Comments inline:
wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > When I lost my job last year due to downsizing I weighed my options; MCSE or > CCIE...finished CCNP on April 30th so I guess that tells you my choice... > HOWEVER, after getting the CCNP I began doing some job hunting, EVERY > potential employer wanted MCSE/MCP and didn't care one way or the other > about > Cisco certs. I'm 48 yrs. old and really didn't care much about the MCSE > because of the perceptions you stated (an MCSE on every corner), however I > read several Microsoft books this summer (NT, W2K Pro, Exchange 5.5 & 2000) > but haven't attempted any exams. On a whim I took the CCIE written this past Saturday. Didn't pass but I do > believe the exam is far to easy. YES, to easy!! I came up a couple answers > short but really put no effort into preparing for the exam!! > Anyway back to CCIE, aside from the CCNP studies, which I finished in the > spring, I read mostly from the Cisco CD (Internetworking Technology > Overview, > Case Studies, Design etc) and Lou's Token Ring paper (Thank You Dennis for > the TR quizzes) but DID NOT read any of the popular books i.e. Halibi, > Caslow, Doyle endorsed here. I didn't read them for a reason and that was > to > see if I could pass WITHOUT their input and if I hadn't scr*&^ewed up a > couple security questions I would have passed AND THEN I would really have > been PISSED....having a qualification to THE LAB and basically only > theoretical knowledge base. I chose the CCIE route BECAUSE it was supposed > to be the crown jewel of networking!!! > > my .02 worth > > Rick > I'm not sure, but I think that you may have fallen into one of the most common traps in the IT cert world - which is believing that the CCIE written exam is comparable to the lab. I can assure you that the difficulty of the written is perhaps 5% as difficult as the lab exam, and perhaps less than 1%. Simply put, the difference between the written and the lab is like night and day, and anybody who has tried both would agree, I'm sure (does anybody out there who has tried both exams disagree?). About those books that you mentioned - Caslow, Doyle, Halabi, etc. I believe that when people recommended them, they were doing so for the lab exam. I can recall nothing in those books that was useful for the written. But I doubt that there is a single person who has passed the lab lately who has not read them. About your notion that the written is too easy, I agree completely. This has actually been well-known within the CCIE community - that the written exam was simply not getting the job done. Hence, Cisco is now rewriting the written and it is expected that it will be much harder and more representative of what the CCIE program will be all about. You also stated that the Microsoft certs are more useful in getting work than Cisco certs, implying that Microsoft certs are more useful than Cisco certs. I believe that it all comes down to the interactions of supply and demand that determines the value of anything in this world. It is most certainly true that there are more positions available for Microsoft trained people (higher demand), as a typical organization needs many more Microsoft admins than Cisco admins. But that's not the whole side of the story, because you have neglected the supply side of the equation. I would certainly agree that if there were an equal number of Cisco-certified people in the world as there are Microsoft-certified people, than the Microsoft cert would be more valuable. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I do know there this is not the case - there are many many more Microsoft-certified people than there are Cisco people. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. CCIE's tend to have better jobs than MCSE's do, and this is because of the disproportionately low supply of CCIE's vs. the supply of MCSE' that easily compensates for the lower demand. I'll give you an extreme analogy. My favorite spectator sport is NFL football. We all know that star NFL quarterbacks make millions. But is that due to some huge demand for QB's? Not really - there are only 32 NFL teams, so there is a worldwide demand of only 32 starting quarterbacks. So how is it that these guys, especially the stars, can make so much money? Simple - there are at most 50 or maybe 75 people in the world who can be legitimate NFL starting quarterbacks. Of that, maybe only 5-10 of them can legitimately be considered to be star players. The point is even if demand is low for something, the value of that thing can still be high if supply is disproporionately low. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=21638&t=3485 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
