Carroll Kong wrote: > > 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.
If that is the case, then it's put up or shut up time for Cisco. Do they want the CCIE to be a top-dog cert or not? If they do, they have to make some changes, and if they don't, then fine, either Cisco has to admit that they don't, or the networking community must realize that they don't. > > > > 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. Yeah, let's stick to that. > > > 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. Actually, I must disagree. Hundreds of hours of time within a few monmths can only be accomplished within a lab environment. When we're talking about production environments, the fact is, most of the time you're not touching any of the gear. Once it's up, it's up, and you only fiddle with it when you need to fix something or change some services. But at the same time, only real live networks will present real-world problems that are provide you with the valuable experience. Lab networks never can. Consider the case of the pilot's license. The difficult parts of flying are taking off and landing, and (maybe), banking. Simply flying straight is not particularly meaningful. You could simply fulfill your flying hours requirement just by doing a take-off (difficult) and a land (difficult) adjoined by hours of straight-ahead flying (easy). So just because you spent most of your time 'carressing the cockpit' (I think I saw that as a subject line for a pornmail I got), does that mean that the flying requirement of a pilot's license should be tossed? I don't think so. > > > > > 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. What if the caresser is also a very good bright learner? The point is the carresser has everything the labrat could have and something that the labrat by definition can never have, namely production experience. > > > > 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. By the same token, since we're talking about the CCIE here, everybody knows that the CCIE is no guarantee in getting a job either. You presume that all this bright and skilled guy has to do to get a job is get his CCIE, and we both know that that's false. So I see you're accusing me of unduly frying the young-guns because I'm preventing them from getting their CCIE and so they might get fried in the market. When in fact, even if they did get their CCIE, they would probably get fried anyway because they have no experience. So under my rules, how many "extra" guys am I really frying? I think the number is low, and when compared to the benefit of ensuring that all CCIE's have real-world experience, even if it's not particularly good experience, I believe the net benefit is positive. > > > 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 :) Again, see above, what's the difference between me holding them back and employers holding them back because they don't have any experience and therefore they don't want to hire them? At the end of the day, they still get held back. Does it really matter who's doing it? > > > > 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. But that's the point. During the delay, they are not sitting around nothing because I am forcing them to get experience, even if the experience is not particularly meaningful. Again, it's like forcing the guy who wants to be a pilot to actually fly his full allotment of hours, even though he thinks he's ready for the license exam. > > 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) Nothing is going to stop the bootcamps. I have concluded that they are inevitable. But that's not an excuse to do nothing. This is a continual war where there is no silver bullet. Just because you don't have a perfect solution, are you proposing you do nothing? > > 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? A shred is better than nothing. And I am confident that many of them will have more than a shred. Look, whatever rules you make, there are always going to be some guys who will try to skirt them and do the absolute bare minimum. If I say you need a 2.0 to graduate, there will be guys who work hard enough just to get that 2.0, but no harder. If I say that you need to do 5 surgeries to become board-certified, there will be guys who only do 5 surgeries and no more. But hey, it's better that they do 5 than if they do none. But at the same token if I tell people to go get X experience before they can sit the CCIE, sure there will be some guys who will try to cut corners and do the absolute bare minimum. But the bare minimum is still better than nothing. > > > > 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. Uh, experience is experience, tautologically speaking. How does not forcing them to get real-world experience not actually increase their real-world experience? Again, what about those bright individuals? Right now they are being delayed because companies have no space for guys without experience. So they get their CCIE's and then they still collect unemployment. What about that delay? > > > > 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!). Uh, I'm afraid I don't follow. Obviously there are guys who have lots of experience out there who are incompetent. I'm not denying that they are. But obviously back when they had no experience, they were REALLY incompetent. Therefore it logically follows that somebody is necessarily a better worker because of experience. That doesn't mean that he's necessarily good, just better than before (i.e. the difference between bad and worse). That's the point. Nobody ever got worse because of experience. If I give you experience, you still may be bad, but you're going to be better than before. > > So, you are going to get... some "less" rotten oranges, Aha, so you admit as much. >and > some > older oranges and apples (OBI WAN is HOLDING ME BACK!), Doogies > included. OK, so Obi-Wan isn't holding you back, but the Jedi Council is holding you back (because the employers won't give you a job because you're a CCIE that doesn't have any experience). What's the diff? > > 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. Look, I freely admit that my proposal is a compromise solution, and proposals from Howard are better. In fact, I have waxed poetically on just such changes on alt.certification.cisco numerous times. However, I'm a political pragmatist and I realize there's no point in proposing solutions that Cisco would never implement because they're simply too lazy to do it. Anything that is proposed has to be easy for them. You can't fairly compare a compromise solution that gives you some (but not all) of what you want against a perfect solution that gives you everything you want but that will never be implemented. Getting something not as good as getting everything but is clearly better than getting nothing. Or how about this. Instead of going around shredding other people's arguments, how about if you propose something that would improve the program, and more importantly, might actually be implemented by Cisco? > > > -Carroll Kong > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71755&t=71143 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
