Well put Chuck. I thank you for your professionalism and wisdom. It is
because of people like you that this list continues to flourish.
Thanks.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:36 AM
To: Carl Mirsky; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Passed the written... again
In the spirit of open debate, and just to be contrary, may I hold out an
alternative viewpoint.
We have all had our fun with test questions. Just recently we had an
analysis of an OSPF related question, a very interesting thread, and one
well worth checking out in the archives if you missed it.
What can be interpreted as ambiguous and poor and obscure to a rank amateur
may be crystal clear to an experienced professional. Being a rank amateur, I
can't come up with a good example. But over the course of time there have
been a number of these discussions here. I read through these kinds of
threads religiously, and in the end I learn two things - thought process,
and protocol behaviour.
Over time I have come to realize that Cisco isn't interested in turning out
certified individuals who can plug a few routers together and get it to
work. Cisco is interested in turning out certified individuals who
thoroughly understand protocol behaviour, and thus can add value in any
situation where they must do complex analysis. Protocol behaviour includes
routing protocols, redistribution among protocols, behaviour at each so
called OSI layer, protocol transmission responsibility, and so on.
Yes, X.25 is pretty much gone from the U.S Landscape, but worldwide it is
still alive and well. Yes there are new technologies such as cable modem and
DSL, but the fact is that without a foundation in protocol behaviour over
other WAN technologies, how can one understand the issues involved with
newer technologies, which in general build upon these earlier ones.
Just being contrary.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Carl
Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Passed the written... again
I just took (and passed)the CID (640-025) for my CCDP. That exam sucked
eggs as well. I just saw this morning that there is a beta for the NEW CID
exam. Good thing. The current one expects you to know not only outdated
material, but also the questions were horrible in my opinion. I have taken
many exams and this one was by far the worst. Be prepared for ambiguous
questions, and even more ambiguous answers. I am sure that some of the
questions had no correct answer. I think the guy who designed this exam,
also designed the Fl. election ballot. Anyway, I used the SYBEX book, which
covered the material very well. In fact, the authors pointed out very
clearly that the information is outdated, and, that there is the correct
answer, and the Cisco answer. I also used Top Down by Pricillia. I would
like to again thank the professionals that encompass this list, and
especially Paul for maintaining the best damn Cisco site in the Free (and
not so free) World. Now it's time for some R&R, and then it's off the MCNS
before the new requirements come out on Jan. 1. My goal for the next 12
months is as follows: MCNS, DLSW, CATM, CVoice, CCIE Written, and then
hopefully the lab by 12/01.
Respectfully,
Carl Mirsky
CCNP, CCDP, MCSE, SCSA
" Integrity Can Be Communicated "
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Cthulu, CCIE Candidate
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 7:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Passed the written... again
Hi, all
I took and passed the CCIE written exam again yesterday. I found out last
week that I had to retake it in order to schedule my lab; the previous exam
I took "expired" due to the time elapse.
I did not study, so I can not recommend any reference materials, etc. I
will say that since I have been studying for the lab, rather than the
written, that helped a little.
About the exam itself, and without violating the NDA, it sucked. Cisco,
if you are reading this, elimination through obscurity is not something to
brag about. Sure, I could test and fail an auto mechanic by asking him
obscure questions about buggy whips, but that does not test the true worth
of the auto mechanic.
Some of the questions are awful, loaded with subjective phrases and
ambiguous syntax and grammer. There were a few good questions that
addressed the technology of what we do. It seemed to me that you were often
put in a situation where you have to pick the answer that sucked the least.
To give you an idea, pretending that this was a math exam, some of the
questions looked like this:
1. How many sides are contained in a left-handed square?
A. 4 sides if there are 2 triangles present
B. None, a circle has 4 sides.
C. A right handed square has 4 sides.
D. All of the above.
2. Chuck bought 5 bananas at the supermarket. Priscilla bought 2 apples.
Howard robbed Pamela the cashier. How much did Chuck pay for the apples?
A. The bananas were 1 dollar a pound.
B. False, the apples were really peaches.
C. Howards got 5-10, with time off for good behavior.
D. The log lady likes apples too.
I am exaggerating slightly, but not by much. Just as important as knowing
the stuff, is the ability to decipher the questions and answers, and to get
inside the minds of the test writers (you be Clarice, the test writer is
Hannibal).
Anyways, that is all I got to say about that. Good luck to all!
Charles
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
