""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "nrf" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Bullshi*. There are a significant number of guys lately who've passed the > > lab who I wouldn't hesitate to call "paper" (heck, even they have honestly > > referred to themselves as paper, usually after getting a few drinks into > > them). > > Significant? Help me understand the extent to which you use that word?
My definition of 'significant' is like this. Basically, are there enough of them around that you have to worry about them. For example, in the not-too-distant past, the CCIE was really a quite solid guarantee that a guy was a good networker. Maybe the guy didn't know, say, BGP (because he was an old-timer who passed the exam when the lab didn't have BGP and he never bothered to learn it since - this is another problem with the cert, but I digress), but basically you could note that he had a CCIE number and immediately take that to mean that he had a solid base of practical networking experience. No longer. Now during job interviews, whether you're a CCIE or not, you have to proceed further. For example, as a contractor, I ran recruiting for several companies and I ran into a significant number of candidates that held their CCIE who I would have considered not solid at all. By significant, something like 10-15% of those guys who had CCIE numbers over, say, 6000. I purposefully asked real-world questions that I knew were not on the lab (for example, explain how T-1 lines work, explain CEF vs. fast-switching) and I noted their responses. Many of them slam-dunked the questions. But some seriously fumbled them. And I mean seriously. One guy claimed that CEF was only available on the GSR. The flip side is also true. When I go to get jobs for myself, I have noted that companies are no longer satisfied with noting my 4-digit number like they were in the past. It used to be they saw that and they basically skipped the technical interview. Not anymore. Now I see that they will still ask simple networking questions. I answered them all easily (at least, I'd like to think they did) but the mere fact that I was being asked these kinds of questions makes me think that they probably got burned by a lab-rat before and want to make sure I'm not one. > you're a proctor for CCIE labs and saw people day in and day out, then I > would take your word for it..... I have yet to take the lab, but I'm trying > to understand how someone could make it through the lab and still be > considered "paper"..... Is the lab that big of a joke? It's certainly not a big joke, it's just that yes you really can pass the lab without experience. Granted, you need dedication and you need money to buy a home lab. >Consider it's very > high fail rate, I can't see it being sooooo easy that people can't pass > without understanding what they're doing? At least to the same level that > anyone else who ever passed the lab did.... Personally I use paper to mean > someone with a cert that doesn't have any hands-on to match it.... like > paper MSCE.. I worked with this kid who was 19, has his MSCE, CNE, and > Master CNE, but had zero hands on.... definitely paper... but we're talking > the CCIE lab here..... it's simply not possible (IMHO) to pass the lab > without at least a minimum of hands-on (whether in a job or on practice > equipment) Exactly - you need practice equipment. So you don't need a real job that provides hands-on equipment. You just need a lab, a lot of time, and a lot of money for exam attempts (or a willingness to go into debt). But a networking job? Not really, not to pass the lab. But of course, the market has adjusted accordingly and I see little reason to be a lab-rat now. Like I said, companies are seriously tightening up their interviews to ferret out the lab-rats and I consider that to be a good thing. Two friends of mine, for example, are basically lab-rats (Ok, they did have previous experience, but very little). They accomplished it by basically borrowing my lab and all my books. They can't find decent work, because they can't pass the newly tightened tech interviews. So they are back doing sys-admin work, which is what they had been doing before allt his. > to give one the skills to pass. > > > But I do agree with the premise that the main reason for the devaluing of > > the cert is the bad economy, and the lab-rats are a lesser consideration > > (still important, but lesser). But on the other hand, I think it is the > > case that the CCIE will probably never attain the status that it once did, > > simply because the we will probably never see another huge network > buildout > > orgy like the dotcom boom again in our lifetime. So while I believe the > > networking industry will get better, people who thinks it's going to get > > back to, say, 1999, are just deluding themselves. > > Agreed.... I don't thik we'll see things back like there were a couple of > years ago. But I'm trying to draw a fine distinction between the devaluing > of a cert (due to shoddy cert process) -vs- the salary that one pulls in > with the cert. The CCIEs now (in general) don't make and probably in the > future won't make what CCIEs of two years ago did. Is this a devaluation of > the cert. Certainly not. That's the market.... that's the economy.... I > don't believe that has much to do with whether employers and network > professionals "value" the certification (i.e. consider someone with CCIE to > be a true expert in networking). Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43335&t=43306 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
