You have crystallized my thoughts perfectly. I would always prefer to work with a "lab rat" that knows how to find stuff then a seasoned CCIE who thinks that "google" is just another yahoo.
-- baba ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > You make many valid points. I appreciate your comments. I placed some > comments inline. > > "nrf" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > 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. > > 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. > > > 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. > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=43374&t=43306 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
