> The point is that in any profession, somewhere along the line, somebody is > making an arbitrary decision. Medicine, law, you name it - somewhere along > the line an arbitrary decision is being made. To say that the CCIE process > should be any different is really to hold the program to perfection. >
I liked Howard's idea, however, yes it is not scalable, but would improve the quality. My other post suggested, Cisco has not shown any real attempt to make it that much harder, they do want more CCIEs out there. If that is what they want, nothing we do will really stop that. > > So, do we 'weight' the one year of hardened experienced more? > > Or > > less? I am not talking about the exam yet, just, what about > > the > > legitimate people you are filtering out? What if they make it > > "three > > years of experience" because that is how long it takes for the > > "average" IT guy to figure out that Netbios can run over TCP/IP? > > > > What about the guy who figured it out in 5 minutes? Surely we > > do not > > want to disqualify him just because he figured it out in 5 > > minutes? > > Of course not, so how do those guys still benefit? > > All this presumes that the only way a prodigiously precocious engineer will > find work is if he gets his CCIE. If a guy is really so preternaturally > brilliant that he can figure things out in 5 minutes what takes normal > people 3 years, then surely some company will pick him up and he will then Not true. I do not believe that causality will occur. From what I have seen bright individuals are usually exploited quite well. Also, remember, upper management and HR do NOT have the ability to detect the precocious engineer which I will now call as Doogie Howser, which further leads to exploitation. Also, I am not saying the knowledge itself is so difficult, in fact, I am saying it is pretty silly how "sacred" we consider some of this "covetted" so hard to get knowledge. So, there are a lot of Doogie Howsers out there. My comment was joking about the sheer lack of general knowledge many IT people have there. If you did not learn about network layering (in the generic sense), and did not identify the protocols or learn about the protocols you are working with within a few weeks, how long is it going to take you? They are either not actively trying at all or their background is so horrible in it you wonder how they even got to become a "Network Administrator". You can pick that up reading a few books and doing it in a home lab. (the TCP/IP and Netbios bit). A lot of this seems like just basic applications of the basic classes I took in college. And I wonder why people say college is so useless when it's the basis for most of my success (in a general fashion). Back to the story though..... So, a good number of these Doogie Howsers have no way of easily distinguishing themselves. Even if you are a Doogie, you do not necessarily have the rest of the skill sets to acquire a job. i.e. social skills, people skills, the network of friends, etc. Let us ignore the "job finding" aspect of Doogie Howser. It is not important in this context. The certification is a "part" of the criterion one should hit to become more marketable. We are comparing who should be allowed to even have a chance to take the exam. > Consider the case of airplane pilots. Just to get an pilot's license, you > must have a certain minimum number of documented flying hours. To be hired > as a pilot for an airline, you must have documented proof that you had at > least several hundred hours of flight time, and sometimes several thousand. Well, even in THIS case it is far more reasonable. Documented hours of hard testing/working on networking gear in a "lab" by Cisco. That I would go for. Because, like I said 3 years of router rubbing ... come on, I am sure you have had assignments which let you demolish that "knowledge" in a few months! Thing is, you have no idea if they are actively working on networking for the 3 years. For the flying case you are directly clocking them for... flying. It is not even necessarily a "production network" (as in, commercial flying... :) ). I mean come on, hundreds of hours can be conquered within a few months for aggressive students. That is reasonable. YEARS of router rubbing? No thanks. > > > Bottom line - a caresser CCIE is on average more skilled than > > a labrat CCIE. > > > > Perhaps that is true. (I am not going to argue either way, but > > I > > think it's debatable. :) ) > > I really don't see how it is debatable. The lab-rat CCIE has just the CCIE > to his credit. The caressers has both the ccie and some experience. They > have everything the lab-rat has and more. I do not really want to get into this debate. What if the lab-rat is not a full rat, but a very good, bright learner? (um... he's a mouse!) He might have a stronger aptitude for growth and learning than the stagnant router carresser. Obviously that is the worst case for both ends, I just do not think it is always so clear cut. > > If you are okay with frying X number of "innocent, bright" > > people (I > > would be very interested in the statistics myself), then sure, > > we > > should do it, just like the CISSP. (which I strongly disagree > > with > > myself) > > Again, I dispute with the notion of 'frying' them. It's no more tragic > than forcing Doogie Howser to go through his residency. Those guys who > truly have the killer kung-fu should have little problem in getting hired > and picking up the necessary experience. And besides, like I said, I don't > know that those guys would really care about the ccie anyway, particularly > after they've spent several years in the field. I dispute your idea that technical merit or great technical skill learning capacity == instant job. Ask a pile of people on this list. Some might not be... some I bet are very bright and skilled but jobless nonetheless. The problem... all the other issues we raised about finding jobs. (let's not bring that into this discussion). So, like I said earlier here, let us drop the idea that you can instantly get a job if you have great technical skills and technical skill learning capacity. We both know that is NOT always true. > But again, not filtering out forever, just filtering out temporarily. If > you're good, you will be picked up by an employer and you will get that > experience. Again, it's no more tragic than forcing Doogie Howser to endure > his residency. Okay true, it is not forever, but come on, who wants to wait so long. "OBI WAN Is HOLDING ME BACK!" says Doogie... hmm. okay bad example. Maybe we should have held Anakin back longer. bahaha :) > > silly putty. The manager, without seeing the pro, will give > > this guy > > the thumbs up because he has won the "local guru" award. > > Well of course, and these people will be filtered out by the test itself. > Again, I am not proposing that guys be handed their ccie simply by virtue of > experience only. They still have to go through the test which is supposed > to weed out the highly experienced know-nthings. Right, I know you aren't saying experience == instant CCIE, but, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion about them being filterd by the test. They will not. You have proposed nothing that will stop the same people from hitting on the exam in a few months. You only delayed them. I am dead positive that even with this filtering in place, what is going to stop the bootcamps, lab-rats, everything? They are going to become router carressers, and slam against the exam anyway. Does not seem too hard to become someone in the NOC for a few years. (No offense to anyone who is working in one, a lot of bright guys there too) The only thing you did was delay them, and delay potentially qualified individuals. Are you even sure they will have even a SHRED more experience after doing carressing for so long? Is that shred going to really help them when they "study" for the exam by going to bootcamps, reviewing braindumps, etc? > > Oh no doubt, I understand NO system can be 100% perfect. > > However, > > this solution eliminates potentially very bright individuals > > with > > less years of experience, but potentially significantly much > > higher > > quality of experience. I suppose without statistics here, you > > could > > easily argue that sample is too small. If I do see some solid > > statistics on it, I will agree with you then. > > Again, it doesn't eliminate those kung-fu masters forever, it just forces > them to wait. Is that really so bad? Right, but it does not eliminate those lab-rats either (who will have a name change). It only delays bright individuals who wanted to succeed at their own pace. Let the test judge them, not some silly 3 year requirement which does not necessarily result in anything that will contribute to the exam experience, or even their real world experience. > > should reconsider. You are trading one set of "bad apples" > > (lab > > rates) for a set of "bad oranges" (router carressers) and > > demolishing > > innocent candidates (the people who should be certifying) in > > the > > process. > > The oranges are less rotten than the apples. And again, I am demolishing no > innocent people, just forcing them to wait. You are assuming someone in the field for three years is necessarily more intelligent or wiser after the time. I strongly disagree. I have seen plenty who do have the experience, and, at least in terms of networking, have not learned much more at all. You could further argue that if he is so bad, he will get canned. More often than not, bad employees stalk the companies because their managers do not know how "bad" their employees really are (As Seen in the Other NRF Discussion... when Employees GO BAD!). So, you are going to get... some "less" rotten oranges, and some older oranges and apples (OBI WAN is HOLDING ME BACK!), Doogies included. In such a tough job market, I think we should let those who want to excel, excel at their own pace (the hourly time for pilots CAN be done at your own pace, so I would strongly enjoy that modification, so, let it be some Cisco certified lab where people spend time in it). I will admit though, the exam itself probably is NOT hard enough to really weed the bad seeds out. If the exam was longer, more extensive, had more feedback, required written documents (anything with an open ended kind of answer), had a big party of technical advisors to review, yes, it would be better. But as Howard pointed out, this is too slow... and I am sure even you would agree it would be great but WAY too slow and expensive for Cisco, who clearly wants to see their CCIE count grow... just like the rest of the major vendors. -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71571&t=71143 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
