>are you? You ARE the weakest link. Good-bye. ;-)
>
>Priscilla
Harrumph. The weakest link in a multilink bundle? The least
reliable link? The link of greatest latency? The link in a bundle
that handles the least load? The spectrum of issues addressed by the
IETF Performance Implications of specific Link Characteristics
Working Group?
>
>At 10:39 AM 6/12/01, ElephantChild wrote:
>>On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Kevin Wigle wrote:
>>
>> > I wasn't aware that an extended exam was anymore different than
"normal"
>> > exams except you get more time.
>> >
>> > If this truly is the only difference I'm not sure what your point is.
If
>> > you, a good English speaker can do the test in 1 hour, then - you're
>done.
>> > Doesn't matter if the exam has allotted 2 hours or 3 hours, you're done
>in
>> > 1.
>>
>>Picture the following aborted recruiter interview:
>>
>>Me: "I'm a CCNP and CCDP..."
>>
>>Recruiter: (interrupts me) "You passed the extended exams, not the
>>standard ones. You're not a true CCNP and CCDP. You won't do. Good bye."
>>
>>(OK, this is slightly exaggerated, but it should give you the gist.)
>>
>> > I don't think too many people from the US/Canada are going to hop a
plane
>>to
>> > get that extra 30 minutes test time. Perhaps someone in Brittain would
>>take
>> > the train to France? that would probably bump the effective price up a
>>bit.
>>
>>Well, now that you mention it... A Briton would have to hop onto a train
>>or plane to Brussels to take the CCIE lab. So would a German, a Greek,
>>or a Spaniard. I don't remember anything in the CCIE lab blueprint that
>>mentioned granting an extra 2 hours, or half-day, or whatever, to
>>candidates who don't speak natively whatever language(s) the lab
>>documents are written in and or the lab proctors speak or mangle. That
>>sounds inconsistent with the stated goals, esp. when the CCIE written
>>*has* the extension.
>>
>> > I agree with your point #1 and with that a candidate should be able to
>>elect
>> > to take a non-extended exam. However, a problem could present itself
>later
>> > if a candidate failed the exam and then complained he didn't understand
>the
>> > consequences of not taking an extended exam! :-) I don't think that
Vue
>>or
>> > Prometric want to be responsible for having to first judge the English
>> > proficiency of a candidate.
>>
>>Amusingly, at least one Prometric testing center in Paris also offers an
>>ESL proficiency exam. But you're right, they shouldn't have to. However,
>>there are ways around this, such as letting you (the candidate) take the
>>exam again for free, perhaps limiting that to cases where you appear to
>>be in good faith and or didn't fail the exam abismally (which could be
>>decided by the number of correct answers to questions you had time to
>>answer before the ax felt). Also, the policy is cisco's, and my email
>>was addressed to cisco.
>>
>> > Your point #2 probably wasn't thought of in that way because that would
>be
>> > politcally incorrect and nobody wants that :-)
>>
>>OK, so I'm blunt and unsubtle. :-) I'm curious, though: what would be a
>>newspeak way of stating it without making it meaningless?
>>
>> > Your point #3 would require in my opinion that the option to
accept/deny
>>the
>> > extended exam would have to be asked in the candidate's native
language.
>> > Now imagine how interesting that could get...................
>>
>>I must have a pedestrian imagination, because all solutions to that that
>>I could think of are uninteresting.
>>
>>- If registering online: IMHO, someone who could navigate the test
>> center's web pages should be able to understand a warning, or a
>> mention, in plain English right at the point the option is offered.
>>
>>- If registering in person or on the phone: you would presumably speak
>> to someone (an administrative assistant or receptionist, perhaps) who
>> speaks the same language as you.
>>
>> > Unless the exam content is easier somehow, I think you're
over-reacting a
>> > little bit. I would just accept the time and probably never use it (I
> > > hope).
>>
>>And I may well end up doing that myself. Indeed, I did in the past. But
>>who said I can't try to change that policy and or get a good rant out of
>>it at the same time? 'Sides which, I have to live up to my reputation as
>>a loudmouth and a curmudgeon, don't I? :-)
>>
>> > Kevin Wigle
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "ElephantChild"
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:32 AM
>> > Subject: Semi-RANT: extended exams [7:7871]
>> >
>> > > This is a copy of a message I sent to cisco training about hidden
>> > > dangers of extended exams. Thoughtful comments and answering rants
are
>> > > equally welcome. No flames, please.
>> >
>> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > > From: ElephantChild
>> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:51:08 +0200 (CEST)
>> > > Subject: CSIDS 2.0 beta: can I have the unextended version?
>> > >
>> > > On June 1st, I registered to take 9E1-572, the CSIDS 2.0 beta. I'm
>> > > scheduled to take it on June 14 at a VUE testing center in France.
The
>> > > confirmation message I received stated that the test time was
extended
>> > > by 30 minutes to accomodate me as a "non-native English speaker
living
>> > > in (a) non-English-speaking country", when I didn't request any such
>> > > accomodation. That, IMO, carries 3 disturbing assumptions:
>> > >
>> > > 1- That no native English speaker would live outside an
>English-speaking
>> > > country.
>> > >
>> > > 2- That ESL fluency is somehow inferior to native fluency, and not
>> > > enough to handle technical material on a subject I should know
well
>> > > at the same rate as a native speaker would, or at a rate close
>enough
>> > > not to need extra time.
>> > >
>> > > 3- That I want the extension at all.
>> > >
>> > > I raised that issue with VUE, and I was eventually told that I needed
>to
>> > > get approval from cisco training before VUE, or anyone, would let me
>> > > take the unextended version.
>> > >
>> > > If you follow discussions among cisco certified professionals, you
>> > > probably noticed that a recurring theme is the perception that making
>> > > any certification too easy lowers the worth of all certifications for
>> > > those who hold them, are preparing for them, or are contemplating
>> > > passing them.
>> > >
>> > > Granted, some candidates, maybe most of them, know the subject well
>> > > enough, but have trouble with English and need the extra time to
>> > > understand the questions and the possible answers. For them, the
extra
>> > > time may help keep the exam more or less as difficult as the
unextended
>> > > exam is for a candidate fluent in English. However, for a fluent
>English
>> > > speaker (whether native or not), that's not needed, and forcing me to
>> > > take an extended version when I don't need it is lowering its worth
for
>> > > all candidates worldwide.
>> > >
>> > > This strikes me as especially important for a beta exam, as you're
>still
>> > > trying to set the difficulty and evaluate individual questions for
>> > > clarity, accuracy, and relevance. I'm not sure how many worldwide
will
>> > > be taking that exam, and what share of them got the extended version.
>It
>> > > seems to me, though, that the less unsure you are how much of the
score
>> > > comes from domain knowledge and how much from English fluency (or the
>> > > lack of either), the better for the released exam.
>> > >
>> > > I respectfully request that you make extended exams an option,
>available
>> > > to the candidates who request them, and not force them on candidates
>who
>> > > neither want nor need them. I also request that you let candidates
>> > > registered for the beta who didn't take it already choose which
version
>> > > they want to take, and inform them quickly if you decide to grant my
>> > > request.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for listening.
>>
>>--
>>"Someone approached me and asked me to teach a javascript course. I was
>>about to decline, saying that my complete ignorance of the subject made
>>me unsuitable, then I thought again, that maybe it doesn't, as driving
>>people away from it is a desirable outcome." --Me
>________________________
>
>Priscilla Oppenheimer
>http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8291&t=7871
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
