RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Carroll Kong wrote: However, in terms of sensible fairness, I do not see how having years of production experience is going to mean crap if you utilize it improperly or got little out of it. (think of the guy who calls TAC every other day, and now thinks that the config registers for password recovery are the same for all routers). Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that production experience isn't worth very much. Sheesh, you just left yourself wide open to a HUGE attack, so huge that I'm surprised you can't see it. Namely - if experience is so darn worthless, then why does every single company in the world want it? Name me a single company that doesn't care about experience. Can't do it, can you? What you're telling me is that all the companies in the world are placing a premium on something that is essentially worthless. So basically you're saying that every company in the world is wrong and you're right, is that true? If so, hey, please, by all means, start your own company and because you apparently your hiring practices will be better than everybody else's, you'll be a billionaire soon. Why not test the individuals harder, instead of putting up this number of years barrier? Might as well ask ourselves why we can't just simply win the lottery. We both know Cisco is not going to do anything that actually requires substantial effort on their part, so why waste belaboring the subject. You're comparing the perfect solution that will never happen to something practical and attainable. Well, perhaps it was a bad analogy then (the pilot bit). I am okay with forcing people to do meaningful experience of sorts. I also think a good lab scenario based off of someone's real world experience (eh, just insert disaster scenarios into the lab, not that hard. :) ) and clocking time against that is a good idea. Having them sitting around doing nothing, seems to be just wasting people's time and money. However, given that everyone is not going to have an even experience in any workplace, it seems to be a very uneven barrier. Furthermore, as I mentioned, in some cases, so little comes out of it at times that to even compare people by the number of years would be ridiculous. And yet that is precisely what companies do, and I have to imagine that they have good reasons for doing so. You wanna get hired as the lead engineer at a tier-1 backbone provider? You have to have X years of experience to even get into the interview room. Could those X years of experience have been spent in a NOC playing solitaire? Yeah, I guess. But hey, those are the rules. We all know that if you don't have any experience, you will not be considered for that job even if you could handle it. Unfair? Maybe. But guess what - life is unfair. My proposal is no more unfair than life itself. Well, if anything, make the exam harder. Not going to happen if it means that Cisco will actually have to put effort into it. The years of experience seems too hazy to me for quite a few reasons. 1) experience is not equal 2) experience can turn into misinformation I just do not like this easy way out to build a quick filter that seems like it is not going to build stronger CCIES necessarily. And again, this is precisely the easy way that companies filter out candidates. Again, if you really think the whole world is dumb for doing this, then by all means start your own company and blow them all away. The only thing you did was delay them, and delay potentially qualified individuals. Are you even sure they will have even a SHRED more experience after doing carressing for so long? Is that shred going to really help them when they study for the exam by going to bootcamps, reviewing braindumps, etc? A shred is better than nothing. And I am confident that many of them will have more than a shred. Well, I can give you a list of people who will disappoint you. :) However, I never said a router carresser might not be very bright. A good number of them are like that; they too are held back (but this time by their employers). However, let us test them on their merits, not on how long they were carressing. Why not? That's precisely what employers do. Yeah but to employ such a method to filter people, and to potentially get very little results. Hey, if the results are good enough for all the employers in the world, they should be good enough for the CCIE program. What I am saying is not everyone's experience is a very good one. You get those who see one Cisco router crash once due to a bad DIMM, and he thinks Cisco sucks for routers. Experience can be flawed, or it could be overwhelmed by raw knowledge. From my experience, reinstalling the OS and picking the automatic DHCP will fix my network settings. Um... you can just change the IP address in the control panel. During the
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Carroll Kong wrote: I liked Howard's idea, however, yes it is not scalable, but would improve the quality. My other post suggested, Cisco has not shown any real attempt to make it that much harder, they do want more CCIEs out there. If that is what they want, nothing we do will really stop that. If that is the case, then it's put up or shut up time for Cisco. Do they want the CCIE to be a top-dog cert or not? If they do, they have to make some changes, and if they don't, then fine, either Cisco has to admit that they don't, or the networking community must realize that they don't. So, do we 'weight' the one year of hardened experienced more? Or less? I am not talking about the exam yet, just, what about the legitimate people you are filtering out? What if they make it three years of experience because that is how long it takes for the average IT guy to figure out that Netbios can run over TCP/IP? What about the guy who figured it out in 5 minutes? Surely we do not want to disqualify him just because he figured it out in 5 minutes? Of course not, so how do those guys still benefit? All this presumes that the only way a prodigiously precocious engineer will find work is if he gets his CCIE. If a guy is really so preternaturally brilliant that he can figure things out in 5 minutes what takes normal people 3 years, then surely some company will pick him up and he will then Not true. I do not believe that causality will occur. From what I have seen bright individuals are usually exploited quite well. Also, remember, upper management and HR do NOT have the ability to detect the precocious engineer which I will now call as Doogie Howser, which further leads to exploitation. Also, I am not saying the knowledge itself is so difficult, in fact, I am saying it is pretty silly how sacred we consider some of this covetted so hard to get knowledge. So, there are a lot of Doogie Howsers out there. My comment was joking about the sheer lack of general knowledge many IT people have there. If you did not learn about network layering (in the generic sense), and did not identify the protocols or learn about the protocols you are working with within a few weeks, how long is it going to take you? They are either not actively trying at all or their background is so horrible in it you wonder how they even got to become a Network Administrator. You can pick that up reading a few books and doing it in a home lab. (the TCP/IP and Netbios bit). A lot of this seems like just basic applications of the basic classes I took in college. And I wonder why people say college is so useless when it's the basis for most of my success (in a general fashion). Back to the story though. So, a good number of these Doogie Howsers have no way of easily distinguishing themselves. Even if you are a Doogie, you do not necessarily have the rest of the skill sets to acquire a job. i.e. social skills, people skills, the network of friends, etc. Let us ignore the job finding aspect of Doogie Howser. It is not important in this context. The certification is a part of the criterion one should hit to become more marketable. We are comparing who should be allowed to even have a chance to take the exam. Yeah, let's stick to that. Consider the case of airplane pilots. Just to get an pilot's license, you must have a certain minimum number of documented flying hours. To be hired as a pilot for an airline, you must have documented proof that you had at least several hundred hours of flight time, and sometimes several thousand. Well, even in THIS case it is far more reasonable. Documented hours of hard testing/working on networking gear in a lab by Cisco. That I would go for. Because, like I said 3 years of router rubbing ... come on, I am sure you have had assignments which let you demolish that knowledge in a few months! Thing is, you have no idea if they are actively working on networking for the 3 years. For the flying case you are directly clocking them for... flying. It is not even necessarily a production network (as in, commercial flying... :) ). I mean come on, hundreds of hours can be conquered within a few months for aggressive students. That is reasonable. YEARS of router rubbing? No thanks. Actually, I must disagree. Hundreds of hours of time within a few monmths can only be accomplished within a lab environment. When we're talking about production environments, the fact is, most of the time you're not touching any of the gear. Once it's up, it's up, and you only fiddle with it when you need to fix something or change some services. But at the same time, only real live networks will present real-world problems that are provide you with the valuable experience. Lab networks never can. Consider the case of the pilot's license. The
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: No, I don't expect anything but a paycheck at the end of a pay period. Are you worried your employees may read this? Hence the use of anonymous email. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71504t=70953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Carroll Kong wrote:
Look, first of all, I'm obviously not endorsing that anybody
with x years of
experience are automatically handed a ccie number. They
would still have to
pass the test just like anybody else.
I trimmed down some of my extra fluff in the quote, sorry, just
read
the older archives with the same thread name.
Oh I never suggested that either, I just said this initial
filtering process is not clear cut, and we might be filtering
innocent, bright individuals.
Therefore the idea is simple. You use a minimum number of
years of
experience to eliminate the labrats. So instead, you get
router-caressers
(hmmm, sounds like some people enjoy networking a little too
much). You
then eliminate those guys with the test itself - if that
highly experienced
person didn't actually learn how to do all those things you
mentioned, then
it's unlikely that he would pass the test.
Right. I am saying, it is NOT the number of years that matter,
is it
the quality of the number of years. One year of hardened fire
fighting, troubleshooting, advanced deployment, cut over
experience
is sure worth a lot more than...three years of maintaining
the
network aka Router Carresser. But who gets to judge the ratio?
Well, obviously Cisco gets to judge the ratio. Hey, right now, Cisco gets
to determine that people are internetworking 'experts' just from a 1-day
test that deals with only network configuration but no troubleshooting, and
we've all learned to accept that, so what exactly is so outrageous about
Cisco also judging whether you've had 'enough' experience?
The point is that in any profession, somewhere along the line, somebody is
making an arbitrary decision. Medicine, law, you name it - somewhere along
the line an arbitrary decision is being made. To say that the CCIE process
should be any different is really to hold the program to perfection.
So, do we 'weight' the one year of hardened experienced more?
Or
less? I am not talking about the exam yet, just, what about
the
legitimate people you are filtering out? What if they make it
three
years of experience because that is how long it takes for the
average IT guy to figure out that Netbios can run over TCP/IP?
What about the guy who figured it out in 5 minutes? Surely we
do not
want to disqualify him just because he figured it out in 5
minutes?
Of course not, so how do those guys still benefit?
All this presumes that the only way a prodigiously precocious engineer will
find work is if he gets his CCIE. If a guy is really so preternaturally
brilliant that he can figure things out in 5 minutes what takes normal
people 3 years, then surely some company will pick him up and he will then
accumulate the experience necessary to meet the experience threshold. Is it
really such a tragedy to force that guy to wait for a bit to get his ccie?
After all, a guy with such networking perspicacity probably won't even care
about the ccie after spending 3 years in the workforce - he's probably
looking at getting his PhD and/or looking to join Howard and write BGP drafts.
Consider the case of airplane pilots. Just to get an pilot's license, you
must have a certain minimum number of documented flying hours. To be hired
as a pilot for an airline, you must have documented proof that you had at
least several hundred hours of flight time, and sometimes several thousand.
But you might say what if I'm the next Chuck Yeager and I can learn in 1
hour what it takes normal pilots 10 to learn? Too bad, you still have to
have that minimum number of documented flying hours to qualify. Simple as
that. Or consider doctors. Every single Medical Board requirements dictate
that you must spend a mandated amount of time in an approved
internship/residency program that deals with the medical specialization in
question. Even Doogie Howser himself can't flout those requirements - if
you want to be Board-certified, you have to fulfill the time requirements.
So if time requirements are OK for pilots and for doctors, why are they so
inappropriate for network engineers?
Now obviously, this is imperfect. You will still have some
guys who carress
routers (man, that just sounds disgusting) and then bootcamp
their way to
getting their ccie. I agree. But there is no perfect
solution. It's better
than what we have today, where labrats bootcamp their way to
their ccie.
Bottom line - a caresser CCIE is on average more skilled than
a labrat CCIE.
Perhaps that is true. (I am not going to argue either way, but
I
think it's debatable. :) )
I really don't see how it is debatable. The lab-rat CCIE has just the CCIE
to his credit. The caressers has both the ccie and some experience. They
have everything the lab-rat has and more.
Or, if you prefer a more quantitative explanation, when x(i)= y(i) for all
instances of i, then MEAN{x(i)}MEAN{y(i)} except for the special corner
case of x(i)=y(i).
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
douglas mizell wrote: Jeez, That is ridiculous, the program is run by Cisco, a private corporation. It is not a government entity and requiring those types of prerequisites makes no sense. Well, to use that line of thought, why not just go all the way? Why require any prereqs at all? Let's dispense with the CCIE-written. Heck, why not go even further and just make the test super-easy. Let's just dispense with the lab and make it a written test, just like the MCSE. Also, if you don't think that corporations don't use prereqs, you're sadly mistaken. Airlines require that anybody they hire as a pilot must have a certain number of documented flying hours. Heck, most large companies have an (unwritten) requirement that if you want to enter management, you must be a college graduate. I know one large insurance company that dictated that all secretaries and receptionists must be college graduates. You can debate the appropriateness of these requirements until the cows come home, but the point is that it's simply false to say that private corporations are somehow prereq-free. How do you quantify experience anyway? What about a guy who has fifteen years in the industry, gets his CCIE but has worked on the same technology, same network etc for years, he is not working with new technology so has no real experience with it either. A labrat as you call it has taken the time to explore the new stuff and will at least have an idea how to work with it in a production environment. What about it? The simple fact is most enterprises do not run the new stuff. People keep talking about the new stuff as if it's more widespread than kudzu. The fact is, far more companies are running supposedly obsolete technologies like IPX and Tokenring than are running modern technologies like Ipsec or IP multicasting. I see people making this mistake time and time again, and in fact I'm going to start including it in my laundry list of myths in the networking world. A lot of people think that since new CCIE has all the new technology on it, anybody who's passed it is automatically more prepared to work on production networks than the old-school CCIE's who passed the test back when it still had supposedly obsolete technologies. Not only is that false, it is diametrically false - meaning that not only is the fact that the recent ccie exam tests modern technologies not a good reason why recent ccie's are more prepared to work on production networks, it is also and in fact a strong and leading reason for why they are less prepared. There are two side to this arguement but I think there are a few who seem to be angry that a motivated individual is able to study and pull off something that they believe is reserved for only experienced engineers. It would not be in Cisco's best interest to load the CCIE with unnecessary baggage. The fact is that if you can pass the test you are probably an above average guy technically and have the potential to learn and master just about anything that could reasonably be expected of a network engineer. By the same token, you might feel that you should be able to walk in and take the Medical Board exams right now and if you pass them, you should be allowed to cut people up. Use the same logic you just used in the above paragraph - since you passed the Boards, you obviously know a lot about medicine, so therefore you should be able to start operating on people, right? You know that doesn't fly. You want to be a surgeon? You have to go through all the steps that the medical profession has laid out for prospective doctors. The key question is, I think, how do you view the CCIE? Do you view it as a method of designating true readiness to handle high-level, high-sensitivity jobs (like the Medical Boards or the Navy Top Gun pilot school) or do you view it as a de-facto entry-level qualification - something that is used by people to get their foot in the door? I much prefer the former and I think the vision of the former is closer to the spirit of what the CCIE should be. After all the 'E' in CCIE stands for 'expert'. It is simply inconceivable to think of any other industry where you can be an expert and yet have no real-world experience. Can you really be a medical expert without actually practicing medicine? Can you really be a mountain-climbing expert without actually climbing mountains? Can you really be a flying expert just by playing Microsoft Flight Simulator all day long? True, everybody has the right to call themselves an expert at whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that other people are going to agree with you. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71503t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
David Vital wrote: My frame of reference must just be so dramatically different from a lot of the other's here. I don't understand what all the griping is about. I read a quote in an article the other day that just rings totally true to me. Nobody is worth $200,000 a year. NOBODY. If you can get it, more power to you. But if you were getting that or $100,000 a year and suddenly you can't and the only thing you can get is a 70K or 80 K job... Even in another area.. That's astounding to me that you would be so upset . But maybe it's why you made that kind of money and I never have. You believe you can and I'm smiling all the way to the bank with less. I guess the picture all depends on the angle you are viewing it from. Well, first of all, I never said anything about them being upset. Those people who I referred to are simply making an unemotional, yet perfectly logical choice, which is to leave the industry. Simply put - people are going to follow the path that they think will lead them to their life goals, and if networking looks unpromising, then they will choose something else. Nobody said anything about being upset. Second of all, I emphatically disagree that nobody is worth $200,000 year. I agree that not many people are worth that. But to say that nobody is worth that is simply false. Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant, for example, are worth that and far more, simply because people are willing to cough up for very expensive tickets to see them play. They are directly responsible for earning boatloads of money for the Lakers so it is entirely fair that they get paid well. With apologies to Mr. Duncan, Shaq and Kobe are the 2 best players in basketball and they deserve to be paid accordingly. Or consider the salesmen at your company. Those star salesmen who are really bringing in the bacon deserve to be paid very well. (Those salesmen who are bringing in nothing deserve to be paid nothing). I know a bunch of salesmen who make over a quarter-million a year - but that's because they are directly responsible for bringing in millions of dollars of business into their companies. We are not talking about some secretary or some janitor that just so happen to be working at a startup that gets big and now think that their mere presence means they deserve to be millionaires - we're talking about people who are directly responsible for the success of the company in that they are extremely difficult to replace with somebody else (heck, Shaq is essentially impossible to replace), and for which their presence is directly linked to the success of the company (how many championships would the Lakers have won without Shaq and Kobe?). The point is, some people really are worth massive amounts of money. Not a lot, obviously. But some. Some people really do have a set of unique skills that makes them unusually valuable in the market. Tom Hanks is arguably the best actor of our generation. Barry Bonds may be the best baseball player in history. These guys deserve all the financial success that they can get. Let's take it to the networking field. Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn deserve all the success and accolades they can get. After all, they are arguably the 2 most important network engineers in history, for they directly invented much of the underlying technology of the Internet. If there are network engineers who deserve $200,000 salaries, it's these 2 guys. I think those guys are doing fairly well for themselves, though. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71417t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: Oh, but I thought corporate management can never be wrong. I never said that. Corporate management can indeed be wrong - but not for long. Slowly but eventually, the free market adjusts. For example, right now, what if Harvard all of a sudden got really easy - easy to be admitted to, easy to graduate from, just all-around easy? For a few years, people wouldn't know and those guys who happened to be Crimson during that time would be living it up, because people would be thinking that they're just as good as previous alum, when they're not. But eventually word would get out, and the value of that degree would plummet. The same thing happened with the ccie. It took awhile for information about the 1-day change to filter out, but eventually it did and now all new CCIE's are, unfortunately, paying the price. And just like what would happen if Cisco decided to restore the rigor of the exam - for awhile, nobody would notice but eventually people would discover that the new ccie's really are surprisingly good and they would adjust accordingly. But I know where you're going, you want to take this back to the old discussion of how you believe companies are slowly changing to de-emphasize the college degree for hiring purposes (see, I have my own decoder ring too). Unfortunately, I cannot find any evidence of such a change, and if anything, I am finding the exact opposite. Consider the following articles: ...the wage ratio between college and high school graduates reversed and began a long-term rise. By 1985, the ratio had reached 1.6, and by 1994, it reached nearly 1.8. This pattern has also appeared in other countries... http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/hecon/he11-98/value.html The main index of the return to human capital investment, the Dow Jones Average of the labor market as it were, is the wage premium paid to workers with a college degree relative to the wage for those with just a high school diploma. In 1980, this premium was about 35 percent (close to its all time low); by the mid1990s, the college wage premium had risen to an all time high of over 70 percent (roughly double its level just fifteen years earlier). The rise in the college premium was mirrored in other educational returns as well. The premium for a graduate degree, like those being conferred on many of you here today, has also doubled, from roughly 45 percent in 1980 to more than 90 percent by the mid1990s. Hence, measured broadly, the economic value of higher education roughly doubled in the fifteen years from 1980 to 1995, a rather incredible change. http://www.uchicago.edu/docs/education/record/5-28-98/451convocation.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71419t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
But then the next problem is how many years of experience is considered valid? Honestly, I do not think the number of years of experience means that much a fair number of the time. Why? Well, it depends on the quality of the experience, in my book. Advanced troubleshooting, initial deployments, fixing broken deployments, putting out serious fires and network meltdowns, isn't that worth a bit more than... ho hum, I see the green light on the NMS. Let us talk more about bringing up a new T1 link and calling in Cisco TAC to help. Oh... got to recover a password again, let us call Cisco TAC again. Hrmp... using this /24 for this serial link sure seems to work at my last company. Let us do it again! (given the condition they have no valid reason to be using RIPv1 in this case either...). What are those pesky summaries used for again? Why is traffic being routed through my 56K link instead of the adjacent T1? This is the kind of stuff I hear. While I know there are plenty of bright guys with plenty of years of solid experience (you guys know who you are, this is not about you guys), since I work as a consultant, I am constantly seeing a lot of veteran senior network engineers who surprisingly have far more years of experience than me, but it is me fixing their problems and training them. Of course the people I consult for will need help or know a bit less, or else they would not be calling! ;) Sometimes it is just legitimate shortage of man power (I like those, then it is really working with people who know what they are doing, instead of baby feeding people who keep getting confused with that V-LAN thing). Let us just say, I know plenty of people who are NOT hurting for work in this department. I can tell you the people they are helping are NOT college graduates, but they are quite older and their resumes will be stacked with years of venerable experience. What do we call these guys? If someone is spending quite some time in a NOC or management/watchdog mode, how much real experience are they really acquiring? I would say they are growing at a ridiculously slow rate. Are they to blame? Hmmm not necessarily. Sure they could educate themselves, but remember, self-education is not worth anything to HR... :) Most companies are conservative, and by all means they should be. That is part of the basics of systems administration. Test the latest code, do not run bleeding edge, etc. The goal of most bigger companies is good maintenance and uptime. This goal is dichotomous to the goal of learning which is new deployments, testing slightly worn in technology. A smaller company pushes more towards the new deployment, but then you lose on the conservative change control practices experience. So, HR wants people from big name firms, yet, odds are they were router caressers and not really the troubleshooters. (Can we say... just call support and let them bail for us? Every big company I know of always buys this type of insurance ANYWAY). Yet, if you come from a small firm and DO all the dirty work (yah yah, those guys will buy the spare switch instead of the smartnet), the resume looks so much less impressive despite the fact that they might have harder technical experience. As for the change control experience, who knows? And honestly, that is a self- control issue vs something that really has to be learned. Okay so spend the 5 minutes to learn conservative change control. So, how do you test for the experience? Manager vouching is sooo susceptible to nepotism or good old fashioned old boys network. Also, how many managers have we met that know the technical ins and outs just as well as their grunts? I am sure there are a handful sitting in the cold minority. How can those people vouch technical excellence when they themselves are have nots? How are we sure we are not going to get the router caresser to enter the lab instead of lab-rats? How many legitimate people will we invalidate in the process? Look, first of all, I'm obviously not endorsing that anybody with x years of experience are automatically handed a ccie number. They would still have to pass the test just like anybody else. Therefore the idea is simple. You use a minimum number of years of experience to eliminate the labrats. So instead, you get router-caressers (hmmm, sounds like some people enjoy networking a little too much). You then eliminate those guys with the test itself - if that highly experienced person didn't actually learn how to do all those things you mentioned, then it's unlikely that he would pass the test. Now obviously, this is imperfect. You will still have some guys who carress routers (man, that just sounds disgusting) and then bootcamp their way to getting their ccie. I agree. But there is no perfect solution. It's better than what we have today, where labrats
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: CCIEs with some experience are considered to have college equivalent experience and training as it pertains to technical know-how, knowledge that has proven to be crucial in the survival of a few companies that I have worked in. The companies did not care very much whether the CCIE had any soft skills when it came time to salvage a disaster of a network. But then what are we really talking about here - is it the CCIE or is it the experience that matters? I think we both agree that a CCIE with no experience - the prototype lab-rat- is not one to be trusted with running a live network until and unless that lab-rat gets experience. A much more fair comparison would be the CCIE with some experience vs. the college graduate with equal experience. And I would wonder whether there really are enough network disasters around that one could really make a reliable living off them merely with strong technical skills but no soft-skills. I would contend probably not. The fact is, if nobody in the company likes you, then you either better be an absolutely awesome firefighter, or you're going to get canned. Companies these days simply don't have a lot of room anymore for guys who may be technically brilliant but socially inept. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71338t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: Ok Sen. McCarthy, Your response is Bolshevik, get it? ;) All I'm talking about is taking care of people who took care of you. As an employee I have an obligation to do x amount of work. I always do more than that, it's a pride thing. I want the business I work for to prosper. What is wrong with showing an employee like that some loyalty. Hey, if the employer wants to do that, there is nothing wrong at all. What's 'wrong' is that you apparently expect them to do so. The employer is obligated to compensate you for your time according to whatever employment agreement you arranged when you were hired, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to altruistically give time and effort above and beyond what is necessary, that's your prerogative, but the employer is not obligated to reward you for it, and if you're truly being altruistic, then you shouldn't have anything to complain about, because altruism means to do something without any expectation of recompense. Now, if you're not being altruistic and you are willing to do extraordinary work but because you expect a reward for it, then you should play Let's Make a Deal. Tell your employer that you're willing to do this-and-that task but only for such-and-such an increase in compensation or a similar arrangement.But if you don't do that, you can't complain ex-post-facto. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71342t=70953 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: The consensus among all corporate managers that I have dealt with is that CCIEs cannot obtain their status with at least some real experience. That is the consensus. Don't shoot me for it. \ Those corporate managers are wrong. They may want to look up the term lab-rat and see how it is commonly used, especially on this ng. Also, consider this. Those people who really think that the CCIE is impossible to pass without experience should freely support (or at least have no objection to) an idea I've been pushing for awhile - namely requiring a minimum number of years of verifiable networking experience in order to be eligible to take the exam, and for which all candidates would be subject to a random background check to catch liars - similar to how some companies run background checks on their job candidates. If it's categorically true that nobody could ever pass the lab without experience, then this new requirement should not be a problem, right? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71397t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
\ I just don't believe that you can not find a job if you are experienced and certified. It might not be your dream job. it might not pay as much as you thought you would be making now. And it might require you to relocate. But there are jobs out there. The issue is not finding a job, any job. I agree that if you're willing to work for, say, minimum wage, and relocate to Podunk, then you can probably find a job. But that's the rub, isn't it? How many experienced people are willing to work for puny pay and be forced to relocate when, quite frankly, they don't have to? In particular, how many are going to do it when they can simply transfer into another profession that pays better and doesn't require them to relocate? I am not aware of any mandate that requires you to work in networking simply because you're a CCIEr or simply because you have a lot of experience in it. Take the case of my highly experienced CCIE buddies who went back to UNIX admin-work. Sure, they COULD continue to be network guys if they were willing to take grand-mal paycut, but why should they when they can continue to get a nice UNIX redux paycheck? Therefore when people say there are no jobs, they don't mean that there are literally no jobs, they mean that the overall quality of the jobs has declined dramatically (something which I doubt anybody will seriously dispute) such that other options look mighty attractive by comparison. People will therefore leave this field not because there are literally no jobs, but because other fields other decidedly better opportunities. David Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71396t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Alt [7:71399]
Back in the days when baseball was understood to be the ultimate expression of American values, this may have been true. Take each individual and weigh his/her strengths and weaknesses, consider the overall value of heir contribution, and decide on that basis. These days, when football is king, what does that say about our values? That we are all specialists and we are all easily replaced. In fact, in a football model, the ideal is to churn and burn. While the game of baseball itself may in the past have neatly symbolized American individualism, ironically you wouldn't know it from the salaries paid to baseball players in those supposedly gloried old days. Before the days of free agency, players were paid far far less than they would have been paid in an open and free market. You'd think that if anybody would have understood the importance of providing proper compensation for individual performance in line with the spirit of the game of baseball, it would have been the baseball team owners themselves. But I digress... Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71406t=71399 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
douglas mizell wrote: not. I honestly cannot comment on the job market at home except to say it sounds dismal, if there really are CCIE's out there fighting over $35K jobs than to hell with this whole idea, open a taco stand. Which is why a growing number of them are leaving the industry. Without naming names (I want to respect their privacy), I can now count in double figures the number of CCIE's who have left the field for othe work. Some have gone back to being UNIX admins, which is what they had been doing before they got into networks. Some are in graduate school. Some have finished graduate school and are in entirely different fields - strategy consulting, Wall Street, etc. I know one who became a real-estate agent. Invariably they all say the same thing, which is that while networks are interesting, they gotta do what they gotta do to pay the bills, and if networks aren't going to butter their bread, they have to find something that will. And in some cases, they butter their bread with Lurpak. The guy who's a real-estate agent now makes several times more than he ever made as a network guy even during the dotcom boom. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71320t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: That is anecdotal nonsense. Any major corporation in need of real techs and that has a Cisco infrastructure will certainly consider CCIEs very seriously, yes even above so-called CS degree holders without much experience, for technical lead positions. I can bring examples that are not merely anecdotal. At the risk of restarting a war, that's a bit unfair, don't you think? You're saying that a CCIE (with experience, although you left that part unstated) will be considered above a degree-holder without experience for a lead position. I think it's more fair to say that nobody without experience will ever be considered for a lead position, regardless of other qualifications. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71322t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Carroll Kong wrote: Even NRF has mentioned diversity is the key, Even me, eh? Ouch. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71321t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
- jvd wrote: I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say about this post? So basically, you want us to lie, eh? ;-. Seriously, CCIE salaries have been down for awhile and any honest discussion about salaries is going to be necessarily negative. When something's black, it would be a lie to call it white. As far as the original question, so much depends on your experience level, the geographical location, things like holding a degree (or not). Strong candidates that have lots of experience, are well educated, and are in places can still pull nice salaries. But I'm also aware of CCIE's applying for positions that pay less than 30k - and not getting them. The point is that the CCIE by itself guarantees nothing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71196t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Duy Nguyen wrote: If it comes down to money. Why not increase the rate? I've remember when the price for exam was only a G. When they decided to raise the price, peeps start to mumbleed and grumbleed how the test was getting so expensive, but that didn't stop peeps from taking the test. Raise it again if they want to value there flagship cert. Everyone would agree w/me that the value of the cert has a lot more value than the value put in to obtained the cert. Well... First, let me address your last sentence. I don't think the value is anywhere near as clearcut as you're implying. The value proposition is only clear if you pass in your first few attempts. But I know guys who have tried the test 10 times or more, all out of their own pocket. When you include travel costs, costs in personal time, and all the ancillary stuff, then the value proposition becomes very dicey. For example, I know a guy who has sunk more than $20 grand of his own money on testing (including travel costs, costs to get and maintain a home lab, interest, etc.), still hasn't passed, and if and when he ever does, I don't think he'll ever come close to ever making his money back. He's still trying because after you've sunk all that money, you really have no choice but to keep going (it's not like if he stops now he'll get his money back - what's spent is spent), but he knows and has admitted that this was a financial bloodbath for him. However, the crux of your argument is definitely true. Cisco has ample room to raise the costs of the test. A lot of candidates don't pay anyway because they're backed by their companies, so what do they care about the price? Cisco could tell all that found money and do all the things I and others have been proposing for awhile now. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71197t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: The way I see it, which judging by the responses is wrong, you start a business by doing what you know how to do. I can't start a business making paper because I have no clue how to do that. A big corporation can do that by simply buying another company out. But that big corp started somewhere, probably by a person or group of persons doing what they know how to do, and doing it well. Since they did it well, they made a profit and the business prospered. Now we have an entity (the corp)that was assembled by the sweat of it's workers. That core group that gave the corp it's legs to stand on. I see that you are familiar with the works of Marx. Yet we are all familiar with how successful Marxism has been as an economic system. Allow me to inject some counterplay into your argument. First, it's not like those initial workers got nothing. At the very least, they got paid a salary. Secondly, when we're talking about the first few workers at a startup, more often than not those workers are handed pieces of equity in the form of stock options. Secretaries who worked at Microsoft from the very early days have gotten filthy rich precisely because of that equity. Third, and most importantly, it's not like those workers are forced to work there. They are free to quit whenever they want. If some other company offers them a better deal, they are free to take it at any time. So the analysis breaks down as follows. Let's say I create my startup company and I decide want to hire you as my secretary. So I make you some sort of compensation offer which you are free to accept or refuse. Obviously I have to give you some sort of offer that is comparable to all the other secretarial offers you may be getting from other companies, otherwise you're not going to work for me, you're going to work for those other companies. So let's say my company does does become big. Why exactly are you, as my secretary, entitled to rewards beyond what may be stipulated in any equity that I had agreed to give you? If I agreed to give you equity, then you deserve the appreciation of that equity, but nothing more. Did you really 'build' that company? Not really, most likely you just did secretarial work just like all the other thousands of other secretaries around the country do every day (for which you got paid just like every other secretary). So why do you have any unusual claim to the success of the company beyond what was agreed upon in an equity package? Just because you happened to be there, you deserve more benefits than the average secretary? I simply don't see it as giving the core group its legs to stand on - you did the same secretarial work as you would have done anywhere else and you were paid an accompanying secretarial salary just like anywhere else. Just because you happened to do that secretarial work at my startup company does not by itself give you claim to the success of my company. If you negotiated some equity in your employment contract, that's one thing, but you don't deserve anything more than what you negotiated. That's like saying that if my brother wins the lottery, I am somehow automatically entitled to part of it. If my brother wants to give me some of the winnings, that's one thing, but I have no right to demand it of him. If you think that you as a startup worker should enjoy the benefits from the success of the company, then by all means negotiate yourself an equity stake. Generally, startup negotiations tilt on how much salary you get vs. how much equity you want. The more equity you want, the less salary you are offered. Nowadays, I see that most people are leaning towards more salary and less equity because of the dotcom bust. But the point is, if you choose to trade salary for equity, you can't return later and say do-over if the company becomes big. If you agreed to trade equity for salary, then that was your choice. After all, what happens if the company doesn't do well - I can't say do-over either, I can't just give you equity in lieu of salary, I have to pay you what I said I was going to pay you. Along comes Joe or Josephine CEO, president, or whatever. They have a bug up their butt to make even more profit. After all their business worth (and salary) is dictated by the revenues they generate. They did not build that company, they have no sweat equity in it. What do they care if people are laid off for the sake of a couple million more dollars to the bottom line. The corp is making good cake now, but when is enough, enough? Is it when you have outsourced all of the depts that do not have a big profit center? When you have laid off all of the workers that built the machine? When you have nothing left but people who wear expensive suits and make ludicrous administrative policies? Yeah, I know this is over-the-top, but not too far. I have worked in places like this. Surely you would agree that that's a rather
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Duy Nguyen wrote: Would it be a good idea to make the CCIE Lab adaptive? 1st, everyone will try a screener test of overall technologies. Once you have finished, they will give you a lab book that they believe are more challenging to you. How many lab books do they have, maybe a hundred? So, in that case bootcamps would have a hard time knowing everything Cisco have up their sleeves. That's a decent first step. But I would go further. I would actually mix up the equipment. Let me explain. Another thing I've been thinking about for awhile is to have racks that are actually different. Why exactly does each test rack have to have exactly the same hardware - the same routers with the same interfaces, the same switches, the same everything? Why can't racks be different, except for the fact that such a thing is logistically easier for Cisco to run? For example, one rack could be all Catalyst switches. Another rack could have all routers with ISDN. Another rack could have all routers connected via ATM. I believe if you had a variety of racks, you could offer a test that was much more realistic. All the production networks in the real world are all different, so why should all the test networks be the same? Some real-world networks consist of mostly switches, some are dial-centric, some are ATM-oriented, some are like this, some are like that, and after all, since the test supposedly prepares you for the real world, doesn't that mean that it should also include some of the smorgasboard variety that you will see in the real world? Furthermore, one of the larger 'corrupting' factors I see these days is guys trying to build home-labs that exactly replicate the test rack. I'm not faulting the test candidates who do such a thing, because I understand why candidates would want to maximize their chances of passing. But I think the true purpose of the CCIE is to demonstrate acuity with technologies and concepts, not to run around trying to get a perfect facsimile of the test hardware. Again, the purpose of the CCIE, supposedly, is to prepare people to take on real-world networking. Let's say your boss gives you a network to run - say 100 Cat6500's - are you going to then need to have your own lab of 100 Cat 6500's before you can do anything useful? I hope not.The point is that if you have a good grounding of networking concepts, you should be able to flexibly adapt to any topology and any combination of networking hardware that's thrown at you. No network engineer will obviously be able to own test hardware that can actually replicate every single network in the world. Imagine taking a job at Worldcom - unless you're Bill Gates -you're not going to build your own test network that will replicate Worldcom. So why should this behavior be encouraged within the CCIE program? Let me reiterate, I'm not faulting individual test-takers for trying to get that test rack facsimile, I am faulting Cisco for encouraging this kind of behavior. It's simply yet another way that the test is not realistic. This sort of thing would be greatly reduced if you simply had lots of different test racks, which would imply that it would be daunting to actually try to get all the gear to properly replicate every single possible rack you might get (with all the different interfaces and whatnot), which would mean that the focus would shift from trying to get perfect copies of the test hardware to developing a deep understanding of the underlying technologies and concepts so that you can properly handle any topology and any hardware that is thrown at you, and that's really where the focus should have always been. The biggest objection I'm sure to hear are logistical arguments that I alluded to before. For example, some people will argue that it would be impossible to have lots of different kinds of racks in all the CCIE lab locations in the world. To that, I would say that, as a test candidate, since all the cabling is already done for you and you got all the figures and network diagrams, why exactly do the candidates even have to be in the same room as the racks at all? Put all the different racks in San Jose and all the locations can just connect to San Jose remotely through remote terminal servers. Anybody who's taken the lab lately (after they moved from 2 days to 1 and got rid of the cabling portion) can attest to the fact that as a candidate, you probably don't even look at your actual rack - that you really couldn't care less if the rack is right next to you. All you care about is what is the address of the console server and what pieces of gear are connected to each console connection. Where exactly the hardware is, who cares? Another objection is that such a thing would make the creation of tests harder, because you'd have different racks with obviously different connectivity which would imply that Cisco would need to spend more work in creating test questions. Yeah, so what? Cisco needs
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: Ok n rf... I will admit before I go any farther, this is a rant ;) You have hit the nail on the head. The one that puts me over the top. I am going to refer back to my first rant over CCIE numbers. hehehe. The part where Corporate America oughtta go hang out with the Nazis in S.A. When is enough, enough? NAFTA brought about the demise of the labor sector (as far as assembly line workers, and more menial tasks that employers did not want to pay minimum wage here to do). The spin was that higher tech jobs would be available. Well we had a nice run for about 8 years. Now the higher tech jobs are being farmed out to off-site locations. I can almost picture a bunch of poor souls locked in a NOC and having to ask to go to the bathroom like they do in the Mexican plants run by a few rich guys hired out to American interests. All in the name of $aving money. I haven't checked but I doubt Caterpillar passed on the savings when they moved their production facilities to Mexico. The way things are going the only jobs left will be food service and nurses. The only problem is nobody will be working to afford either one of the services. I changed career fileds in the mid-to-late nineties hoping I would be able to hold on to something worthwhile. I chose networking. It turned out to be an addiction. I love doing this stuff but un-employment sucks! In retrospect nursing would have been a better choice, but hey the market wasn't to good for them either back then. Will American companies EVER realize they have a commitment to keep this country strong. After all, if no one is working who will buy their services? I know you are not the cause, only the messenger. So please forgive my rant. Mark Well, as a free-market capitalist, I have several points to make * Own any stocks? Perhaps a mutual fund in a 401k? If so, guess what, you're part of the very Corporate America that you apparently despise. If you own shares in American companies, then your portfolio is helped by any and all cost-cutting moves made by those companies. *Ever use any foreign products? I bet you have. Just go out to the street and check out all the foreign cars. There's a good chance you have one in your garage. Or just look at the clothes you wear. I bet you that your underwear was made either in Mexico or in Asia. In fact, just take a look around your room at all the househood goods. How many of them were manufactured in other countries? Probably most of them. In fact, look at your PC. Probably only one component of your PC - the microprocessor - was actually manufactured in the US. Most of your PC was probably built in Asia. The point is that you as a consumer want the best product for the least cost. I want to pay as little as possible for my socks, which is why the socks I buy tend to be made in Mexico. I want to drink the best beer in the world, which is why the beer I buy is never American-made, it tends to be made in Germany. Surely you have bought goods that were made in other countries either because they are cheaper or higher quality or both. But if you choose the most optimal good, whether domestic or foreign, then is it really surprising to discover that companies will choose the most optimal workforce, whether domestic or foreign? * I detect a strong tone that American companies should hire only American workers, is that true? If so, does it then follow that foreign companies should hire only foreign workers? For example, should Nortel fire all its employees and replace them all with Canadians? Should the Shell oil refinery near my house eliminate all its American plant workers and replace them all with Brits? Should CBS fire all its American workers and replace them with Japanese (CBS is owned by Sony). The point is that turnabout is fair play. If you want to say that American companies should not employ foreigners, then you have to be prepared for the logical conclusion that foreign companies should not employ Americans. * I think your view of the future is a tad bleaker than it needs to be. While service-work will be more outsourced, what kind of work will stay here? Yes, the cable-monkey work. You will actually need a pair of hands here to do the grunt work. But what other kind of work? Simple - the business leadership/management, the finance, the sales, - in short, the high-end, high-touch, work that is not easily outsourced at all. And who tends to make more money, the engineers or the business leadership/finance/sales? Right. Therefore, the high-yield, high-margin work will stay here. Perhaps some historical perspective is in order. 200 years ago, the United States was a backwards nation on the fringes of the levers of power, where most of the citizenry worked in agriculture. 100 years later, the US was the strongest and most industrialized nation on earth. How else could this have happened had not millions
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953]
from the mountaintop and say Weee, here's how it is. You don't have a PhD and a wonderful stock portfolio so you can just go by the way side. No life for you. You don't have the education to be a CEO, you have morals so you can't go into sales. Management has been pretty shaky for a while too. I know guys afraid to lose their jobs because they know they can't find another one that pays as well without having a BA or BS or higher. First of all, if you don't have a BA or a BS, then you should probably think about getting one. Second of all, we've been through this before. In every recession there's an outcry warning of the death of the American worker. Yet the story of American economic history has been a story of nearly constantly rising living standards and nearly-ever-increasing per-capita incomes. I don't see why it would be any different this time. Americans have almost retooled themselves to stay 2 or 3 steps ahead of the rest of the world. Remember that the US has completely and successfully transformed its economy several times in its history - from predominantly agricultural to predominantly industrial to predominantly post-industrial/services. From your reply- in short, the high-end, high-touch, work that is not easily outsourced at all. And who tends to make more money, the engineers or the business leadership/finance/sales? Right. Therefore, the high-yield, high-margin work will stay here. great if you want to do this kind of work. Personally, I prefer the engineer's work. Hey, I prefer sitting around at home all day long watching basketball and eating potato chips. Let's face it, Mark. You can't always do what you want to do. That's life. Actually, I take that back (slightly). You CAN do whatever you want to do, but you can't expect that other people will pay you for it. I can indeed sit around at home watching ball and eating chips, but nobody's going to pay me for that. You can go be a network engineer, but nobody's obligated to pay you to do it. But because they have have to pay more than minimum wage to an engineer because it is skilled labor they want to outsource it. Can't pay some monkey with a mind for technology more than I am paying my masseuse! Yeah that's it, I'll teach the jerk. I just gotta find my business card from that outsourcing company specializing in off-site relocation, yeah that's the ticket. Now my stock will go up because my bottom line looks better and I'll get that big fat stock option. At the press conference I'll just state I did it for the shareholders when I tell them about all the layoffs. First of all, I would ask aren't those people who are now taking the newly outsourced jobs workers too? Sure, they may be in India, but Indians are people too - are you saying that Indians don't deserve jobs? That you are somehow more deserving than those Indians? Second of all, let's not go overboard with the layoff thing. Obviously if all you have to do to raise your stock price is lay people off, then why doesn't John Chambers just lay off everybody at Cisco except himself. Cisco would then be a company of one employee, and since Chambers is only taking a salary of $1 this year, the stock price would then go through the roof, right? Heck, why doesn't every company lay off everybody except the CEO? Either John Chambers is stupid for not realizing this (and if he's so stupid, then why exactly is he the CEO?), or the relationship between layoffs and stock prices is more complicated than I'm postulating. Somehow I don't think it's the former. All of this outsourcing and lowering the bottom line sounds really good for the company, but for the workers who put them in the position to be number one or twelve or whatever they are, it all boils down to one thing. LESS JOBS!!! I don't recall at the moment any press conferences from CEOs stating they rescinded their stock options, bonuses, or raises when times got tough. Well, some did. Notably John Chambers, who cut his salary to $1. Nope, they usually outsource and cut the jobs of the people who are trying to make a decent living w/o an Ivy League education. Give me a minute while I put my shields up! I am not minimizing the pain of people who have gone through layoffs. But on the other hand, this is the way the business cycle works. Sometimes business is good, and other times, business is bad. I didn't hear too many workers complaining during the dotcom boom days when lots of them were becoming millionaires. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70953] Mark E. Hayes wrote: Ok n rf... I will admit before I go any farther, this is a rant ;) You have hit the nail on the head. The one that puts me over the top. I am
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
MADMAN wrote: n The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon on the second day at which time the liberty was taken to destroy what you had built and you then had a couple of hours to put it back together. You know what I mean. At each stage of the game, you should have been done with significant time to spare. In the case of the 2 day lab, I was done on the first day by about 1-2, and on the morning of day 2, I was done at around 1030 or so, and done with the afternoon on day 2 by around 2. The point is that the CCIE is really not the speed-freak demon test that it's sometimes made out to be. People who pass rarely report being pressed for time, generally only the people who fail do. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71040t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Carroll Kong wrote: be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this is not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is becoming more popular and people have recently tapped into this market. The drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a LOT to do with bringing down this barrier to entry. Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that it's conclusive. Think of it logically - why would people be willing to consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if they don't work? Either all these people are all stupidly throwing their money away, or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test easier. PT Barnum said that while you can fool all the people some of the time and some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all the time. If bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would be common knowledge by now. Well, it is not so much if it was no value or not. It is more so is it worth the time and effort for people to develop bootcamps as a market. Back in the 2 day lab, sure, but not as big, since there were so few candidates. Now that we got the 1 day lab and more candidates you can sell more. I am saying it is possible that the rise of the bootcamps came from the clearly larger candidate pool since more candidates were allowed to take it. But that's really neither here nor there. At the end of the day, more bootcamps = easier test. Why there are more bootcamps around today is unimportant for purposes of this discussion. It doesn't matter why - so why ask why. All that matters is are there more bootcamps. Now again, I would reiterate that I don't have a problem with bootcamps per se. I see them as basically inevitable. But on the other hand, it does mean that Cisco must make the exam even more difficult to compensate for the effects of the bootcamps. I think learning new technology is kind of a mixed bag though. While yes, I do not see myself putting up BGP confederations and what not, you do get the ancient crowd who doesn't know what a VLAN is or isn't too interested in it since they have been deploying networks for 5 years, so they go with a monolithic flat network with daisy chained switches. Nevermind the subtle other issues that can come up with it, including ridiculously large broadcast domains which allow one rogue box to annihilate the entire network. So, where do you draw the line? In any event, I do not see the new technology issue to be a big deal. People have to get up to speed with the latest knobs of the new tech in any event, which goes back to the learning capacity. And like I said before, quite a few low numbered CCIEs have not touched a router for configuration or troubleshooting in years. Personally I think the best way to solve this problem is to force people to recertify by taking the current lab exam again. No more of this BS where guys can just take a written exam to recertify. You want to continue calling yourself a CCIE? Then you should have no problem in passing the lab again. Otherwise, we'll convert your status to 'retired CCIE' or CCIE emeritus or something like. key operating word there is 'rare'. For various reasons, I believe anything that could be done by IP multicasting could probably be done far easier either through a broadcast network (for example, right now through my digital cableTV service at home I get hundreds of TV channels - and quite frankly most of them suck - and with compression algorithms improving all the time, I may be getting thousands of channels in the near future) or through an application-level proxy/cache/CDN arrangement. But the point is that even the most fervent IP multicasting supporter has to concede that the technology hasn't exactly taken the world by storm. Yeah, the only one I can think of is possibly the financial realm and any attempt to distribute lots of channels (had an old VDSL project for a startup that required this). Therefore the argument that the newer CCIE test supposedly has more relevant technologies really doesn't hold water. In the case of BGP, most enterprises don't need it, in the case of route-reflection most enterprises don't know it and care about it, and in the case of IP multicasting, most enterprises don't know it, don't need it and don't care about it. Or, let me put it to you another way. The newest version of the CCIE no longer has IPX or tokenring. Yet I think I'm on safe ground when I say there are far more enterprises out there running tokenring and IPX than are running IP multicasting or BGP route reflection. Therefore, of the older or newer CCIE, which one is REALLY more relevant to present-day enterprise networks? Well, still might be a mixed bag there too. Like software, once something has been
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Looking [7:70816]
The dark side is that technology changes, and has a way of becoming more appliance like, meaning that what as skilled labor yesterday is out of the box tomorrow. Thin about it. All you folks who are AVVID experts and therefore in high demand. How long before AVVID is nothing more than another PBX, and routers self configure for QoS? Think the telco employee who drives the truck and installs your DSL is making 100K? not likely. There's an even more ominous trend afoot and what is ironic is that network engineers may be actively sowing the seeds of their own destruction. One of the holy grails of networking is to foster telecommuting and virtual offices - the idea was that through ever cheaper and more reliable bandwidth which enables ever more powerful and complete networks, you may never need to step foot in your office - you can replicate your entire office from your house using videoconferencing, unified communications, remote control of complete systems, and so forth. Sounds great, right? You don't waste time in a rush-hour commute, you can work while still watching the kids, and in short the quality of life of your employeer's improves dramatically - so there's no downside, right? Uh, well, not exactly. Virtual-offices sounds great when you realize that it frees you from geographical barriers until you realize that it also frees your employers from geographical barriers too. Specifically, employers can now hire workers from anywhere in the world, and we all know exactly what they're going to do - they're going to hire guys who are a hundred times more skilled than you but are wiling to work for a fraction of your salary. Guys from India, China, Russia, and places like that. Instead of hiring a bunch of high-priced American network engineers to run your NOC, you can just hire a bunch of guys from India on the cheap to watch over your network remotely, and just hire an American cable-monkey on minimum wage to do all the physical stuff like checking cables and racking gear. Or let's say you need a complete network design. Again, why hire an expensive American network designer when you can just send your design requirements to China and get back some well-done Visio's and router configs, and you can videoconference/whiteboard/IM your remote designer and hash out all the details to your heart's content, all for cheap. Sure, that might seem harsh, but surely you can see that if companies can use these tactics to save money, you know they will. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not a Luddite and I'm not a nativist. Truth be told, a lot of those guys from India, China, and Russia are smarter and work harder than many Americans. All you have to do is go any American high school and remark on just how lazy and unmotivated the kids are today. In this new global economy, service-oriented work is going to go to wherever the sharpest, cheapest, and hardest-working minds of the world happen to be. That's the way free-market capitalism works. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70911t=70816 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Technology, Certification, Skill Sets, and Loo [7:70915]
A lot of them aren't guys. They are women. In a lot of countries (certainly not all but a lot) there's way less prejudice against women being in high-tech. Of more importance, there aren't assumptions made in primary (elementary) and secondary (high school) that girls are bad at math. Instead, girls are encouraged, with an understanding that they tend to be better at many aspects of math. I was using the term 'guys' in the neuter sense of the word. :- Why don't you get involved in your local high school? Encourage more girls (and boys) to go into computer science. One major aspect of the problem that you describe is that fewer and fewer Amserican students are studying engineering and computer science. First off, I am heavily involved in my local schools. Second, I think the real issue is, quite frankly, the lack of incentives. When was the last time you saw an engineer or a computer guy depicted as cool on TV or in the movies? Little boys don't grow up dreaming of becoming engineers, they grow up dreaming up becoming the next Eminem or the next Kobe Bryant. Hey, why work hard in school to learn your math and science when if you can shoot hoops really well, you might get a $75 million shoe contract while you're only 18 years old (and just for endorsing shoes, I'm not even talking about getting paid for actually playing basketball), just like LeBron James? Same is true for little girls - again, what's the point of school when you could become the next Britney or the next Christina Aguilera? Put another way, kids make the calculation that they could either work hard through high school and college and get a steady middle-class income or they could take the shot of becoming a multimillionaire while they're still young. Is it surprising that many of them are lured by the siren song of the cool glamour and instant riches? Even those kids who are wiser and more realistically goal-oriented still do not choose CS or engineering for eminently defensible reasons. I remember back to my graduating college class - how many of the hungriest and most dynamic people chose engineering or CS? Not that many. The majority chose to enter fields like law, investment banking, sales, stockbroking, etc. Let's face it, CS and engineering are hard work. A lot of people think to themselves - why study my butt off to become an engineer when I can make double the salary by working on Wall Street? What I'm saying is that I can understand why American kids don't like CS or engineering. Simply put - it's not cool and they think they can get more bang for the buck by going into other fields. I believe that the US does not reward its engineers or CS guys sufficiently, relative to the amount of hard work it takes, instead choosing to reward its pop-culture icons and its salesmen/bankers/lawyers, and therefore is it any wonder that American kids don't really want to be the former and instead want to be the latter? Part of the problem is the prejudice against females. A bigger problem is that our schools suck. The government spends our money attacking other cultures instead of developing our own. I believe that while there may have been prejudice against girls in math/science in the past, I don't know if this continues to happen. Or if there still is, then girls are successfully defeating it, just like Asian-Americans and Jews continue to fight (and fight successfully) endemic prejudice within higher-education admissions rounds. This obviously does not condone prejudice of any kind (why can't people be judged fairly, and whoever wins wins?), but the fact of the matter is that when compared at the same age, girls tend to be far more mature than boys, and as a result, girls are beginning to dominate schools academically. Consider this report from 60 Minutes: ...it's the boys who could use a little help in school, where they're falling behind their female counterparts. And if you think it's just boys from the inner cities, think again. It's happening in all segments of society, in all 50 states. That's why more and more educators are calling for a new national effort to put boys on an equal footing with their sisters. Lesley Stahl reports. At graduation ceremonies last June at Hanover High School in Massachusetts, it was the ninth year in a row that a girl was on the podium as school valedictorian. Girls also took home nearly all the honors, including the science prize, says principal Peter Badalament. [Girls] tend to dominate the landscape academically right now, he says, even in math and science. The school's advanced placement classes, which admit only the most qualified students, are often 70 percent to 80 percent girls. This includes calculus. And in AP biology, there was not a single boy. According to Badalment, three out of four of the class leadership positions, including the class presidents, are girls. In the National Honor Society, almost all of the officers are girls. The
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Vikram JeetSingh wrote: OK... My dear friend, NRF, over here is fired up and ready to go on anyone, who responds on this thread. :) Nothing personal, but you did mentioned, or rather gave a lot of stress on maintaining crime-less life (I am not able to understand the reason for the same, did I mentioned that I was advocating criminals, or are higher number CCIEs are? not sure) then, you mentioned that knowing English is necessary or prudent for finding a job in US. Well (though I know English reasonably well, but) I will like to ask you one thing, do one has IT jobs in US only?, I am located in India, so does that means that there is a complete lack of Networking or IT jobs in India..? First of all, I didn't say that. I said that you need to speak the language of whatever country you have to be in if you want to maximize your chances of getting a job there.It should surprise absolutely no-one to discover tha the ability to actually communicate with the people around you is important. This really falls under the category of duh. But at the risk of opening up a huge and dangerous can of worms, about the notion of jobs in India, well, you tell me. I don't want to get into a nationalistic debate here, but where did the Internet (as the Arpanet) start - in Indian universities, or in American universities? I have great respect for Indian engineers and I've worked with many highly competent Indian network engineers who've immigrated here to the US, but honestly, how many Americans move to India for networking jobs? Surely you would agree that there are more Indians that come to the US to find work as network engineers than vice versa. If there truly are more IT jobs in India than in the US, then it should follow that more Americans should be moving to India to get those jobs than Indians coming to the US. This is precisely why poor Mexicans come to the US to find jobs but poor Americans don't go to Mexico to find jobs. Now don't get me wrong, I give credit where credit is due - India has made great strides in the last few decades for no doubt the IIT system is a stellar educational system, and cities like Bangalore have become world-class IT centers. But the fact is, there still tends to be more opportunity for network engineers in the US than in India. The gap is not as large as it used to be, for India is improving rapidly, but there's still a gap. The proof of that is simple - many Indians, including many of the best IIT graduates, come to the US to find work, but hardly ever vice versa. For example, I've worked with several IIT graduates who were born and raised in India and have moved to Silicon Valley. They came here because they felt there were better economic opportunities here. And even in this recession, they are still here even though they are obviously free to go back to India at anytime. Yet yow many Americans (born and raised in the US) go to, say, MIT, and then decide to move to India to advance themselves economically? While there are some, there aren't as many as there are Indians who come here. That should tell you something. Coming back to the main thread, (though people do deviate from the main threads and wander around, and my response was totally focused on Peter's response), I am not a CCIE, yet, but whenever I get this number for me, be it 12000 or 2, I will not trade it for any lower number. It will be MY number, and I will not like to part with it. And, while we are discussing the importance or value of the CCIE program, why was it the case that we had to start this number trading exercise? If you read the whole thread starting from the very beginning , you will see that basically this whole thread has to do with the decline of the CCIE. My 'killer-proof' of this is that many, and dare I say, most people, if they are being honest with themselves, will admit that they would like to have a lower CCIE number for themselves if possible. Therefore I don't really need to present any numerical evidence of this decline because most people already realize this decline in their own heart. However, you and Peter van Oene wanted to digress into a general discussion about how to get a job. While I'm happy to oblige, I would say that such a discussion is not really germane to the central topic - what has happened to the CCIE program. I agree with both you and Peter that the CCIE is really only a minor factor in terms of getting a job - a far more important factor are the people you know, and probably even more important than that is not being a criminal, not engaging in destructive personal lifestyle choices, and actually being able to speak the language of the country you hope to work in. But none of these factors has anything to do with whether the CCIE has declined or not, and that's why I want to get back to the central discussion. If you want to hold another discussion about how to get a job, again, I'm happy to
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Carroll Kong wrote: Those three have pretty much echoed my themes. Hansang, in fact, has admitted that he accelerated his ccie studies so that he would take (and pass) the 2-day exam because he didn't want to run the risk of being known as an asterisk-ccie (meaning the one-day ccie). I know someone who took both the two day and one day. He felt the one day was harder. He might have been an exception, I do not know any other two dayers who took a one day. You just met another one. Hello, pleased to meet you, you can call me the notorious nrf. He was RS first, then he just got a Security one to get the double. Of all the CCIEs I do know, none of them ever wanted to really take it again (except one other CCIE I know... he wants to see if he still got the touch!) Hey, I don't want to take either of them again if I don't have to. But if I was forced to make a choice, I'd prefer to take the singlet over the doublet. It's like being punched in the face once vs. being punched twice. While I agree to some degree about how the old style might have been harder to some degree, I feel it is more of a preference. I think depending on the kind of problem solver you are, one will appear easier than the other and vice versa. I only took the one day, and all I have to say is it is a real speed torture exam. One slip up, and it's pretty much over. You have a SLIGHT margin of the error and that is only if you are very fast, both in the mind and on the keyboard. This is not to say if you are slower you are necessarily any less qualified, just, some people do not type as fast or take longer to formulate a very solid plan anyway. Those people suffer greatly from this new format. I'm afraid I have to disagree about the speed aspect of the test. The fact of the matter is that the speed component of the test is greatly overrated, whether we're talking about the 1 or the 2-day versions. Take the 1-day version of the test. The fact is, if you're not essentially done with everything by 1 or 2 PM, you're probably DOA. I remember in both of my successful 1-day tests, I sat around for about 2-3 hours at the end with nothing to do - I checked all my work, reread the test questions over and over again, and was quite frankly bored. The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Nor is my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews from different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it one day or two day). For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style than the two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct comparison now. The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed but with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. I suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes couldn't figure out on a web page. I agree that the physical element was dumb. But the troubleshooting section was absolutely critical, see below. The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed element from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a dynamic truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break your working network while you perform the exam. But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing networks. Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also means it might be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage.
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Vikram JeetSingh wrote: Hi All, I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some time. Quite a number of people have reverted back on this, but this one, (from Peter) is just kind of PERFECT. Priscilla also wrote on one of other threads, that for having a worthwhile career you just don't need good networking skills, but also good networking of people. And I am sure it works. I have seen quite some useful mails from NRF, but this one is a losing battle (NRF: don't mind friend, nothing personal) and what Peter has stated is perfectly right (of course as per me) So a CCIE number, does matter, but more so, since all the chances are that the lower number ones would be having more experience and better networking of people. And the higher numbered ones would be, in all chances, relatively new and also still into the stage of building their networking of people. Just my 2 cents :) I have never said that people-networking wasn't important. In fact, I have engaged in many newsgroup-post-wars where I have stated precisely that. Go reference some of my many posts on this newsgroup or on alt.certification.cisco on this very subject. However to talk about this subject is really to raise an issue that, for purposes of this discussion, is neither here nor there. The issue at hand is has the value of the CCIE declined over time, and the preponderance of the evidence seems to be that the answer is 'yes', given the fact that everybody, including myself, would like to trade their CCIE number for a lower one. Nor is the gambit that this has to do with the connection between a lower number and more experience have much, if anything, to do with it. I would ask even the lower-number and highly experienced CCIE's would they be neutral to trading their number for a higher one. I'm not asking them to think about trading their experience, just their number. If the CCIE hasn't declined, then they shouldn't care what number they are. But of course we all realize that they DO care, and care deeply. Raising other issues that have to do with employment is not really relevant in this thread. After all, if we wanted to go down that road, then why don't we raise ALL the issues that affect employment? I would say that certain other things are even more important than the people-networking in terms of finding work. For example, a criminal background. I don't care if you're the most brilliant engineer in the world, you're CCIE #1026, and you're on a first name basis with John Chambers - if you're a convicted serial-killer, you're going to have difficulty in finding work. Let's face it - no company is ever going to hire Charles Manson. We could talk about personal lifestyle choices. If you're a coke fiend, finding a job might not be easy for you. If you can't speak the language of the country in which you're trying to find a job, you will have great difficulty no matter how wonderful your other credentials you are. For example, surely you would agree that if you want to get a job as a network guy in the USA, this might be difficult if you can't speak English. But should we really be talking about those kinds of things? I don't think so, for they are not relevant to the discussion. The auspices of this discussion are necessarily narrow - basically what has happened to the value of the CCIE. This is not a general discussion about how to find a job, for which the first tenets should be don't commit crimes, don't make harmful lifestyle choices, and learn the language of the country that you're in, and then (and only then) can we talk about things like who-you-know and what your CCIE number is. Surely you would agree that such a complete discussion that talked about all these issues would be unnecessarily bloated and top-heavy. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70799t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cisco cert [7:70233]
Rajagopal Iyengar wrote: Dear all, I would like to add that as long as you are a CCIE its irrelevant becuase you are among the few who has that Internetworking Expert tag with you.Even though there are a lot of Boot camps lots of resources that are available for you to gain the knowledge to pass the most difficult certification.But it should also be remembered that its the person who has earned it has gone through the grind to get it.It takes atleast 6 months of dedicated preparation to atleast pass the Lab on the first attempt.I would like to ask one Question aren't most of the Network Engineers have an Engineering Degree as their Basic qualification does that mean that the value of the degree goes down?? Well, the answer is yes and no. Let me explain. Obviously the 'value' of the single and simple degree has declined over the years in the sense that a degree no longer guarantees you a job like it may have in the old days. For example, perhaps 200 years ago, if you had a degree, you were one of the very very few people in the world who did and consequently your chances of that degree'd person to be unemployed were almost nil (or at least, much smaller chance than a regular person to be unemployed). After all, 200 years ago, the majority of people even in advanced nations in the West could not even read or write. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Now of course, literacy is widespread as is college education. The upshot is that having a degree is not the special thing it used to be. Simple rules of supply and demand hold - if supply goes up, the equilibrium price or,in this case, the equilibrium wage, goes down. Certainly the proliferation of fly-by-night colleges and so forth have cheapened the overall value of the simple college degree. Therefore what has happened is that people don't just look to see whether you have a degree, but what school you got it from, what major you chose, what your GPA was, and so forth. Let's face it - some schools are simply more famous and more prestigious than others. Some majors are more difficult than others. So people have looked beyond the degree to assess the 'quality' of the degree. A guy who graduates with a 4.0 in physics from CalTech is going to be considered to be a higher-quality candidate than the guy who barely got by with a degree in art history from Podunk Community College. This same 'relativeness' of quality can and has been happening with the ccie. Let's face it - some CCIE's are simply better than others, and we all know it. But the point is that 'relativeness' ultimately enters into the fray whether we like it or not. Let me give you an example with the college degree. How do elite colleges retain their 'eliteness'? Simple - they only admit a certain fixed number of candidates per year. If you want to get into the Ivy League, you have to submit an application that is simply better than the applications of the other candidates of that year. You don't get admitted simply because you scored a certain number of points, you get admitted because you got more points than the other guys did. Hence, the competition is inherently relative. So while the overall value of a simple degree is getting cheapened, the value of a degree from, say, MIT is not. Either Cisco should impose the same 'relativeness' in the CCIE program, or the market will do it for them. For example, right now Cisco passes 150 ccie's per month. I can envision a scenario where 150 people still pass per month, but not by attaining a fixed score, but rather the top 150 scores of that month are passed. Obviously there are some logistical issues (you should really be comparing people who took the same exact version of the test, etc. etc.) but the general gist of it is that the ccie should be passing people who truly are 'experts', whatever the term 'expert' means at that particular time. Just like MIT admits the top high-school students every year, whatever 'top' happens to mean in that particular year, and in that way, they counteract the effect of Kaplan or PrincetonReview or any other kind of score-raising mechanism. The biggest objection to this idea seems to be that this introduces floating standards, which seems to be an oxymoron - that a guy who passed in one month might not pass in another. Well, yeah, that's the point. Think about it - the term 'expert' changes all the time. 10 years ago (before anybody had even heard of the Internet), an IP expert was basically somebody who could set up a basic IP network. Now, an IP expert would be somebody who knew a great deal about IP. Similarly, 50 years ago, practically no high school student would study calculus. 50 years ago, if you were a high school senior and you actually knew a little calculus, you were considered to be a math whiz, Nowadays, calculus is part of many high schools' standard curricula, and to be considered a high school math whiz, you have to know a lot
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Look, guys, the bottom line is this. The fact is, it is more desirable to have a lower-number ccie than it is to have a higher-number. I believe that this is so because the test was more rigorous in the past than it is today, but even if you don't believe this to be the case, you have to acknowledge that other people think so, and in particular, people who have hiring power think so. And since no man here is Bill Gates, we all have to work for a living, which means that we all have to get jobs, which means that we all have to impress those people who have hiring power. At the end of the day, those people have the jobs that we want, so we have to follow their rules even if we don't agree with them. I've heard a lot of objections in this thread to what I've been saying, and hey guys, it may surprise you, but I don't like what I'm saying any more than you guys do. I don't have a particularly low number. I've lost out on opportunities because my number was not deemed low enough by recruiters/HR/headhunters. And yes, just like a lot of people here, my first reaction was similar to you guys - I got pissed off at those recruiters/HR guys. But that was my first reaction. I then thought about it and I realized that it's not the recruiters fault that they're acting this way - they're doing it because the HR departments of the companies who they are scouting for told them to do it. And it's not really HR's fault either - I highly doubt that HR is spending all their time scheming to intentionally come up with unfair hiring practices just to screw guys like me over, like some kind of weird X-Files conspiracy (why would they want to waste their time trying to deliberately screw me and some of the other higher-number ccie's over when they've never even met us - what exactly does HR gain by doing this?). So why get ticked off at recruiters or at HR when they're only doing their jobs? I believe the real underlying root cause lies with Cisco itself for not properly maintaining the quality of the program. Again, I will pose a question I posed in my discussions with Mark Hayes in this thread - why are bootcamps thriving businesses? Because quite obviously they are selling what is in essence an improved chance to pass the test. In a nutshell, that's what you're really buying when you attend a bootcamp. If this was not the case, then why would people spend money to attend one? Now don't get me wrong - I'm not saying there's anything wrong with bootcamps per se (they're out to make money just like any other company) but it does mean that their existence makes the test easier and this effect must be counteracted by Cisco by making the exam even harder if you aim to maintain the same rigor of the program (another way to counteract the effect of bootcamps is to use relative scoring, but I digress). Otherwise you end up with the situation you have today - where guys are to a certain extent just buying their way to a cert. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70695t=70328 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: [NRF] Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to certain well-known elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's degree is born the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman Sachs will send recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And this is well understood - this is why parents want their kids to attend the best school they can. [JN] Yeah, but does the college happy HR dude (your idol) who says bachelors required on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support tech) pay attention to that? As far as he's concerned all BSs are BSs, and they are all superior to non-graduates. Remember that we are talking about IT jobs, not top mamanegent or top financial analyst positions. First of all, let me clear up that HR is not my idol. I too do not like many of the things that HR does. The difference is that I accept that HR has hiring power and I see little point in raging against the machine on this point. Why? What's the point? You can whine all you want and they're still going to have hiring power. It's far more efficient to simply accept that HR has hiring power and learn to follow their rules. Second of all, do you not think that if HR sees a degree from Harvard in a resume, he's going to give more weight to that resume than to a guy from Podunk Community College? Of course he would. Everybody would. Sure, he's not going to say that anybody who wants to get a job must have Crimson blood, but when it comes to making the first cut, you know what he's going to do. [NRF] First of all, what admissions fiasco? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please [JN] The admissions process is a fiasco, but that is another issue. Are you implying that all the certified people are getting perfect scores because of braindumps and bootcamps? No I am not, but you do concede that those things make certs easier? And because of the fixed-score nature of certs, that there is no relative-scoring mechanism that can compensate for this. To wit - if everybody who applied to Harvard presents a 1600 SAT, that doesn't mean that everybody gets admitted - the admissions decision now moves to other criteria because at the end of the day there are more applicants to Harvard than there are slots. But if everybody who attempts the CCIE is properly bootcamp-ed, then everybody can, in theory, pass. [NRF] that all of a sudden because of the abundance of information, everybody is now a star athlete or class president, or all those other factors that help [JN] Ah, I see, we wish for a hierarchial classification of tech in the same manner a college partitions its student body: i.e. a class president or class athlete, as in star router dude test# 652-STAR, a position in cert society achieved by fulfilling a number of criteria. Perhaps one such criterion is popularity among router dudes, most elegant telnet typist, and IOS orator. [JN] all in (stale) humor--:) The idea is that relative-scoring, which is a tactic used by every single reputable college (not counting community colleges and other open-admissions policies which everybody knows are not real colleges), serves as a proper counterbalance against the very phenomena that you seem to point out. Relative scoring should also be used in the ccie process to eliminate the problems with bootcamps. [NRF] And then you talk about what people do when they're in college. If students are using the Internet to cheat, then that's really a problem with cheating in general and not with information abundance. That's why schools are implementing policies to check for the very kind of cheating that you have stated - school administrators themselves are keeping tabs on websites where you can download papers and other such 'tools'. [JN] Is that so? So we shouldn't see a problem in braindumps, now, should we? Those who don't wish to cheat, don't cheat. Is that a fair assessment? So, should those who don't cheat get the chance to be evaluated fairly? I didn't say that, but what I am saying is that I doubt that cheating is any more widespread in the college ranks as it is in the cert ranks. [NRF] Yet the same thing applies just as equally to the certification process. [JN] I never said anything differently. [NRF] You talk about guys hacking test answers or getting ready-made term papers. Yet there have been several cases in Asia where CCIE proctors have been caught selling actual test questions on the black market. Right now, there are certain websites in China that will sell you these questions (I am obviously not going to name any of these websites here). And you talk about some people hiring term-paper franchises, yet people have engaged in the practice of hiring guys
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Mark W. Odette II wrote: Robert, the way you described your hiring/screening process is the way I wished all Corporate America job providers did it. It's nice to know that at least one business out there doesn't hide behind an HR group that isn't prepared to perform the screening process properly and/or fairly. Ah, but let's not give him more credit than he's due. Read my reply to him. Essentially, while Robert's practices are commendable, he left out a very important piece of information - namely out of all the original candidates who submitted resumes, how exactly did he figure out who was to be granted an interview? Obviously he used some sort of a screening process - # years of experience, ccie status (or lack thereof), degree (or lack therefore), etc. But it's obvious that he used something because it is simply impossible to grant an interview to absolutely everybody who submits a resume. And whatever screening process he used to whittle the numbers down to something manageable is inherently imperfect.Perhaps Robert's screen is better than ones used by HR departments around the world, but let's not kid ourselves here - it wasn't perfect. No matter what screen you do, you run the risk of throwing what may turn out to be your best candidate. And that's really the bottom line. While we would all obviously prefer not to be treated like some number, the fact is, no company is really prepared to properly investigate every single candidate thorougly. Every candidate is going to make some sweeping generalizations that while they may not be totally fair, are done in the name of economic efficiency. Degree'd people tend to be more productive than non-degree'd people. That doesn't mean that every single non-degree'd person is worse than every single degree'd person, but the general rule holds enough times that companies can and will use it as a screen. Things like that. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70692t=70328 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Craig Columbus wrote: passing from October 2002 to present. The most recent number I've seen is 11757. Which, averages about 170 people per month. Extrapolating to October, the number of people passing from Oct 2002 to Oct 2003 should turn out to be around 2044. My conclusion then, is that since the labs stay booked, and since the expected doubling of the people passing has not occurred, that the new lab is somewhat more difficult than the old lab. Therefore, the difficulty barrier was increased to partially, but not fully, counter the effects of lowering the quantity barrier (number of lab seats). Had the difficulty been raised enough to fully counter the quantity barrier, the number of those passing would have been held constant. Actually, I believe your numerical analysis is somewhat incomplete. At the same time that Cisco made the change from 2 days to 1, Cisco also (quietly) eliminated weekend testing. Also, Cisco has lately banked some test locations (i.e. Halifax). Finally, anecdotally I've been hearing that the number of empty seats in any particular location seems to be higher than it was in the past. For all these factors, I therefore don't think that there has been a true doubling of seats. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70696t=70328 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: Boy, for a guy who says that he wants to close the thread, you really have a lot to say. 1. Attacking his motives and attacking his character are mutually exclusive endeavors. I attack his motive of defaming the certification process itself in a series of different topics. I have not criticized any such commentary that balances all facts, but NRF's overall commentary does no such thing. Uh, how's that? At the end of the day you are refusing to deal with the issues at hand. Whether you choose to attack my motives or my character - whatever you want to call it - it's still out of bounds. You are either talking about the actual issues at hand, or you're not. Simple as that. Besides, character and motives are basically one and the same. Wouldn't somebody with bad character necessarily have bad motives? Is there really such a thing as a guy with bad character having good motives? Or vice versa? I don't think so. So really, when you say that you're questioning my motives but not my character, that's really a distinction without a difference. Look, the bottom line is this. I don't question your motives or your character. Don't do it to me. 2. There is the issue of devaluation of certifications due to the forces majeur that you mention, but the actual argument, it seems, you have missed as well. The entire focus seems to be on certification tracks and how worthless they are, not due to the actual market forces at play, but due to the very (alleged) inherent weakness of the certification process itself. Therefore, your well-thought out and long-winded (not meant as a pejorative) is too far off the mark. Why do you keep insisting on telling me what my own focus is? Don't you think I would know the focus of my own posts? When have I said in this particular thread that all certifications were worthless? In fact, you could easily say quite the opposite - I have said several times that certain certifications, namely low-number CCIE's, are in fact quite valuable. So how does that jive with your accusation that I am somehow painting all certifications as worthless, when in fact I have singled out a certification subset as worthy? Oh, but I get it, you keep insisting that I am actually bashing all certs as a stealth undercurrent thesis, despite the fact that I think everybody in this ng would agree that I don't exactly do stealth. If I want to say something, I'm going to say it. Here's an idea, Jack. Instead of debating me on what you believe the undercurrents of my words are saying, why not debate me on what I'm ACTUALLY saying? To do otherwise is really to engage in that character assassination and shooting-of-the-messenger that is simply uncouth. 2b. The second repetitively implied undertext is that of the (alleged) superiority of college education, the original method of degradation and defamation of the certificiation process itself. I dismissed this as a comparison between apples and oranges with the intent to devalue oranges by judging their value in apple terms. If you have read my posts at all, you will know my position on this. I can repost the relevant content if you wish. There you go again with the implied undertext. How the heck am I supposed to prove a negative? You can always accuse anybody of using subliminal messages and codewords, and what the heck am I supposed to do about it? Nobody can prove a negative. But once again, I ask you, why not debate me on my actual words, rather than what you insinuate my words to mean? To me, this particular thread only has to do with the decline in value of the CCIE as related to the value of lower vs. higher-number CCIE's - the value of college education has nothing to do with it. If you want to start your own thread about that, I'm happy to oblige. But for now, let's stick to the subject at hand. 2c. All (mostly alleged, some legitimately identifiable) flaws of certification were constantly addressed by NRF, but none of the flaws associated with the college degree programs were even cited. Thus, a lack of balance that is consistent in his writings. In a nutshell, I have pointed that all the ills that the MCSE or CCNA/CCNP/CCIE tracks are plauged with also plague the university programs. One example is that plagiarism off the web is a huge concern among college deans, so far forcing them to hire specialists who track down web-based term papers for sale. Why have I not addressed then? Surprise surprise, because I am not talking about the value of college in this thread. Only you are. Why are you stunned to discover that I have not discussed things thatare not related to the subject at hand? What exactly does the value of college have anything to do with the decline in value of the CCIE, as demonstrated by the value of lower and higher-number CCIE's? 3. The new topic of number of CCIEs appears to me to be a part of a series of
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Steve Wilson wrote: Thank you gents, I have come to the conclusion that Jack and NRF is one and the same person. Anyone who has seen, or read, Fight Club will recognise the symptoms. Any minute now NRF will shoot himself through the mouth and end it all. I think I really am going to go postal if people continue to accuse me of attempting to convey some hidden message using some underlying subterfuge, Morse code, esperanto, smoke-signals, interpretive dance, subliminal messages (buy CocaCola! Jennifer Lopez - come over to my place), invisible ink, Thieves' Cant, or any other form of communication besides plain English . Oh, what nrf said is this, but what he's actually secretly trying to say is something else entirely, and I know this because I have something that nobody else has - my own nrf-secret-decoder-ring. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70534t=70328 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: hehehe!!! Well done. I enjoyed that retort. I have to admit that I did not know there were lab bootcamps. All of the bootcamps I have seen are for the written test. How much does a CCIE lab bootcamp run? I earned my MCSE and CCNA fair and square, even though, I did attend bootcamps out of curiosity. It was a great experience. If I could attend a lab bootcamp I probably would. Yeah, see? Now that you know about them, you want to go, and why do you want to go? Obviously because they're going to give you an advantage (clearly it's foolish to spend money on a bootcamp if it doesn't give you any advantage). Therefore you must admit that bootcamps must make it easier for people to pass the test (again, if this was not the case, why would anybody go to them?). So now we're finally clearing up some of the points I've been saying all along - that there are things that exist today, like bootcamps, that make the test easier than it was in the past, when there were no bootcamps. Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with bootcamps per se, but it does mean that Cisco needs to compensate for them by making the test harder. As far as starting my own business, I am glad to say I am in the throes of doing that now. At least the boss will be fair. Excellent. I see one person is putting their money where his mouth is. There is a perpetual line of guys who complain about how the corporate world works, yet those people who REALLY don't like it should simply start their own company. The vociferously stated opinions of my first post, low class though they may be, were used to make a point, much like the smugness in your tongue-in-cheek comments about how the real world is. I am well aware of how the real world is. I've been unemployed for 7 months and have been told on several occasions I am shoe-in for a job, until I'm asked if I have a U.S. DoD clearance. And no, I'm not whining. Talk about your cannabilistic world there (IT DoD). Your views tend to knock certs a little bit. That's fine, to each their own. May be you prefer academia instead. A whole 'nuther post there. I've worked with some real winners who've had a master's. One guy even asked me how to spell Chinese. I asked him if remedial spelling was on the Master's track. Now if you want to talk about how the real world is it goes like this. Company A could give a rat's arse whether or not I live or die, as long as they get what they want... A lot of work for little pay or as little as they have to cough up. Doesn't matter if I have a PhD or just finished third grade. I accepted that fact along time ago. College does no more to prepare people for the real world than certs do. Yet time after time a Bach's Deg is used to weed out the undesirables that chose to work instead of wasting life's precious time taking 128 credit hours for about 20 hours worth of relevant content. Whole another issue, which Mr. Nalbandian would happily like to talk about. Heck, he wants to talk about it so much that he's been accusing me of secretly talking about it using codewords. If you want to have this discussion, I am happy to oblige, but let's do it privately (I think I just made everybody smile when I said that). Yes, I do go to college for the relevant 20 hours. And yes, I am guilty of ranting again. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70535t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: [NRF] In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the CCIE lately. Not the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This is a [JN] Your overall approach has a pattern to it, and your response ironically reenforces the notion. The number of CCIE thread merely complements the entire line of reasoning that you have thus far been feeding the topic of credentials in general. Below is again a case in point. [NRF] And now to your specific points. All education does not suffer from an abundance of information, for one specific reason. Education uses relative scoring, something that I've advocated for awhile. You want to get into college, especially an elite one? You can't just present a summation of qualifications. You win admission by beating out the other guy. If the other guy raises his game, then you have to raise you game too. Top colleges therefore retains their elite status precisely because they are always admitting the very best students, whatever best happens to mean at that particular time. If all students all of a sudden have access to more information, it doesn't matter, because the those colleges will still skim from the top, whatever the top happens to be. Therefore they will always do a good job of identifying whoever the top students happen to be. Relative scoring ensures that this happens. [JN] Admissions to a college is merely a step along the cheat ladder for many, and there are many supplemental colleges and universities that hand out the bachelors for those who fail the first admissions hurdle. Therefore, the overall picture is as dismal as that of the cert: i.e. Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to certain well-known elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's degree is born the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman Sachs will send recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And this is well understood - this is why parents want their kids to attend the best school they can. Bachelors holders in various fields oversupply the market and cause for unemployment of their peers. For example, there is no national engineer graduate limit to contend with. More, if the student has completed his education and testing with enough abundance of information, then his GPA and other such qualifications are also privy to such informational corruption. After the admission fiasco, you will once again have the typical student cram relentlessly during his college tenure, tempting him/her to once again reap the old Internet harvest of information. I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. First of all, what admissions fiasco? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please show me this statistic where it shows this is happening. Are you saying that all of a sudden because of the abundance of information, everybody is now a star athlete or class president, or all those other factors that help you gain admission? There can only be one star quarterback, there can only be one class president, there can only be one head cheerleader. Are you saying that because of the information explosion, everybody's now getting a perfect 4.0 high school GPA? Again, I don't see that happening, and if it is, then it's really the fault of high-school grade inflation, not with the abundance of information per se. And then you talk about what people do when they're in college. If students are using the Internet to cheat, then that's really a problem with cheating in general and not with information abundance. That's why schools are implementing policies to check for the very kind of cheating that you have stated - school administrators themselves are keeping tabs on websites where you can download papers and other such 'tools'. He will have his myriad choice of cheating, whether that is by way of hacked test answers, ready made term papers on any given subject on the net, or by way of paid for term paper writing franchises. This is an irrelevancy that is repeatedly used by your argumentation. Yet the same thing applies just as equally to the certification process. You talk about guys hacking test answers or getting ready-made term papers. Yet there have been several cases in Asia where CCIE proctors have been caught selling actual test questions on the black market. Right now, there are certain websites in China that will sell you these questions (I am obviously not going to name any of these websites here). And you talk about some people hiring term-paper franchises, yet people have engaged in the practice of hiring guys to take their CCIE test for them. The point is that cheating cuts both ways. Every single cheating method that you have mentioned in the academic
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading in numbers goes- It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I am only a CCNA now and working on my NP. I feel the reason for the headhunters and HR types to value a lower number is due to pure ignorance. Like that matters. You know how it is. It doesn't matter whether you think they're being stupid or not. If they have the jobs and you want a job, then you have to play by their rules, simple as that. Whether you agree with those rules is beside the point. Think about it, when the rent comes due, you either have the money to pay or you don't. You really think your landlord wants to hear you whine that you're broke because you can't get a job because HR is stupid? That's my point exactly. I don't think they're being ignorant or stupid at all - but even if they were, that doesn't change much. At the end of the day you end up in the same place that I am - you admit to yourself that a lower number is better, it's just that we get to the same place for different reasons. My reason is that the lower number does tend to convey higher quality. Your reason is that while you think this is untrue, a lot of people who have hiring power believe it, so you prefer the lower number for yourself simply to satisfy those people. But so what? We still end up in the same place. Most of them can't find their own ass with both hands and a GPS receiver. So? The reality is that they still have power over you, because they have the power to determine who gets a job and who doesn't. You can whine and moan about it all you want, and they will still have power over you. You don't like it? Too bad. It is what it is. Again, I would ask you to be pragmatic. At the end of the day, you want something (a job) that they have the power to grant, and therefore you need to jump through their hoops, no matter how stupid you might think they are. That's life. This comment though insulting, is aimed at the hiring side of IT. This is not aimed at the rest of their functions. I personally feel corp America should move to Argentina and Ecuador and hang out with the rest of the surviving Nazis. 'Course then we'd have a Fourth Reich to contend with and anybody who tried to make a decent living with anything less than a Bachelor's Degree would be castrated or asked to take a shower. Heh! Well, tell us how you REALLY feel. Look, at the end of the day, there are things that corporate America dictates that they want out of their job candidates. Ranting and raving about it isn't going to change anything. They have the jobs so they set the rules. If you REALLY REALLY don't like the hiring practices of corporate America, then fine, start your own company and then you can dictate whatever terms you want out of the people you hire. I don't see anybody stopping you.. It's utter BS to believe a lower numbered CCIE is any better than a higher numbered CCIE. A lab is a lab is a lab of course. Right Wilbur? As far as I know (famous last words but I am not pussing out), there are no BootCamps for the lab portion. The test portion yes, the lab no. Ahem. Ahem. Are you serious?? Did you just seriously say that? Man, I had to check my news client several times to make sure I heard you right. Uh, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but groupstudy itself was essentially started by one of the bigger lab bootcamp vendors around - CCbootcamp. I don't even think that groupstudy would have gotten off the ground without ccbootcamp. It's now sponsored by not only ccbootcamp, but also by HelloComputers, cyscoexperts, and IPexperts who all make a lot of money off their lab bootcamps. Trust me, all these companies enjoy thriving business off their lab bootcamp sales. And second of all, a lab is not a lab is not a lab. The fact is, there have been constant fluctuations in the overall rigor of the lab. Labs are not created equal. I remember back in the old days when people would 'game' the lab by deliberately travelling to what they thought were easier test locations where the proctors and the test gear (back in the old days, each location had different racks) were reputedly easier. For example, I seem to recall people saying that if you didn't know SNA well, then don't even think of attempting the lab in RTP because that's where all the stud-SNA CCIE proctors were. This forced Cisco to standardize racks in each location and to rein in certain rogue proctors. There have been numerous, shall we say, security violations in certain of the test locations in Asia, with some proctors being caught, shall we say, engaging in illicit behavior. And besides, even today there are unavoidable fluctuations. For example, just by luck of the draw you might happen to get a version of the test that deals with easy subjects, but you could just as easily have been handed a version that deals with
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark W. Odette II wrote: Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR People- Out of CCIE 1025-, how many of them do you think are still actively with the program, still working in the industry, still are at the top of their game (i.e., could go back in and take the OLD LAB again), and are the Crhme of the crop that they have so valued them as??!?!?! There are reasons of human physiology and psychology that proves that the old saying is true... If you don't keep practicing a skill or knowledge through repetition, you simply will loose your edge. My hat is off to CCIE #1058 if he can still complete the OLD LAB blind folded and run circles around CCIE #10,269 in regards to the complex multi-protocol setup of DECNet, IPX, SNA, IP (w/ BGP, OSPF, EIGRP), and AppleTalk for a 8-10+ router network that was the result of 2 or more multi-hundred-thousand-node companies merging. But I must insert my own pessimism that I seriously doubt this is the case. This could be for any number of reasons, but I'm sure the number one reason is that it was too time-consuming and expensive to maintain such prestige. Not to mention, they probably got laid off for one reason or another in the past 3-5 years. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The value of the CCIE program was never really its immediate technology relevance per-se, but rather its rigor. Let me explain. Let's face it - in how many network jobs out there do you really configure a network from scratch? Honestly, how many? Only a small minority. And of that small minority, how many of those jobs would force you to set up said network under severe time pressure? Practically no network job is really like that. The vast majority of networking jobs involves maintaining an already-configured network. You most likely will not have to build a network, and you're almost certainly not going to have to do so in less than 8 hours. Furthermore, of those networks that you build, how many times are you actually going to be given excruciating details about how to do it. Is your boss really going to say have R1 peer with R2 and R3 with EIGRP, but not R4, and then set up a GRE tunnel over here and redistribute this, that and the other thing, and over here you can use a floating static, but nowhere else, etc. etc. etc.? Almost certainly not. Your boss is probably going to say that he wants you to provide networking services to these particular devices, and it's up to you to decide how to do that. If he was going to give you excruciating, nitpicking details about precisely how to set up the network, then why doesn't he just set it up himself? He'll probably spend more time explaining to you exactly what he wants than if he just did it himself. Therefore the point is that the CCIE has always been an artificial construct. Practically no real-world networking job is going to be like the lab. Historically, the value of the lab has not been because it's real-world (because it's not and I think everybody agrees that it's not) but because it's rigorous and because it involves networking problem-solving. THAT is the value of the lab. But that leads to my thesis - what has happened to the rigor of the lab. Forget about true real-world relevance, because that, to be perfectly honest, was never the source of the value of the test in the first place - never has been, and probably never will be. The value of the test is that it served as a proxy for a person's network problem-solving skills. So the real question now becomes whether it measures these skills as good as it did before. I would say no, and my proof is, again, everybody wants to trade for a lower number and nobody wants to trade for a higher one. Headhunters and Recruiters are more arrogant than those CCIE's that have been minted in the past 24 months. And they've been that way for at least the last decade. An engineer with Blah-blah-blah certifications is nothing but a potential for them making a huge commission for hooking up that engineer with the employer. And because of this arrogance, they have these BS ideals that CCIE# 6328 is truly expert, and CCIE #10524 doesn't deserve the respect of knowing much more than how to power on a piece of Cisco equipment. To put in your analogy format, that's like saying the M.D. that got his PHD 20 years ago, but got bored with continually going back to those medical conferences and continued education on advances in medical science is more preferential than the Doctor that has been practicing medicine for only the past 3 years. I bet is that the older Doc is going to continue performing tried and true procedures that have a greater risk of failure or permanent damage of some sort (could be scars, amputated limb, etc.) than the younger Doc that is current with procedures that result in more favorable outcomes for the same medical situations. So ask yourself why is it that all CCIE's
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
The Road Goes Ever On wrote: some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source. pray do not take offense, as none is intended. n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :- First of all, I didn't. LamyAlexander did. He asked a question, and I answered it. I believe that if you ask an honest question, you should get an honest answer.If you don't want to hear the answer, then make sure that nobody asks the question. Guys (not talking to you, Chuck, but to everybody else here), if you don't like this thread, don't get ticked off at me. I didn't start this thread. Take it up with LamyAlexander. Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. most of us on this list would take any number we could get! ;- Come on, Chuck. Don't try to run away from the question. Would you like a lower number if offered to you? Be honest, now. Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. so there are some idiot recruiters who are lockstepping with what thweir idiot employer / clients are asking for. I can recall when CCNA became all the rage, and there were some employers / recruiters who were turning down people with CCNP's. Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. As a job seeker, it behooves someone to focus on identifying the kind of people they want to work with and for, and those who should be avoided. I'm not saying that there aren't some stupid recruiters. But, first of all, (a theme that I've echoed again and again), why is it only one-way? If recruiters were stupid across the board, then some would be preferring low numbers, and some would be preferrig high numbers. But that's not happening. I've never seen anybody give preference to high numbers, only to low numbers. So it's one-way stupidity. Why is that? Second, it's not just recruiters, but HR people and others who are in charge of hiring. Maybe they're all stupid. But that's beside the point. The fact is, those people determine whether one gets hired or not. If they decide to use a requirement that you think is stupid, ranting and raving about it isn't going to change anything. If you need to put food on the table, you're going to need to jump through the hoops that the people who have jobs to give are asking you to jump through. Whether you think those hoops are stupid or not is not important. Sometimes you have to undergo things that you think are stupid. That's life. I think it's stupid that I have to stop at red lights at 3 in the morning when there's nobody around, but if I get pulled over, I can rant and rave to the cop about how stupid the situation is all I want, and I'm still going to get ticketted. Third, and most importantly, I don't know that it's just about recruiters. Again, I hate to sound like a broken record, but once you pass your lab, and Cisco offered to trade your number for a low one, would you take it? Honestly, now. Of course you would. I know I would. I don't know anybody who isn't being honest with himself that wouldn't. So it's not just recruiters who see what's going on. That's the point - the behavior of recruiters is only a symptom of the real issue. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Babylon By The Bay wrote: This whole thread has a whole LOL effect to it does it not? This seems to pop up every 6/8 weeks or so on GS... I mean anyone who has been in the business for any amount of time will be able to see through bullshit factor be (he/she) CCIE or not. Thats really what is at the heart of this thread is it not? Is CCIE really king of the hill or not? I say out loud - NOT! Absolutely true. I'm with you 110%. I think the CCIE has gotten far more hype than it deserves. I have said things to this effect time and time again, and famously so. For example, Jack Nalbandian is now apparently accusing me of using this whole thread as a 'flying-buttress' interconnect to my other posts about the value of certification vs. college (a bizarre accusation I must say - if I feel like talking about the value of college vs. certs, believe me, I'm going to talk about it). But I think you see on this thread that a lot of people apparently have a lot invested in the notion that the CCIE is the bee's knees and they simply will not suffer anybody who questions its value even just a little bit. Hey, the value of certification is declining. What! That's blasphemy - how dare you say such a thing!!! An individual who has just achieved CCIE is going to be hot or should I say peaked in their skill sets -Cisco wise. But does that translate into real world experience or not? Not really. There is a CCIE training website that lists an individual who achieved CCIE with ONLY 6 months training. (I'm not naming names but there's one for NFR.) OK, I have a simple solution to the perception of CCIE and experience question quasi CCIE after # so and so is not really a CCIE at the same level as CCIE# blah blah. Here's a couple of off the wall interview questions that will throw the uninitiated into doldrums - CCIE or NOT! How many CCIE's can explain why Sam Halabi is NOT a CCIE and why they worship him so How many CCIE's know who Tony Li is and upon who's door that he nailed his resignation letter upon??? I know the answers to all your questions. I also know some of the details of why Tony Li either left or got pushed out of(depending on whose version of the story you're hearing) another vendor which we'll just call 'J'. For those who keep belittling the CCIE or that Cisco should create a super CCIE - there already is - it's called a Cisco Fellow... And how many CCIE's have ever heard of them? Again, it all gets down to something I've been saying for awhile and that you agree with - that the CCIE is really only just a beginning. It's certainly not infallible. Headhunters are nothing more than used car sales people...IMHO... Used car salespeople that can sometimes get you jobs, however. Hey, maybe you and I are living large, but we all know that there are quite a few network people who are just scraping by and they gotta take work wherever they can find it. If a smarmy headhunter says jump, they ask how high and how many times? Enough said... - Original Message - From: The Road Goes Ever On To: Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source. pray do not take offense, as none is intended. n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :- Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. most of us on this list would take any number we could get! ;- Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. so there are some idiot recruiters who are lockstepping with what thweir idiot employer / clients are asking for. I can recall when CCNA became all the rage, and there were some employers / recruiters who were turning down people with CCNP's. Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: My friend NRF (what is your name anyhow?), Others have expressed concern, true, and most of them are legitimate. You mentioned that the MCSE was thought of as a means to get easy money from a relatively naive market faced with the new IT dimension. Expressing legitimate concern by citing facts has its value, but I see that you are indeed peddling myths, but, so far (forgive me for generalizing due to limited exposure to your thoughts) you have been very one-sided ad biased in your concerns. The CCIE number thread is based on some objective opinion of ONE person, you. You have also not provided data to back your opinion, and doubt very much that you can provide definitive data on the matter. It is not one-sided at all. Again, answer the question - all other things being equal, would you prefer a lower or a higher number for yourself or not? Of course you prefer a lower number. I know I do. Pretty much everybody does. So actually, I would say that the majority is on my side. The only difference is that some people like me are willing to admit it, and others aren't. But in our hearts, we all know what the truth is. Again, if you don't believe me, go look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly would you take a lower number if Cisco offered it to you? Be honest with yourself. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about and that's about as definitive as you're ever going to get. Who are those some people, those who (allegedly) required lower number CCIE's and what percentage of the global population of HR managers do they constitute? Do they, furthermore, qualify to judge either way? How expertly knowledgable are they of the CCIE certification process? How familiar are you? Once again with the ad-hominem attacks. Why do people insist on attacking my character and my motives rather than my actual points? First of all, I obviously don't think it's stupid that people who do hiring prefer the lower number. I think it's actually entirely logical. But fine, let's have it your way. Even if it was illogical, what does that prove? You ask how what makes these HR people qualified to judge? Simple. The mere fact that HR managers have jobs to give makes that person qualified to judge. Why? Simple - the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. If you want a job, and they have the jobs to give, then they are the ones with the power. They are the ones who tell you what they are looking for, and if you refuse to play by their rules, then they won't give you the job, simple as that. Unfair? Maybe. But get over it. That's life. If you have your own company, then you can decide what criteria you will use to hire. But if you don't, then you have to dance to the tune of the piper. Let me put it to you another way. Surely we all know that many companies prefer that certain positions be filled by college graduates, despite the fact that those positions don't really require anything that you would learn in college. So you might then say that it's stupid that they do things this way. Yeah, but at the end of the day, so what? Since they are the ones who have the jobs, they get to decide what they want. Ranting and raving about how you think the requirement is stupid isn't going to change their minds. Do you seriously believe that you'll be able to go to these companies and use your power of persuasion to convince them that their own requirement is stupid? Of course not. You either have want they want, or you'll be passed by. The key, therefore, is if you want that job, you should get that thing that they want, even if you don't agree that it's necessary. Telling companies that you don't agree with their hiring practices doesn't help you in paying the rent. Sometimes you gotta put up with things you don't agree with in order to get something you want (like a job). That's life. You gotta be pragmatic here. I hate stopping at red lights at 3 AM when there's nobody around to crash into. But hey, if I run one and get pulled over, am I really going to win an argument with the cop over how I shouldn't need to obey the light because there's nobody around? Of course not. He's gonna hand me a ticket and I'm going to be out $300, end of story. I stop at red lights at 3AM simply because I don't want to get a ticket. I think it's stupid that I would get one because there's nobody around to crash into, but that's neither here nor there. In the final analysis, I don't want a ticket, so I don't run those lights. In the final analysis, people go to college because they want to get those jobs for which a company says that a degree is necessary. In the final analysis, people desire a lower number because some HR guys/recruiters say that they prefer them. Whether you personally agree that things should be this way is not the issue. If you want the thing that people are offering (a job, not getting ticketted), then you
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: John, Perhaps your bias is based on the intrinsic value of longevity, of experience, associated with the lower number. You tell me. Another poster, Craig Columbus [EMAIL PROTECTED], pointed out market forces, to which I find no objection, however speculative it is. There is the trend of saturation of market with technicians, but the same argument, if it must, can be made against those holding the good old bachelors of engineering: e.g. those working their own ice cream stands throughout the country - if they are not yet exported to Singapore (speaking from the USA perspective). Again, NRF's stress is that of the inherent fallacy of the certification process itself, of the lack of value of the certification due to the lack of credibility associated with it due to, according to him, abundant over-supply of test related information. I respectfully disagree with that one-dimensional assessment, and the main objection that I make is that ALL educational programs suffer from such abundance of digitally/Internet based information. That is a weak argument in itself to justify promoting a myth that destroys the reputation of sometimes rigorous (if accomplished honestly) certification tracks. Uh, well there's an interesting take on things. Kind of a super-straw-man combined with an underhanded ad-hominem attack. Sort of like a two-for-one special. You purport to explain my underlying, stealth thesis and then you proceed to explain why my stealth thesis is flawed. First of all, I don't do stealth theses. If I wanted to attack certification in general in this thread, believe me, I would have done so, and done so explicitly. Why don't you leave the explanations of my own arguments to me? Who better to explain my own arguments but me? In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the CCIE lately. Not the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This is a localized attack. Not only do you keep trying to drag me into a whole different argument (about certs in general), but you claim that I'm the one who's actually bringing that issue out with X-files-ish subterfuge. Au contraire, mon frere. Please don't deconstruct my arguments in this thread into allegories, metaphors, smoke signals, and interpretive dance, but rather when have I actually stated in clear and present terms, that in this thread, I've indicated that I want to talk about certs in general? Please point out those words that I have said where I indicate that. Can't do it, can you? Exactly. And now to your specific points. All education does not suffer from an abundance of information, for one specific reason. Education uses relative scoring, something that I've advocated for awhile. You want to get into college, especially an elite one? You can't just present a summation of qualifications. You win admission by beating out the other guy. If the other guy raises his game, then you have to raise you game too. Top colleges therefore retains their elite status precisely because they are always admitting the very best students, whatever best happens to mean at that particular time. If all students all of a sudden have access to more information, it doesn't matter, because the those colleges will still skim from the top, whatever the top happens to be. Therefore they will always do a good job of identifying whoever the top students happen to be. Relative scoring ensures that this happens. I'll put it to you another way. In every sport, only one team can win the championship. If all of a sudden, all the players in the NFL discover a new way to lift weights that makes them super-strong and superfast, it doesn't threaten the integrity of the game because that means that all the players will play better, but there's still only 1 championship given out. The NFL doesn't have a set bar and whichever team happens to reach that bar is given a title ring. No, only one title is given out a year. It's inherently relative. The only hole in the CCIE certification that could be found, due to the lack of such Internet based information supply argument pertaining to the lab, is that of numbers. One individual says there are too many for the market, so you now have devaluation, but at least this individual does not attempt to degrade the educational and testing process of certification itself. The other individuals says higher number CCIEs are inferior due to the easier lab, to which some experienced in taking the lab exam object vehemently. And many others who are far more experienced in taking the lab interestingly enough agree with me. You be the judge. I think nrf is using this as a hypothetical examle to reinforce his point. He's not implying that it would be reasonable or likely. I feel that it does a good job of illustrating the point. Many people--not all, and maybe not even a majority--give
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
John Neiberger wrote: The Road Goes Ever On 6/9/03 3:14:32 PM n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Road Goes Ever On wrote: snip for brevety One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that up? have passing rates gone up or down? over what time period? with what technologies being tested? Again, I have the simple thought question - being perfectly honest, would you want to trade your number for a lower one or not? The prosecution rests. Call me a pollyanna if you will, but I consider such a thing as a kind of misrepresentation, and as such, I would not choose to be a party to it. Which is easy enough for me to say because this is a straw argument, one that cannot be honestly answered, because the fact is, no one is ever going to make that offer to you, me, or anyone else. I think nrf is using this as a hypothetical examle to reinforce his point. He's not implying that it would be reasonable or likely. I feel that it does a good job of illustrating the point. Many people--not all, and maybe not even a majority--give more weight in their own minds to CCIEs with lower numbers. I will admit to doing this myself sometimes, and right or wrong it demonstrates a bias that many share. This bias appears to be more and more prevalent among HR people and nrf is simply pointing this out while attempting to show that many of us, if we're honest, have the same bias. Excellent. So I'm not Cassandra after all. (For those who didn't catch the reference, you may want to read up on Greek mythology) John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70437t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RE: RE: RE: number of CCIE??? [7:70328]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: This constant blare of prejudicial bias in favor of college ed and to the definite disfavor of certification seems to come most intensely from your address. The undertext is always the same: Go to college. Woah, now there's something that completely came out of left field. When in any of my posts on this particular thread did I ever tell anybody to favor college over certification? I agre that in the past I have often advocated the benefits of college over certification, but not in this particular topic. And believe me, I think everybody on this board knows that I don't hold back, so if I wanted to talk about college, believe me, I would have talked about it, and done so explicitly. I've been described by many adjectives, some positive and some negative, but I don't think I've ever been described as 'subtle'. I don't believe in undertexts, I don't believe in subterfuge, and I don't believe in stealth. If something is on my mind, believe me, I'm going to say it. Is there a career-oriented quasi-political interest element at play here somewhere? Do you have a vested interest in recruiting people into college programs? Since you opened the door, I could very easily turn around and ask you whether you have a vested interest in cert programs? I am just asking speculative and rhetorical questions with the hope of shedding some light on this mysterious phenomenon of one-sided expression of concern for the (alleged) degradation of in this case certification programs. The CCIE itself, once dubbed the doctorate of networking is now under attack, and there have been numerous posts, only by NRF, dedicated to this topic. It is as though there is a one man crusade in progress here. Only by me? Really? So nobody else has ever expressed any concerns about certs? Is that right? If I look back, I see that this whole thread was started by somebody else. I also see some rather back-handed statements about certs by people like Chuck (the road goes ever on). Howard Berkowitz is clearly no fan of certs either. 1. If CCIE or any other sort of education is suffering from degradation and devaluation due to the oversaturation of test-related information on the Internet, then the same argument can be made to the detriment of the University. Why else would you have entire net anti-plagiarist policing firms offering their services to universities to guard against copy and paste term papers? Oh you're right. But colleges have one very powerful thing going for them - the use of relative scoring, which serves as the ultimate leveling tool. Basically, there is no 'set' score that you need to get admitted to a college - you win admission by basically beating out the other candidates.So if all candidates happen to all improve due to PrincetonReview SAT prep courses or whatever, it doesn't really threaten the integrity of the program because colleges are still going to take the top candidates, whatever the term top happens to mean at that time. The use of relative scoring provides inherent stability to the integrity of the program. I believe that the CCIE should use something similar. But I digress... 2. Any such argument that attempts to emphasize the value of college education at the expense of the certification tracks offered by MS, Cisco, or anyone else is doomed to be subjected to equally potent counter-arguments. The sad fact is that the Internet itself, ironically, has opened the door to billions of pages of information (thus, the info highway), a good portion of which will have its various corrupting effects. Any insistence on the superiority of one program over the other due to some integrity benchmark will only yield endless cycles of worhtless arguments. And again, relative scoring could fix all of that. Think about this. The 'E' in CCIE stands for expert. But what does it really mean to be an expert? Think about how you use the term 'expert' in your daily life. It means to be above average in that particular field, as defined by whatever 'average' is at that particular time. Therefore the term 'expert' is inherently relative to the standards of the time. Therefore, if all of a sudden, people got substantially more educated about IP networking, then that doesn't mean that everybody suddenly becomes an expert. To be an expert in this world would mean that you would REALLY have to know a lot about IP networking. Therefore it doesn't really matter if everybody has more access to information. At the end of the day, some people will always know more than others, and it is those people who are properly defined as experts under the relative definition of the term. I for one am still going through the pains of recertification, and I will do so joyfully (nope, without cheat sheets or practice tests). But, the good news is that I am also enrolling for CS degree (actually IT managment) next
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote: yawn. Bored? I don't want to be overly confrontational, but if you really thought this thread was so boring that you're yawning, then why did you bother to make a rebuttal to me in the first place? The fact that you did obviously means that you don't think it's THAT boring. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70356t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote: the intent of this list is to discuss preparation cisco exams, not opportunities in the various job markets. if your comments don't relate to the study blueprint in some meaninful way, please keep them to yourself. First of all, keep in mind that I didn't start this thread, Lamy Alexandre did. But I don't see you getting on his case, why not? You don't like the thread, take it up with the person who actually started it. Second of all, I've never seen you say anything about all the other threads that also have nothing to do with preparation with cisco exams. For example, right now I see some guy talking about 'religious wars', and I see another guy asking whether people are getting naughty emails from the group. It's not obvious to me that these posts have anything to do with Cisco certification, yet I don't see you telling those guys to keep their posts to themselves, why not? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70366t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
The Road Goes Ever On wrote: n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn't accelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the average quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. I respectfully disagree. True, there are more cheaters out there, and more practice labs, and the like. OTOH, Cisco is turning over the tests more often, and the test I saw a couple of mopnths ago was every bit as difficult as the one I saw a couple of years ago. You just said it right there, though, Chuck. More cheaters and more practice labs. That makes the process ultimately easier. I would add other factors, like changing the test from 2 days to 1, but I think you catch my drift. The exam still seems to thrive on silliness ( build a six router network with every known routing protocol, and force any and all peering to occur through at least two redistribution points, while forbidding static routes, routes to null 0, and default networks, and by the way, all your /22's must be reachable in all of your classful protocol routers which are all /29's or /28's, and try to get anything to work with the bizarre combinations of physical interfaces and subinterfaces that we give you ) But IMHO the test is no easier today than it was three years ago, anyway. In fact, I think the case can be made that the test is more, not less relevant than it was for those with numbers in the 4000-6000 series, where there was still substantial emphasis on obsolete vendor proprietary protocols I think the test itself is probably of comparable difficulty. But I'm talking about the entire test 'environment' which ultimately makes things easier. Bootcamps, practice labs, and all that. Let me put it to you this way. Let's say that I set a competition where everybody who runs 100 meters in 10 seconds or less gets a prize. My first batch of runners runs without the benefit of nutritional or chemical supplements. My second batch of runners have available to them anabolic steroids, androstenedione (think Mark McGwire), creatine, blood-doping, and every other supplement in the world. Sure, the test itself (can you run 100 m in 10 seconds) is of equivalent difficulty, but surely you would agree that things are easier for the second group of runners? Practice labs and braindumps would be the chemical supplements of the CCIE world. Now, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with bootcamps necessarily. But it does mean that Cisco needs to constantly raise the bar in order to keep the overall testing environment the same. For example, I should probably adjust the test difficult so that the second group has to run faster than the first group in order to win the prize, simply because the second group is chemically enhanced. just another opinion, worth hat you paid for it ;- Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not created equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually, numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote: you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower number cpa better than a higher numbered one? You got me wrong. I didn't say that lower is better at all times. Read my entire post again. I said that more rigorous equates to prestige. This is why I included my example of what would happen if Cisco decided to change the CCIE exam to become extremely rigorous - then eventually people would prize high-number CCIE's who passed the more rigorous version. The fact is, prestige follows rigor. If something is more rigorous, then it becomes rigorous and vice versa. This is why graduating from MIT is more prestigious than graduating from Podunk Community College. But the fact is, the CCIE on the whole has probably gotten more rigorous (i.e. chopping the test from 2 days to 1, eliminating the dedicated troubleshooting section, more bootcamps/braindumps, more cheating, etc. etc.) which is why it has become less prestigious. actually, probably the inverse is true as the more recent the certification the more recent the material covered. this is balanced against with age comes opportunities and experiences. Unfortunately, the free market disagrees with you. The fact is, a growing number of recruiters, headhunters, and HR people are starting to give preference to lower-number CCIE's. Go check out the groupstudy.jobs forum. Yet I have never heard of any recruiter giving preference to higher-number CCIE. It's always one-way, and that's my point. threads like this are like discussing the maximum number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. i vote we kill the thread before it spawn. later. - Original Message - From: n rf Date: Thursday, June 5, 2003 5:16 pm Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn'taccelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the averagequality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number,would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not createdequal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually,numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you alluded to several factors. While it is still rather controversial exactly how the switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is widely conceded that it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these braindumps all over the Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. The CCIE has certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out how to 'game' - for example, for example, some people who live near test sites just attempt the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is the consensusthat the CCIE program has simply not kept up with the growing amount of study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all know there's an entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to pass the lab, and while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Fernando Saldana del C wrote: Dear n fr, Which CCIE number are you ? What does it matter what my CCIE number is? How does that affect the validity of my statements? Either what Im saying is either true or it isnt, who I am has nothing to do with anything. Why cant people debate just on the merits of the argument? Are you trying to devalue more the networking jobs? As if I really had that kind of power over the market. I am just one person. If networking jobs are being devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it be so. The free market is composed of numerous economic entities. It would be the height of arrogance to think that I, as one person, could by myself manipulate the entire market merely with my words. If I really had that kind of power of persuasion, then I have a stellar career as a politician or a motivational speaker ahead of me, and I certainly wouldnt be wasting my time here. I think what people are really afraid of is that I am not acting alone that what Im saying is actually a growing consensus within the market. Think about it who really cares if I alone think one way if everybody else thinks the opposite? If such were the case, then my concerns could be easily dismissed. The real problem is that I am not alone that I am saying what the free market (which is comprised of numerous economic entites) is saying, which is that high-number CCIEs are on the whole treated with more skepticism than low-number CCIEs. Please be realistic you cannot compare a Software company with a Networking company. I am being entirely realistic. The fact is, in the history of IT certification, every single one ultimately declines in value. Happened with the CNE, happened with the MCSE, and is happening now with the CCIE. I looks like you are saying that the world will return to the stone age and communicate by messengers that will run log distance to take the information to the main site. Uh, interesting non-sequitur. When did I ever say anything like that? What I said is that on the whole, the CCIE program has gotten easier with time due to the proliferatio of bootcamps, braindumps, and other such supporting infrastructure. Therefore, anybody who has passed the CCIE lately has undergone a less rigorous test than those who passed the exam in the old days. Try to respect the networking field and rise its level. And how does anything I've said imply a lack of respect? Thank you Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70301t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do that. And when did I ever compare networking to a software company? Seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. About me 'devaluing' networking - how could I really doing that? Are you saying it's my fault that networking is devalued? Seriously. I am only 1 person. How could 1 person acting alone devalue networking in any measurable way? If I really had the power to manipulate entire markets like that, I'd be a multimillionaire and I certainly wouldn't be hanging out here on this ng. I think the real fear that people have is that I am not alone - that I really am telling the truth. If networking has been devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it should be devalued, and what is the free market but many individual entities all acting in their own self-interest? Therefore if networking has been devalued, it is because many people have decided that it be so. Not just me alone. About the cpa argument - I would argue that whenever the cpa test happened to be more difficult, then it would be more prestigious. Whenever anything is more difficult, it becomes more prestigious. Is that particularly shocking? Why is a degree from MIT more prestigious than a degree from Podunk Community College? Simple - graduating from MIT is harder than graduating from PCC. I even stated that if the CCIE all of a sudden got very very difficult starting today, then anybody who passed starting today would earn more prestige. Simply put - prestige follows rigor. And Chuck, you said it yourself - True, there are more cheaters out there, and more practice labs, and the like... - and those kinds of things are exactly what I'm talking about. Bottom line - the CCIE is not as hard to attain today as it was in the past, whether because of cheating or more practice materials, or whatever. You also said that the test is just as difficult today as it was in the past. But it's not just the test that I'm talking about, but rather the entire CCIE procedure that I'm talking about. The tests themselves may be of equivalent difficulty, but if there are more bootcamps and whatnot today, then ultimately that means that the CCIE procedure of today is easier. Sure test A and test B might be equal in difficulty, but if people are more bootcamp-ed to take test B, then ultimately passing test B is easier. Again, I don't think bootcamps are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that if you want to maintain the same level of difficulty, you have to compensate for the bootcamps by making test B even harder than test A. Otherwise, you end up with a situation where people who passed test A were good, but people who passed test B may not be quite as good, but had the benefit of bootcamps. Or let me put it to you another way. Surely you would agree that companies like Princeton Review and Kaplan make the SAT's easier. The SAT's fight back by using relative scoring - where your scores are calculated not absolutely, but relative to your peers, according to percentiles. (Incidentally, I think relative scoring is something the CCIE program could use, but I digress). But if ETS (the administrators of the SAT) were to use absolute scoring, then surely you would agree that a score of 1500
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Man, I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer. I have, many times. For example, just check out the archives at groupstudy.jobs. Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you think the value of CCIE title has drop. Huh? I didn't ask anything. What are you talking about? I think is fair to say, after you finished it than you will know what it take. Believe me, I know what it takes. See below. Please take the CCIE lab exam before you make any common on this subject. You are assuming that I have never taken the lab. What if I told you I have. So now, according to your rules, I now have the right to say anything I want, right? Of course the # mean a lot but the learning process was even more important. In fact, one consultant company just hires two new CCIE recently with 140K salaries per year. They both study at the same school that I went. And by the same token check out all the CCIE's who haven't found a a job for a very long time. Don't believe me? Again, go to groupstudy.jobs. Or alt.certification.cisco. Or forums.cisco.com. Or any other place where CCIE's tend to congregate and you can read the stories of CCIE's desperate to find work. This studygroup is a very valuable resource to us and everybody is working really hard to his or her dream. I will suggest that if you are scare about the increasing number of CCIE, please leave and seeking another valuable certification for yourself. I'm not scared about anything. I would ask whether you're scared that perhaps your high-number CCIE may not be particularly valuable. But is that my fault? Did I cause the high-number to be less valuable? I'm just saying that it is less valuable, but I did not make that happen. You don't like what I'm saying, take it up with the entity that is responsible - take it up with Cisco itself. Ask Cisco why they changed the test from 2 days to 1. Ask Cisco why they let braindumps proliferate. Ask Cisco why they got rid of the troubleshooting section of the test. Ask Cisco why they just let people come back every month and take the test over and over again until they finally pass. All these things hurt the integrity of the program. But none of them are my fault - they're Cisco's fault. Look, the facts are clear. The CCIE has declined in quality. This is why you have some recruiters giving preference to low-number CCIE's. But nobody is giving preference to high-number CCIE's. Why is that? Ask yourself why is it only one-way? It is inescapably because of the drop in quality of the program. But now ask yourself whose fault is that? It's certainly not my fault - I'm not responsible for keeping the quality of the program high. It's Cisco's fault. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70313t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes here. It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE number as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being better. I'm just telling you what I've seen. I think anybody who's been looking for work lately knows that this is happening. Whether they agree with it or not is besides the point. It's happening. Lower means that one obtained the certification earlier. Presumably, since the number was obtained, the individual has been working. This can mean that the lower-numbered candidate can present a solid track record of CCIE-level work experience to an employer, while the higher-numbered candidate simply may not have the experience. Which is why I provided the thought exercise of people trading their number. I didn't talk about people trading their experience level - just their number. For example, I'm fairly sure that CCIE #1100 will never willingly trade his number for #11,000. But why not - his experience level will stay the same. It's because that everybody realizes that there is a, dare I say it, a stigma attached to higher numbers - particularly to those guys who passed after the test was changed from 2 days to 1. The fact is, everybody wants to have the lowest number they can get, all other things being equal, and the inescapable reason behind this is that the test has declined in overall quality with time. For example, like I said, the change from 2 days to 1 was probably not a good thing. So was the loss of the dedicated troubleshooting section which was the one truly realistic part of the old exam. The proliferation of super-specialized bootcamps that are geared not to making a person a better overall engineer but geared strictly to help people pass the test and nothing more. Things like that have all chipped away at the rigor of the program. Now, let me point out this. It's not the fault of the recent CCIE's that things are like this. They're not the ones who are causing this decline. And it's certainly not my fault - I didn't cause this decline, so why are people jumping down my throat? You don't like it? Take it up with the entity that's responsible. The entity responsible is Cisco itself. It is Cisco that changed the test from 2 days to 1. It is Cisco that removed the troubleshooting section. I've never regarded certification, in any field, as more than an entry point. Let's put it this way -- when I had to have open-heart surgery, I could have chosen among several board-certified surgeons. The most important factors, however, were how many procedures they had done, and, even more importantly, how frequently they do them. Surgical statistics show, without question, that part-time cardiac surgeons and their teams do not have the good results of someone that does such procedures constantly. Let me put it to you this way, Howard. There have been quite a few rather emotional responses in this thread. So, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people seem to regard this particular certification as certainly a lot more than an entry point. If the CCIE wasn't a big deal, then nobody would really care that I'm pointing out problems with it. Therefore obviously some people believe that the stakes are high. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70312t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn't accelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the average quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not created equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually, numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you alluded to several factors. While it is still rather controversial exactly how the switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is widely conceded that it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these braindumps all over the Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. The CCIE has certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out how to 'game' - for example, for example, some people who live near test sites just attempt the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is the consensus that the CCIE program has simply not kept up with the growing amount of study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all know there's an entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to pass the lab, and while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does mean that Cisco needs to keep pace to maintain test rigor. To offer a parallel situation, when the MCSE bootcamps started to proliferate, the value of the MCSE plummeted because Microsoft did not properly maintain the rigor of the cert. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70184t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Prolonged BS Vs. CCNP ? Another alternative [7:69963]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: Another aspect that hasn't been discussed is the whole area of other skill sets, other than perhaps server skills and general management (MBA-ish). Now, I'll challenge the assumption of some people that say they don't want to be engineers and haul boxes around for their whole careers. Engineers do lots of things that don't involve hauling boxes, such as design, product management, presales, etc. Engineer != support technician. I would submit that all these alternatives are more easily achieved with a degree than with a cert. Things like presales, design, product-management and the like all require soft-skills that are better addressed via a degree program but are addressed poorly, if at all, by a cert program. Therefore the central point still stands - the degree gives you greater overall career flexibility than a cert will. No industry field outside the very narrow confines of network engineering gives much credence to the value of a Cisco cert, but every field values the degree. So the real question a person who chooses to forgo the degree in favor of Cisco certs has to ask himself is whether he is absolutely sure that he wants to do Cisco networking for the rest of his life, or does the possibility exist that he might want to do something else when he gets older? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69975t=69963 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: I still seem to be unable to get across the central point. It does not matter what is more potent or more reliable than the other. The point is that neither should be either undervalued or overvalued by way of unfair propaganda and preconceptions. I have experienced that a college degree holder can also be as incompetent and moronic as a non-holder, but I DO NOT go on a crusade to ridicule college education. Nor do I discourage someone from EARNING a degree, and, in fact, I completely agree with the idea that a bachelors degree should be EARNED when it is most opportune: early in life when not bogged down by life's responsbilities. Oh, believe me, I understand your central point. Trust me, you're getting across just fine. Yet I believe you're not giving proper emphasis to people who choose to earn their degrees later in life. True, such a thing is more difficult. But it's something that's performed by many. Just because you may have missed the train when you were young doesn't mean that you should't try to catch the next one later. I also, on the same exact and precise token, do not discourage people to EARN a certification from the vendor relevant to their current position to update their knowledge. I happen to have gained much from Cisco's program as well as MS's due to my particular area of work: Indepedent constultant. I don't have to prove that I have Harvard business knowledge when the reality that I deal with dictates that I understand NETWORKING principles. However, surely you would concede that having that business degree from Harvard would help your career. I'm an independent consultant also, and we both know that it's not like the old days anymore when you could win deals merely by demonstrating technical acumen. Surely you would agree that winning deals these days often times means showing a client how hiring you ultimately makes sense to him, which often times means that in addition to technical skill, it also takes an intimate understanding of business concepts like ROI, payback period, capital depreciation schedules, op-ex, and that sort of thing. Which gets to a point that I've been making for awhile. In the post-bubble networking industry, if all you know is network techologies, you really don't know much. The fact is, companies don't really care about the intricacies of BGP, ATM, QoS, or whatnot (they may say they care, but they don't actually care), they only care about how these things translate into money. The point is this. In the late 90's, you really could live just on certs and tech knowledge. To do so now is to live dangerously, as all the unemployed CCIE's can attest to. Tech skill is not enough - people need learn how the relationship between tech skill and money. Companies will hire you (or not) based on whether they think they will make money (or not) from doing so. It is a simple idea, and it is crucial to the welfare of each company: Judge each individual by their own merit as much as the situation allows and as the situation requires. I know companies who do this, and they are run most efficiently. Other who do not follow such principles always suffer from disgruntled employees. However, your argument suffers from a flaw of logic. See below. As to some of the points you outline (sorry I cannot get to all your points or if I have missed any): 1. Cisco's (and Microsoft's for that matter) example of who's on the Board of Directors or in management in general is irrelevant to the discussion except for the fact that they are managers, specifically managers. Those on the board or in management have proven themselves to be managers, while the CCIE's are proven technicians, network engineers. There is no Vendor cert for management. We are, yet again, devaluing something, an orange per se, by putting it in an apple contest. Irrelevant! Au contraire - entirely relevant. The fact is, many engineers (not all, but many) don't want to be engineers forever. I know if I'm still schlepping boxes in 20-30 years, I'm going to slit my wrists. The greatest value of the degree is that it gives you career flexibility - if you decide you want to do something else later in life, you can do it. Without that degree, you're basically stuck, with your only 'escape' being to found your own company, a la Gates. The real question you have to ask yourself is are you absolutely sure that you're content with being the tech guy forever? And in the case of the CCIE, are you content with being the network guy forever? And besides, it doesn't exactly jibe with your argument above that companies who place an emphasis on degrees seem to suffer from a high number of disgruntled employees. Microsoft, Cisco, and other such degree-oriented companies are perennial contenders for best companies to work for, as demonstrated by surveys run by Fortune Magazine and Businessweek. In fact, of all
Re: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
Yes, but it is the case for enough folks that it has started to cheapen the certs, just as grade inflation has damaged many universities. (For example, Stanford may be more prestigious than Berkeley, but at Stanford you can drop a class up to the day of the final. At Berkeley the deadline is 2 weeks. And the median grades at Berkeley are much lower. So I'd give more value to a degree from there.) The problem here is twofold. First of all, most people don't know that grade inflation has occurred. More than 90% of all Harvard undergrads will graduate will honors, but most people don't know that. http://tangra.si.umich.edu/~radev/ilist/0051.html And more importantly, it doesn't matter very much anyway. The fact is, the hardest part, by far, in graduating from the super-elite private schools is getting admitted in the first place. Stanford and the Ivy League, with the possible exception of Cornell, are actually pretty easy schools once you're in (Stanford and Harvard are notoriously easy), but, ay, there's the rub - getting in is an absolute killer. It's not exactly a cakewalk getting into Berkeley either, but it's far easier than getting into Stanford, particularly if you're a California resident. That is why people generally consider the Stanford undergrad degree slightly more prestigious than the Berkeley one, simply because the Stanford graduate was subjected to a much tougher admissions standard. Things change significantly, however, when you're talking about the graduate schools. Berkeley can arguably make the claim to having the best overall graduate school in the country. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69934t=69483 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
Jack, I would submit the following 2 points: First off, the fact is, college is on the whole proven to be a significantly more useful indicator of success than any cert. Think of Cisco itself. You would think that if any company knew the value of the CCIE program, it would be Cisco itself. Yet of the executive management in Cisco, how many CCIE's do you find? I believe the answer is zero. Now how many of them are college graduates? Exactly. Case closed. If you don't believe, it, see for yourself: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/exec_team/ Now ask yourself why is that? If certification was really so powerful than why doesn't Chambers just fire all his executive management and replace them with all CCIE's? Are you saying Chambers is being deliberately stupid in who he chooses to manage his company? If the college degree was really so useless, then why exactly do all of Cisco's top brass seem to have one? The same is true for every other large company. Bill Gates is perhaps the most famous and successful college dropouts in the world. You would think that if anybody would know the shortcomings of the degree, it would be him. Yet, every one of their Microsoft's top management positions is filled with degree'd people (if you don't believe it, look it up yourself - http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/default.asp), and usually from the most prestigious schools in the world. Is this a coincidence? Why doesn't Gates just fire all his managers and replace them with dropouts like himself? Are you saying you know more about how to run a business than Bill Gates? More likely, the most famous dropout in the world obviously thinks there is some value in that degree, otherwise why would he choose to fill his management with degree'd people? Secondly, even if you don't personally think that there is value in the degree, you conceded yourself that other people do. In particular, a lot of people who are in charge of hiring do. You've admitted yourself that you would have difficulty in getting hired in the Fortune 500 because you lack the degree and that you've lost deals to a competitor who had the sheepskin. Let's face it. While it's nice to follow your ideals, sometimes a little pragmatism needs to come into play. Sometimes you gotta do things you don't like and don't believe in. I, for example, think it's stupid that I have to stop at red lights at 3 in the morning when there's nobody around, but if I get pulled over, am I really going to convince the cop that since there's nobody out driving but me, I should be allowed to drive any way I want? Heck no. He's going to hand me a $250 ticket, and that's that. Similarly, if HR decides that a particular position will be filled only by a person with a degree, then you either have that degree or you don't. You're not going to get anywhere by arguing with them over how stupid you think that requirement is. They're the ones with the job, so they set the rules about who is eligible for that job, and if you don't have what they want, then you're not going to get it, simple as that. Therefore, even if you don't personally believe in the value of the degree, other people do and that, by itself, is a good enough reason to get it. Railing against the requirements of corporate America won't put food on the table. I'm not telling you that you should get that degree. The choice is up to you. But what I am saying is that if you choose not to, then you should understand that you are closing some doors to yourself, and you should accept that fact. If you choose not to follow the 'rules' of corporate America, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences. Just like if I choose to run red lights at 3 in the morning, then I will have to accept the fact that I will get ticketted. But there's no point in railing against the rules. The rules are the rules. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69933t=69483 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
