is unfortunate though that many people do follow what you said. I think learning new technology is kind of a mixed bag though. While yes, I do not see myself putting up BGP confederations and what not, you do get the ancient crowd who doesn't know what a VLAN is or isn't too interested in it since they have been deploying networks for 5 years, so they go with a monolithic flat network with daisy chained switches. Nevermind the subtle other issues that can come up with it, including ridiculously large broadcast domains which allow one rogue box to annihilate the entire network..... So, where do you draw the line? In any event, I do not see the new technology issue to be a big deal. People have to get up to speed with the latest knobs of the new tech in any event, which goes back to the learning capacity. And like I said before, quite a few low numbered CCIEs have not touched a router for configuration or troubleshooting in years. > key operating word there is 'rare'. For various reasons, I believe anything > that could be done by IP multicasting could probably be done far easier > either through a broadcast network (for example, right now through my > digital cableTV service at home I get hundreds of TV channels - and quite > frankly most of them suck - and with compression algorithms improving all > the time, I may be getting thousands of channels in the near future) or > through an application-level proxy/cache/CDN arrangement. But the point is > that even the most fervent IP multicasting supporter has to concede that the > technology hasn't exactly taken the world by storm. Yeah, the only one I can think of is possibly the financial realm and any attempt to distribute lots of channels (had an old VDSL project for a startup that required this). > Therefore the argument that the newer CCIE test supposedly has more relevant > technologies really doesn't hold water. In the case of BGP, most > enterprises don't need it, in the case of route-reflection most enterprises > don't know it and care about it, and in the case of IP multicasting, most > enterprises don't know it, don't need it and don't care about it. Or, let > me put it to you another way. The newest version of the CCIE no longer has > IPX or tokenring. Yet I think I'm on safe ground when I say there are far > more enterprises out there running tokenring and IPX than are running IP > multicasting or BGP route reflection. Therefore, of the older or newer > CCIE, which one is REALLY more relevant to present-day enterprise networks? Well, still might be a mixed bag there too. Like software, once something has been released it is pretty much impossible to quell it. You are not going to see a lot of new token ring or IPX deployments nowadays. I do not see it as a "oh the new CCIE has new stuff so it's better than the old CCIE". I see it as a the new CCIE tests modern technologies now, just like it always should keep up with the technology ball. Akin to what professors say in college, "it is the responsibility of the student to learn the programming language to do the assignment" Or, it is the responsibilty of the CCIE to learn any older technology he may have "skipped" in his training if he wants to support or work on those. Supporting older stuff is good because once it's out there, it isn't going away 100% anytime soon, but testing for newer stuff is good too. What is more useful in the end? Depends on the market you are aiming for. Ultimately, the individual has to step up to learn both as needed and quickly. I think the test's move to concentrate on new technologies was a mixed bag, and not a total negative. > > I think as with all things in life, take the individual on a > > case to > > case basis. You are going to find good and bad apples in every > > basket. The CCIE is still a very good certification, I do not > > think > > anyone is denying that. But I do not think it is clear if it > > is > > blatantly easier now. > > I didn't say that it had turned into the CCNA. But it's not the rockhard > exam that it used to be. And that's not the fault of anybody here. That's > the fault of Cisco itself. Well, if you want to blame that Cisco's own success hurt itself. ;) I honestly believe one of the biggest barriers to entry was the cost of the test lab equipment. Once Cisco pushed enough of them out there, the prices on used gear dropped incredibly, opening the OPTION to go for bootcamps and pursuing the CCIE. I believe that started the cycle of doom. Also, Cisco's agenda to push more CCIES out the door didn't help either... in that case, yeah, their own fault. > > -Carroll Kong -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70948&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
