""Kevin Cullimore"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm concerned that his focus is a little too narrow (and possibly distracted > based upon the employer change) to be regarded as "the" authority on the > cert over and above someone like, say, Bruce Caslow. I'm going by the > blueprint, but it seems as if the exam encompasses a wider scope than the > contents of Vol I & II (my opinion probably doesn't count, but I always > regarded those two books as ones to read to gain perspective on routing, not > pass a test). > > More importantly, this post underscores a level of description problem with > many portions of the thread. > > It's inadequate to only consider the case of a person with just lab > experience vs. the case of the person with no formal/training but (possibly > too) much experience: there exist too many in-between cases where the > outcome differs. > > In the case of someone with clear potential who has managed to envelop > themselves in a firm theoretical grounding and a deep empirical > understanding of router behavior under controlled conditions without the > benefit of on-the-job experience, The attitude of employers is all-too-often > to go with the experienced competent individual (all else being equal), > since they can immediately apply their experience to scenarios they have > encountered before, scenarios that would take far too long and consume far > too much in the way of financial equipment to stumble across in a lab > setting.
I would just add there's more to just experience than understanding the technology. There's also the aspect of general work attitudes and mentality. To give you one example, what if the network is totally fuc*ed and the bosses are yelling at everybody and threatening their jobs if they don't get it back up. The experienced guy is more likely to have been in this kind of stressful situation before and can therefore remain cool and focused, whereas the inexperienced guy has a greater chance to be totally rattled. Or another example is political acumen. The experienced guy might be more effective than the inexperienced guy not because of his technical skills but because of his political skills. A lot of projects are highly open-ended where a network engineer is responsible for marshaling company resources. Through his years on the job, the experienced guy just "knows" how to get things done - he knows who to ask for things, how and when to ask for them, etc. The inexperienced guy might still be brilliant technically because he studied hard, but it's less likely that he has developed this general political effectiveness. Those are just some examples. Surely there are many more. The point I'm making here is that the value of experience is not strictly confined to technical matters. And that's also not to say that experience is always more important than everything else, because it is not. I believe that it's important to present an entire suite of qualifications to an employer - experience, certs, education, etc. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "cebuano" > To: > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 9:55 PM > Subject: Jeff Doyle's official response re: lab rats [7:45001] > > > > Dear fellow professionals, > > In fear of "taking a person's words and using them out of context", > > I decided to ask Mr. Doyle himself. He was kind enough to respond > > to my e-mail, and I'm posting this with the hope of encouraging both > > "lab rats" and gurus alike to aim for knowledge, not only certs, > > and in the process help your fellow man/woman. > > I put my faith in everyone to be civilized and not bash Mr. Doyle's > > reputation, even if you disagree with his point of view. > > Last but not least, I hope that this will put an end to personal attacks > > that have become more common lately, unlike what groupstudy.com > > used to be 2 to 3 years ago when I first signed up. > > > > Thank you. > > Elmer > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jeff Doyle > > To: elmer > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:28 PM > > Subject: Re: Please care to comment on Vol.2 page 792 > > > > Hi Elmer, > > > > Thanks for the clarification-- my definition of "lab rat" is a bit > different > > than yours. At Juniper, the lab rats tend to be the most experienced field > > engineers. Nonetheless, under your definition (lab rat = someone with more > > theoretical than practical experience), the statement applies equally to > > those > > with some practical experience and those with little or none. > > > > I know exactly the kinds of "old timers" to which you refer-- typically > these > > are guys who have gained their knowledge gradually over the years through > > practical experience. Scratch the surface of most of these guys, and you > will > > find little understanding of the foundations of the protocols and > > technologies > > they think they are experts at. Therein lies the source of their > derogatory > > attitude toward "newbies": Insecurity in their own skills. > > > > I regularly conduct technical interviews for Juniper, and I can tell you > that > > if a candidate has a deep understanding of the theories and facts of the > > various IP networking protocols, I am impressed regardless of the > candidate's > > practical experience. If the engineer is smart and aggressive, it is easy > > enough to team him or her up with a mentor to add the practical > experience. > > > > There is an opposite view on all this: I've encountered many people with > > CCIEs > > that think the certification is all they need to land a high-level > networking > > job. For me, seeing the CCIE certification on a resume makes me look > closer, > > and is usually enough to make me schedule a face-to-face interview. But > once > > the interview takes place, I expect the candidate to impress me with a > level > > of knowledge that goes well beyond what is required to pass the lab. The > > first > > three or four minutes of the interview is generally enough for me to > > determine > > whether the candidate truly knows his or her stuff, or whether the CCIE > was > > won by learning just what is needed to pass the lab and no more. > > > > All this long-winded reply is saying is: Yes, getting the CCIE will help > you > > get ahead even if your practical experience is limited. It is an excellent > > way > > to prove your capabilities to prospective employers, but be sure the depth > of > > your theoretical knowledge well exceeds the rather limited things you need > to > > know to pass the lab. > > > > As for your two PS's: I used 11-something for most of the book, and wrote > the > > BGP chapters quite early, which accounts for the outdated statement you > cite > > (and a few others). I have been discussing doing a second edition of the > book > > with Cisco Press to bring it up to date. The conflicting statements about > > OSPF > > P-T-MP is a known error, and should be corrected soon in newer printings > of > > the book. > > > > Best regards, > > Jeff > > > > At 11:46 PM 5/23/2002 -0400, you wrote: > > > > Jeff, > > Thanks for the response. I know you are a very busy (and sought after) > man. > > I just happened to read this particular page at a time when people new > to > > the > > networking field are despised by old timers who feel that "lab rats" > don't > > deserve to pass the CCIE lab since all they have is lab experience. > > I was wondering if you personally feel that most of what one gets tested > on > > in the lab have little resemblance with most production networks. > > Two reasons for asking you are: > > 1.Obviouly, every lab candidate as well as my CCIE friends regard you as > > the authority on this particular certification. > > 2. You are the author of the second CCIE bible which I am quoting. > > > > What is your opinion on a person who passes the lab with very little > > "real" networking experience? > > > > Respectfully, > > Elmer Deloso > > > > P.S. What IOS version did you use as reference when you wrote Vol.2? > > Because after checking CCO, page93 of your book talks about BGP > > version number negotiation until both neighbors agree on the same > > version. The Cisco implementation of BGP in Cisco IOS Release 12.0(6)T > > or later releases supports BGP Version 4 only and does not support > > dynamic negotiation down to Version 2. > > > > P.P.S. Does Ciscopress consult you regarding errata to your books? > > Because Vol.1 page 417 says OSPF packets in point-to-multipoint are > > multicast, but pages 433 and 451 say these are unicast. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45017&t=45001 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
