At 03:18 PM 6/13/01, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >"Stephen Skinner" raised the interesting points,
>
>
>
> >So ,
> >
> >the answer to your question`s seem to be .....
> >
> >Yes if your doing a Cisco Exam ....
> >
> >No if your reading info from the CCO
> >
> >Yes/No depending on who you are talking too..
> >
> >a Question has just popped into my head......."What else that we quote as
> >law (given to us from Cisco and other sources )in incorrect".....
> >
> >now that i would like to know
> >
> >steve
>
>
>You've just crystallized in my mind the reason I'm always vaguely
>uncomfortable about the people that want more and more advanced Cisco
>certifications, as well as arguing the gospel according to various
>review books rather than the original specifications.
>
>There are definitely errors in Cisco material. In the past, certain
>training developers simply didn't want to change them "because it
>would confuse people." There are other reasons, significantly
>including that the average course or test developer is not a subject
>matter expert. Indeed, I know of firms to which Cisco outsourced
>course development which actively did not want subject matter experts
>writing courses, but instructional methodology people
Yuck! I despised this aspect of training at Cisco. It's the number one
reason I'm not there any more. Cisco thought a course developer could write
on any topic as long as there were SMEs available. That's why we have so
many dribble bits in Cisco courses.
Now, some of the developers weren't like this, of course, but it was the
management philosophy.
> -- even if the
>subject matter expert was an experienced instructor and course
>developer. I literally got a downcheck in my performance review at
>Geotrain because I insisted on being a technical authority rather
>than managing external experts.
>
>If I were hiring someone for a network design role, much less product
>development, I'd be far less impressed by someone that had nine
>specialized CCIE certifications, than someone who had published in
>independent technical forums, could document real network design
>experience, etc. Nortel's certified architect program, among other
>things, requires candidates to document five networks they have
>designed, with their assumptions and design choices.
>
>The US military has had a lot of success with intensive training --
>train like you fight, fight like you train. But there is a huge
>difference in correspondence to reality of something like the CCIE
>lab, and running tank battalions around the National Training Center
>at Fort Irwin. The CCIE lab has an artificially small number of
>routers; the NTC consciously outnumbers the US troops with people
>with home field advantage--but regards the experience first as
>learning and second as testing.
>
> >
> >
> >>From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> >>Reply-To: "Priscilla Oppenheimer"
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Subject: LLC Type 2 [7:8262]
> >>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:15:33 -0400
> >>
> >>I found myself writing this paragraph for a new writing project:
> >>
> >>When NetBEUI and SNA are used on Ethernet networks, they take advantage
of
> >>the reliability of LLC Type 2. Because NetBEUI and SNA are legacy
> >>protocols, the use of LLC Type 2 is diminishing. However, it is still
> >>important to learn LLC Type 2 because WAN protocols, such as High-Level
> >>Data Link Control (HDLC) and Link Access Procedure on the D Channel
(LAPD),
> >>also known as ITU-T Q.921, are based on LLC Type 2. (Cisco's HDLC is
> >>non-standard and is not based on LLC Type 2, however. Cisco's HDLC is
> >>connectionless.)
> >>
> >>Do I have it backwards? Are HDLC and LAPD based on LLC2, or is it the
other
> >>way around? Any other lies you can pinpoint in my paragraph? I know it's
a
> >>bit awkward still. I will polish it. ;-) Thanks for your help!
> >>
> >>Priscilla
> >>
> >>Thanks for your help!
> >>
> >>Priscilla
> >>
> >>________________________
> >>
> >>Priscilla Oppenheimer
> >>http://www.priscilla.com
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
________________________
Priscilla Oppenheimer
http://www.priscilla.com
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8401&t=8262
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
