> >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. > > > >Just my 2-cent. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "n rf" >To: >Sent: Thursday, June 05, 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'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. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70311&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
