Duy Nguyen wrote:
> 
> If it comes down to money.  Why not increase the rate?  I've
> remember when
> the price for exam was only a G.  When they decided to raise
> the price,
> peeps start to mumbleed and grumbleed how the test was getting
> so expensive,
> but that didn't stop peeps from taking the test.  Raise it
> again if they
> want to value there flagship cert.  Everyone would agree w/me
> that the value
> of the cert has a lot more value than the value put in to
> obtained the cert.

Well...

First, let me address your last sentence.  I don't think the value is
anywhere near as clearcut as you're implying.  The value proposition is only
clear if you pass in your first few attempts.  But I know guys who have
tried the test 10 times or more, all out of their own pocket.  When you
include travel costs, costs in personal time, and all the ancillary stuff,
then the value proposition becomes very dicey.  For example, I know a guy
who has sunk more than $20 grand of his own money on testing (including
travel costs, costs to get and maintain a home lab, interest, etc.), still
hasn't passed, and if and when he ever does, I don't think he'll ever come
close to ever making his money back. He's still trying because after you've
sunk all that money, you really have no choice but to keep going (it's not
like if he stops now he'll get his money back - what's spent is spent), but
he knows and has admitted that this was a financial bloodbath for him.

However, the crux of your argument is definitely true.  Cisco has ample room
to raise the costs of the test.  A lot of candidates don't pay anyway
because they're backed by their companies, so what do they care about the
price?  Cisco could tell all that found money and do all the things I and
others have been proposing for awhile now.


Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71197&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