Chuck,
Thank You. Over the past year + you have been a mentor (and Joe) to many of
us. As you had success, many of us were inspired. I know I was always a
few steps behind ya... with the NA then NP then DA then DP... now I just got
my ATM specialization so on to the written. But thru all this you have
inspired. Now , you inspire not with success but by being positive when it
would be easy to get negative and push blame every where else. Stay in
there... there are many of us lurkers (I do post on occasion) wishing the
best for you!
Lou
""Chuck Larrieu"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
000d01c0bfcc$08c90800$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:000d01c0bfcc$08c90800$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hey, everyone, how you all been?
>
> The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
> long winded, and easily skipped.
>
> First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
> scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. There are
plenty
> of practice labs from several different sources which cover all the core
> topics, so there were no surprises for me.
>
> Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results with
> the proctor, he told me they were going to change the written instruction
> on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually quite
> surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
> although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in mind.
>
> However, in the end, it was a few simple omissions that cost me the
points
> I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.
>
> Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second
day.
>
> Things I learned:
>
> 1) having the core topics down cold is CRUCIAL. No kidding!
>
> 2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the way I have seen it
discussed
> in many places. I highly doubt that typing 80 words a minute versus my 20
> WPM was the difference. Not when I spent as much time as I did
> contemplating. You can't think it. You have to know it.
>
> By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the
requirements.
> At that point I started counting points, putting myself in a defensive
mode.
> By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything I thought I
deserved,
> I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my review, I missed a few
> simple things, and blew myself out of the water. This leads back to the
> internalization of the core topics. You can't be thinking about how to
> configure anything. You have to just bang them out, the same way you bang
> out shaving or washing your hands or eating your lunch.
>
> 3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good methodology that is
> internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking "what's next?" I don't
> believe it matters what your methodology is, so long as you are consistent
> and quick. My own methodology failed me because I was constantly
adjusting,
> rather than banging it out.
>
> 4) I spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing myself.
I
> have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form
the
> basis of my study plan for my second attempt. I know that it is highly
> unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on next time
> through. But I will focus on methodology and speed.
>
> 5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
> information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure
that
> my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
> himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you are
> asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
> answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer was
> one that helped me understand. I will say also that the test I saw was
> reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
> from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation was.
>
> A few other comments:
>
> I was far too aggressive in scheduling my lab date. Should have pushed it
> out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry. Those without a lot of hands on need to
> spend several months of several hours a day practicing. No two ways about
> it.
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about the patch panels used in the lab.
> All I can say is that the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have
nothing
> to worry about. That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in order
to
> make a cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
> situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People with
> home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.
>
> I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 1 candidate ) who was getting up
> every few minutes and going to the back of the rack to move cables around.
> Completely unnecessary and driving the proctor nuts. There is no need for
> any candidate to touch the back of the rack.
>
> You can't let little stuff stop you. Those with extensive hands on
> experience know that sometimes routers do funny things like boot into
> rommon> or behave as if there is an extensive paste going on in the
> configuration dialogue. I have a router here at home that boots into
rommon
> once in a while. A reload has always done the trick ( knock on wood )
> sometimes leaning on control-C will stop a misbehaving configuration
> dialogue. No this is not NDA because I did not go to troubleshooting. I
> experienced one of these things as I got into the routers at the very
start
> of my lab. Stuff happens now and again. Rule number one is "don't panic"
>
> With a six to seven month backlog, I have plenty of time to follow up on
the
> action plan I developed for myself as part of my debriefing session. That
> plan includes extensive reading and practice using the configuration
guides
> from CCO. Highly recommended, as one of my proctors told me.
>
> One more little thing. I was permitted to bring in a small clock, and a
> picture of my wife. The clock to help me keep to my schedule. There is a
> clock in the lab, but I prefer having something in my face. Whenever I was
> discouraged I looked at my wife, who seemed to be saying "you'd better
pass,
> honey, because I've already spent your raise" ;->
>
> Lastly, I had the pleasure of meeting several people who frequent this
list.
> It was quite a thrill, and a definite pleasure to put faces to the names.
> The socializing helped me relax, or helped me deal with my disappointment,
> depending on when we met. It was indeed a privilege, Jason, Drew, Dale,
Rob,
> David, not to mention my fellow test takers Todd and Wendy, and couple
more
> whose names I am unable to remember. Proctors, too. I enjoyed the
> opportunity to work with you.
>
> Well, I'm back here at base camp. 11,000 feet to go still. See you all
along
> the way.
>
> Chuck
> ----------------------
> I am Locutus, a CCIE Lab Proctor. Xx_Brain_dumps_xX are futile. Your life
as
> it has been is over ( if you hope to pass ) From this time forward, you
will
> study US! And I ain't kidding, neither!
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
