OK, inline
""Erwin"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Just some comments about the opinions of some contributors in this > discussion. > > I sometimes see arrogance of CCIE being "Know-It-All about networking both > theoretically and experiences". I see most people try to compare apples to > oranges when talking about CCIE. Some people have a solid networking work > experience, while still not being able to pass CCIE. While others manage to > pass CCIE with less networking experience as the previous guy. Well CCIE Lab > and the real world experience are different things. It is like comparing a > top-notch businessman and a graduate who just finished his MBA. Maybe the > businessman does not need any certification at all to make money, because of > his experience. But it does not mean that a fresh graduate who just finishes > his MBA only having 3-year working experience can be claimed he is a > "book-rat" MBA degree. Funny you should say that, because I've heard HR people call new MBA's being called exactly that - the 'book-rat'. It doesn't really matter what you (or I) think is right, it only matters what HR and employers think, because they're the ones with hiring power. I am only reporting what I have seen employers do. > This sentence means demoralizing people who will accomplish CCIE and go > further in their real-world experience to understand and learn more about > their certification values. Hey, if you think that my use of the term is demoralizing, you ain't seen nothing yet. Much more importantly, employers and customers are starting to bandy around the term as well. For example, one prospective employer asked me point-blank recently "Are you a 'real' CCIE or are you just a lab-rat?". So if you think it's harsh that I'm using the term, just wait until you're in an interview and you get accused. So basically, if I'm being harsh, then hey, I'm being no harsher than what's happening in the real world. The fact is, the lab-rats have left an indelibly negative mark in the industry. If you don't like the term, then hey, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the (networking) kitchen. >That's why Cisco has 2-year recertification > program for CCIE. Which is an absolute joke for one simple reason - a guy can just keep taking the recert exam over and over again until he finally passes. What would make it much more interesting if is Cisco were to put a limit on the number of recert attempts you could do - say 3 shots, and then you're forced to go back into the lab again. > > Having CCIE is just the beginning of exploring and understanding more about > the real networking world. It does not matter how you get to manage to pass > the lab, as long as it is not cheating, we have to appreciate and respect > all those people who dedicate their whole time pursuing CCIE, and respect > them when they get it. I'm afraid I must disagree. I believe in theory, there are some ways to get the CCIE that are more respectable than others. And no, I'm not talking about formal cheating as such. The problem of course is figuring out which way is better and which aren't, but I believe such distinctions can be made. For example, I consider it more impressive if somebody passed the exam the first time around, with few study materials, and just lots of hands-on experience, then if somebody just attends lots and lots of those CCIE-lab-specific 'cram' training classes, and has buddies whispering in his ear about what he should expect on the lab (although those guys might not be technically violating the NDA when doing so, we all know that the NDA is a very fine line and people can go right up to it without technically violating it). It is analogous to whether you think it is more impressive if a guy graduates from a famous college with a perfect 4.0 GPA in a tough major despite having to work 3 jobs to pay his student bills, as opposed to a guy who barely skated by in an easy major and who only got admitted in the first place because daddy donated a million dollars to the school. In both cases, each person got a degree, but I think we both know who was more impressive in doing so. Now, I'm not saying that the exact same situation applies to the CCIE, that's just an example, but I'm sure you get the idea. > In future, we might not know that these people will > have more experience than the people who claim them "lab-rats". The most > important thing is to eventually balance both the theoretical, lab and real > experience. Well of course that is true. But like I said, many of the lab-rats (not all, but many) are not interested in doing that. They pass the lab and they immediately expect a huge salary. Never mind the fact that they have never actually run a real network, all they see is that they've passed the lab, so now they expect dollars to come falling out of the sky. It's these delusions of grandeur that give the lab-rat such a bad name. I don't think anyone has a problem with an inexperienced guy who passes the lab but still remains humble. Again, the problem is with guys suffering from delusions of granduer. > > For those who think themselves very well-experienced, and always try to > demoralized people who get CCIE as lab-rat, be careful in the near future > you might lose out to them. People need not be so proud of themselves just > because of CCIE. Like I've always been saying, arrogance cuts both ways. I agree with you that existing "real" (non-lab-rat) CCIE's have some amount of unwarranted arrogance. But on the other hand, I think the real arrogance is with those lab-rat CCIE's who now instantly expect to be receiving the same salary as those guys with lots of experience, and then come and then act all shocked, shocked when they don't get it. So when you talk about arrogance, I would just ask you , when some guy who's never run a production network before in his life but has just passed his lab now all-of-a-sudden expects the same salary as a guy who's been running networks for years, is that not also arrogance? If not, then what would you call that? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44324&t=43306 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
