I also agree with you on many points. But anyway, inline
> > I see your point about people not skipping the tech interview because of > CCIE. And I also agree that it's a good thing. After all, when 'lab rats' > (as you call them) are applying for jobs, it just makes sense that one would > give a tough interview to weed them out. However, one must ask themselves > "What is the purpose of the cert?" Just like a college degree in, say > Computer Science. The BS in CS doesn't guarantee an employer that the > person has experience, say, with PERL. However, the degree indicates that > this person can learn and understand the logic of programming, etc. I don't > think the purpose of the CCIE (or any Cisco cert) is to guarentee knowledge > of absolutely everything in networking. That's not possible. However, I > believe that it does indicate an advanced level of understanding of network > principles as well as knowledge of specific technologies (EIGRP, HSRP, > DLSw+, etc). So, as in your example of the person that didn't learn BGP > because it wasn't required for the cert, I have to say "So what". That > wasn't the point of the CCIE. The CCNP cert doesn't cover IS-IS, for > example, but I would hope anyone with CCNP could sit down, read about IS-IS, > know how to look up IS-IS related commands on Cisco's site, and then > implement what needs to be implemented. That's, IMHO, the purpose of > obtaining the cert. This is absolutely true, nobody can know everything, and the CCIE was never designed to do that. On the other hand, there is a major difference between somebody who admits he doesn't know the answer, but can probably look it up, and somebody who boldly states something that is flatly wrong. For example, with that guy I interviewed who claimed that CEF can only be run on a GSR, clearly this was a case where he was trying to snow me. Now I admit, I was trying to trick him (I deliberately pretended that I knew nothing about networks because I wanted to see what kinds of things he would say if he didn't think I was a networking guy myself), and boy, was he tricked. > > > 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. > > > 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. > > I understand your differentiation between real-world hands-on and practice > lab (lab rat) hands-on. I truly do. But, again, it's like the college > degree thing. If a company wants someone who has experience, they'll > interview and ask questions that only seasoned professionals could answer. > But, if they want someone with a certain level of knowledge, demonstrated > ability to learn new things, and the ability to find resources and answer > questions, then that could be a seasoned professional or someone that's > certified (or someone with both). On the flip side of your argument, I've > met people that are trying to get into networking from the telco side, and > could explain in great detail how a T1 works, but couldn't explain HSRP (a > very simple thing to understand and setup) to save their life. Doesn't mean > their stupid, just not exposed to it. And the cert provides exposure to > these things, whether "real world" or "lab rat" experience.... I mean, > really, does it matter if you setup HSRP in a lab or in the real-world? I > think not... HSRP is HSRP.... > > I guess, when it comes down to it, I feel if you (the hiring person) wants > someone that can explain CEF, which models have software CEF, which have > hardware CEF, which 6500 blades are fabric enabled and which aren't just by > their model number, then you're not looking for anything but sheer > experience. So why blame the cert for not providing that background to a > person, when that's not the point of the cert to begin with? > > > > > 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. > > It depends on what kind of questions the "tightened down" interviewers are > asking. CCIE has never covered "everything". You're suggesting that the > new interviews cover more thorough knowledge and require more hands-on work > experience to get through. And again, I re-state my opinion that "that's > not what the cert is for". I mean, my boss used to do the hands-on (we're > talking years of hands-on) network design/implemenation of the very network > I work on everyday now, but he's still blown away that I (the lowly CCNP) am > constantly blowing him away with my in-depth knowledge of how the stuff > works... He's floored that within one day of finding out about IOS Server > Load Balancing on the 6500s, had it setup and in place and it worked like a > charm! I (even before finishing CCNP) worked next to engineers with years > (5+) of experience (with Cisco) and felt sorry for them when they asked me > why they were seeing multicast traffic in their sniffer traces (knowing full > well they were running EIGRP). That's what the CCNP means to me..... if, > in the interview my boss would have asked me some bullsh*t about "How many > bits are used for framing on T1 compared to used for actual data?", "Which > model routers support CEF and under which IOSes?" "What's the speed of the > backplane on the 2900XL, 5500, and 6500 switches?"..... I would have been > screwed..... But he didn't, because that crap doesn't matter!!! You can > look that up in 30 seconds and have an answer.... and I've proven (to > everyone I've ever worked under in the network field) that you don't need to > know everything if you know where to find and learn it. I think we're both dancing around the main issue here. It's really not so much whether a CCIE happens to know or not know this-and-that fact. That is only a symptom of a much larger problem, which is that the CCIE, probably because of its history of success, has fostered a 'attitude of arrogance' about it. What I mean by that is that there are still a significant number of people, both CCIE's and CCIE-wanna-be's, who think that the cert is the end of the road in terms of learning and professional development. There are a significant number of people who have an attitude that once they pass their lab exam, three things occur: #1 - they are automatically entitled to a high-paying networking job #2 - they are automatically more knowledgeable than anybody who doesn't hold that cert (for example, that one dude with the CEF and the GSR - he basically stated, not in so many words, but in effect, that since he was a CCIE and he thought I wasn't, then his answer must be right). #3 - they can coast in terms of their professional development at least for the near-future, and possibly for the rest of their career. For example, one of my buddies once said that after he passed the lab, he wasn't ever going to pick up another networking text book ever again, and I hope he was kidding, but the way he said it, I'm not so sure... So I don't think anybody has any serious problem with a guy who might become a lab-rat CCIE, but admits that he is one and still diligently continues to learn. And naturally you will find even old-school CCIE's who don't know everything and admit this. I don't have any problem at all with such people, and I doubt anybody else would either. The problem comes with guys who pass and think that they now have all the answers and therefore they don't really need to learn anything or work hard anymore. In short - they get arrogant, and that's just not cool. > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43354&t=43306 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
