Hold on. Inline ""Tom Monte"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I think most of our disagreement is over semantics. There is one thing you > said that took me a minute to figure out, but here is my hypothesis. > > "there are guys who are passing the lab without any experience (which is not > necesarily a problem, but when they start demanding outlandish salaries, > then that is a problem)." > > I think this boils down to an example of capitalism. We have an experienced > CCIE called nrf and a "labrat" CCIE called labrat1. > > Labrat1 tells people that interview him he wants 200,000, because he passed > his CCIE. The employers all turn him down. Labrat1 has unrealistic > expectations and there is enough of a supply the employers can wait or find > someone else. Poor labrat1 can go back to crimping cable and getting coffee > for nrf or accept there offer for a mere 80,000. Why is this a problem for > you? I didn't really understand it until I realized what happens when the > supply of labrats goes down. > > Nrf convinces Cisco to make the tests more difficult so poor labrat1 can't > pass and there are 3,000 CCIEs in the world instead of 10,000. Nrf goes to > get a job and says I want 200,000. The company hires him, because poor > labrat1 is crimping cable. Nrf makes more money when labrat1 can't pass the > exam.
So basically you are accusing me of trying to protect my turf. Which is why to be fair, I've always been an advocate of invalidating everybody's certs, including mine (presuming that I am a CCIE, which I refuse to disclose for reasons stated previously), and have everybody retest on a much tougher test that measures practical skills more closely than the current test. If the lab-rats can't pass this newer test, too bad for them. If I can't pass this new test, then too bad for me (again, assuming I'm a current CCIE). If the old-timer CCIE's have left their skills slip and can't pass, then too bad for them. So now you can no longer accuse me of protecting my turf because I'm advocating a plan that's fair for everybody. Of course, this plan obviously has a huge flaw in that there is no incentive for Cisco to do it, so obviously they won't. Which is why I also advocate another idea where Cisco doesn't invalidate everybody's current exams, but instead comes up with an additional super-ridiculously-hard (but still practical) test that is above and beyond the current CCIE, and where you must be a CCIE to be eligible to attempt it. This would ultimately create a prestige class of super-engineers that would ultimately supplant what the CCIE is today. Whoever passes, well, more power to them, whether it's me, the lab-rat, the old-timers, or anybody else. So now you can say that it's all fair and I'm not protecting my turf at all. > > If this isn't true then why do you care if labrat1 gets a job or not? How > does that affect you? It absolutely affects me because it affects the good-name of the program. Again, assuming that I am a CCIE, then I should be concerned that others who aren't very good engineers at all will associate themselves with that name, thereby smearing my name in the process. For example, consider a case of a guy who isn't a criminal but chooses to associate with known criminals. When people see the company he keeps, many will assume that the guy is a criminal himself. It's guilt by association. Is it right, is it fair? No, of course not. But life's not fair, and we both know that this is what people do. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling 'L's criminals. That's just an example I was using. But I think you see my point. Whenever possible, you want to associate yourself as much as possible with strong positive examples, not negative ones. > > "Whether you want to call them the 'L' word or whatever you want to call it, > it doesn't matter, it's just words. If you think the 'L' word is pejorative > and you want to call them something else, fine. So using or not using the > 'L' word in not going to change the fact that people really are passing the > lab without experience." > > I think alot of us don't have a choice. If you don't have a job that > provides alot of Cisco experience, you probably have a hard time finding one > that does. I don't see why I should be looked down on for that. It's not a case of people looking down on others. But I believe it's also people's responsibility to be proactive. You can't just wait around for opportunities to come about, sometimes you have to actively create such opportunities. For every one person that complains that he's being given only limited opportunities, there is another person who could take those limited opportunities and find a way to succeed. Again, I have to point to, say, German, Jewish, Scottish, or Asian immigrants to the United States who often arrived penniless and invariably experienced massive language problems as well as overt racism (especially Jews and Asians) but within a few generations became more successful than the native population. The point is that people's spirits and attitudes can and often does triumph over limited opportunities. > > -----Original Message----- > From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 3:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342] > > > ""Tom Monte"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Myth or Fact > > Unless your post includes a statistcal sampling of people who employ > CCIEs, > > I am afraid it isn't a fact. I don't like to speak on behalf of the rest > of > > the world so I chose the word myth, maybe generalization would have been a > > better choice. My post was directed at all posts that use the words > "real" > > CCIE, not just yours. > > > > Point #1 > > I agree a new CCIE should make less and it is silly to complain about it, > > but then that wasn't my point and this wasn't directed entirely at you. I > > object to lumping people into the categories "lab-rat" and calling the > CCIE > > a "piece of paper." There are alot of people on this list working hard > and > > sincerely to obtain there CCIE. > > I'm not out to denigrate people's efforts. What I'm saying is that people > need to put the CCIE in perspective. It is not an end-goal in itself but a > single step (albeit a fairly substantial step) in what is a long chain of > goals necessary for a successful network engineer. People who are studying > hard should continue to do so, but also be realistic about what the cert can > and cannot do for them. > > > > > Point #2 > > Again, my post was not entirely directed at you, but the general > perception > > that the CCIE is so easy anyone can do it. I am sure the difficulty will > > still discourage most people from pursuing the CCIE, even if your posts > > don't. :O > > I have never lumped the words 'easy' and 'CCIE' together. I may have > lumped the words 'easier' (but not the word 'easy') and 'CCIE' together in > regards to the one-day-lab change, but as you can see, I have actually > stated that the one-day-lab is probably not easier. > > And if my posts encourage or discourage people to do something, than so be > it. I believe people are best served by getting complete information on > what is going on. The fact is, there are guys who are passing the lab > without any experience (which is not necesarily a problem, but when they > start demanding outlandish salaries, then that is a problem). Whether you > want to call them the 'L' word or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't > matter, it's just words. If you think the 'L' word is pejorative and you > want to call them something else, fine. So using or not using the 'L' word > in not going to change the fact that people really are passing the lab > without experience. That's the truth, and if that encourages more people to > try the lab, then so be it. What it might also do is convince Cisco to make > changes to the program. > > > > > Point #3 > > I am sure we are all happy you are in the "clever lucky not a paper CCIE" > > group. My point was be thankful for what you have, because there are alot > > of people who would like to be CCIEs. > > Without answering the question of whether I'm a CCIE or not (for reasons I > stated in a previous post), let me say this. Those people who occupy > high-level networking positions should be thankful not so much for being a > CCIE, but more for being given strong networking opportunities and > experiences. Or actually, what I should really say is that they should be > thankful for having been raised within a culture that has instilled in them > a set of personal values (like a strong work ethic, a respect for skills, > etc.) that allows them to take advantage of whatever opportunities have > been presented to them. Like I said, success is determined not so much > because a person has been presented with an exceptionally large number of > good opportunities, but rather that they take advantage of whatever > opportunities that do get presented to them. Luck is indeed an important > component, but things like personal attitudes and a willingness to do hard > work are important also. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:46 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342] > > > > > > I have a feeling that I'm going to regret doing this. But anyway, inline. > > The bottom line is that these aren't 'myths', but actual facts as to how > > Cisco engineers are perceived by employers. > > > > > > ""Tom Monte"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I want to write about all the posts that use the words "real" CCIE. I > > hope > > > we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. > > > > > > > > > 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career > > > opportunities and less on putting people into categories. "Yes, I have > > less > > > Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me > now!" > > > > > > Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. > > > > Look, I never said there was anything wrong with knowing less than the > next > > guy. The real problem is knowing less than the next guy and still > demanding > > the same respect and pay as that next guy simply because you have a piece > of > > paper, and then when you don't get that same respect and pay, then whining > > incessantly about it. Again, the problem is not that lab-rats exist, but > > that they have delusions of grandeur. > > > > > > > > > 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I > > frequently > > > spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to > get > > my > > > MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those > > > certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read > alot > > > about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You > > have > > > less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. > > > > > > Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. > > > > But on the other hand, while things may not be cheap or easy, things may > > have gotten cheaper or easier. I'm not referring to the one-day test for > > which it is still unclear whether it is easier or not (in fact I suspect > > probably not). But the fact is that when something gets easier, it > > inevitably gets devalued. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I > > didn't > > > get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early > in > > my > > > career. > > > > > > Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your > > > success today. > > > > But so do things like hard work and ambition. Luck indeed plays a role in > > everybody's life, I would be a fool to say otherwise. But I believe it is > > also true that you can 'make your own luck'. When two groups of people > are > > presented the same set of opportunities, the first group may exploit them > > much more effectively than the second group. > > > > For example, I'll make a digresssion here, the history of United States > > immigration (and actually immigration around the world) is replete with > such > > examples, where penniless immigrant ethnic groups were forced to take the > > worst possible job opportunities or the worst possible farming land > (because > > they couldn't speak English or due to overt discrimination or whatever) > that > > the native population could not or would not exploit, but after a few > > generations, those immigrants were earning incomes equal to or exceeding > > that of the native population. How's this possible if your success > > primarily is dictated primarily by whether you were provided opportunities > > or not? It's not so much whether you are exposed to lots of > opportunities > > but what you do with the opportunities you are exposed to that really > > determines your success. > > > > Taking it back to the networking arena, I know lots of guys who weren't > > provided opportunities to run networks. Rather, they had to 'provide > > themselves' with opportunites by basically hanging around the network guys > > at night or on the weekends on their own time. Or when their companies > were > > offering network training to only a certain group of employees, they > > immediately finagled their way and played the corporate political game > into > > making sure they were included in that training. These are just some > > examples of guys 'making their own luck'. This is the kind of attitude > > that fosters greater success. > > > > > > > > > > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for > > > the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended > > > recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from > > > your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender > > > by return e-mail. > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for > > the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended > > recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from > > your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender > > by return e-mail. > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for > the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended > recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from > your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender > by return e-mail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44415&t=44342 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
