Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
I am a little behind on my mail, so please forgive me if this has been answered. I called to schedule my lab on Dec 21. The next date available was June 11-12 at RTP. SIX MONTH BACKLOG...WOW!!! I did not ask about other test centers, but would imagine similar bookings. I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck) Jon Burns CCNP, CCDP, Lab Candidate Now, I just need to get a job! ;-) _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
I heard that that they plan to increase the number of racks in the near future. About six months to eight months ago the wait was only three months. P - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 1:34 PM Subject: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least) > I am a little behind on my mail, so please forgive me if this has been > answered. > > I called to schedule my lab on Dec 21. The next date available was June > 11-12 at RTP. SIX MONTH BACKLOG...WOW!!! > > I did not ask about other test centers, but would imagine similar bookings. > I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were > going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck) > > Jon Burns > CCNP, CCDP, Lab Candidate > Now, I just need to get a job! ;-) > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
>> I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck)<< some cruel and unusual thoughts come to mind. 1) Set some arbitrary standard such that people who fail day one by more than so many points have a 90 day wait for retest, rather than 30 days. Or you have to at least made it into day 2 to be able to retest within 30 days. Some such thing 2) Limit the number of times one may attempt the lab in any 12 month period. 3) Increase the price charged for each lab attempt. E.g. 1K for first attempt, 2K for 2nd, 5K for third I say this half jokingly, but half seriously. I talk to a lot of people who take the lab, both those who have passed and those who have not. The old rule of economics holds true - people act according to their perceived best interest. If someone else is footing the bill, and there is no disincentive for failure, then people will act accordingly. They will book themselves and make attempts even when they know they have no hope of passing. They will schedule attempt after attempt because there is no reason not to, especially if someone else pays, and especially if there is no penalty for failure. To be frank, I don't see any incentive for Cisco to do anything to change things on the demand side. They might add more racks, or more lab locations. But do the numbers some time. Cisco is booking something like 25 - 30 people a week in San Jose alone. That's 25-30 K per week in revenue, or at least 1.3 million a year. So they pay a couple of lab proctors 150K each. The rest is pure profit. ( yes, I know from an accounting standpoint there are several other cost factors ) So the incentive from Cisco's standpoint is do figure out ways to add revenue, rather than limit testing attempts. I look for Cisco to announce a bit more capacity, either in terms of adding another location or adding more racks at existing locations. Or both. There is a ton of money to be made in the certification game, and as the entity that controls the rules and the market, Cisco certainly enjoys the lion's share of that revenue. Chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 9:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least) I am a little behind on my mail, so please forgive me if this has been answered. I called to schedule my lab on Dec 21. The next date available was June 11-12 at RTP. SIX MONTH BACKLOG...WOW!!! I did not ask about other test centers, but would imagine similar bookings. I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck) Jon Burns CCNP, CCDP, Lab Candidate Now, I just need to get a job! ;-) _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
I certainly agree with all the points Chuck made. One thing that Cisco could do is change the requirements to take the lab besides just passing the written exam. I am not saying by any account that the written is easy, but I know people that have passed it by pure luck and really don't know a darn thing. I know a person right now that has passed the written by getting the passing score on the dime, and he is taking the lab soon. I wish good luck to him, however he is walking in blindly with out EVER actually configured a router. He has no internetworking design or troubleshooting experience in the real world, however he is going to go and take the lab exam just to "see what it is like" I don't think Chuck's ideas are cruel and unusual. I think they really need to make this tougher then it already is. Who wants to put "CCIE #102,000" after their name? If they just open more racks it may get to that point. I believe the written exam should be scratched with a new format with a higher passing score. Truly the money issue sometimes makes little difference. If someone has 30,000 grand to spend on equipment, classes, books etc., a few more grand can't hurt. And if their company is paying then who cares right? I know a company that has spent countless dollars actually flying a guy to Canada, putting him up in a hotel...and paying for his labthey did this 5 times before he passed his lab. Those slots could have been used for someone that actually knew what they were doing and had a chance to pass. It would be nice if they had a 4 hour lab prequal after taking the written. Something that would not require a proctor to pass. You would be given many different scenarios at Sylvan and require to configure them with a virtual IOS. The configs would be sent to an evaluator at Cisco and then you would be contacted a week later concerning scheduling your real lab date. This could weed out some of the flunkies. If Cisco ruins the value of this exam, they are not going to have any future revenue from it. Nate Chuck Larrieu wrote: > >> I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were > going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck)<< > > some cruel and unusual thoughts come to mind. > > 1) Set some arbitrary standard such that people who fail day one by more > than so many points have a 90 day wait for retest, rather than 30 days. Or > you have to at least made it into day 2 to be able to retest within 30 days. > Some such thing > > 2) Limit the number of times one may attempt the lab in any 12 month period. > > 3) Increase the price charged for each lab attempt. E.g. 1K for first > attempt, 2K for 2nd, 5K for third > > I say this half jokingly, but half seriously. I talk to a lot of people who > take the lab, both those who have passed and those who have not. > The old rule of economics holds true - people act according to their > perceived best interest. If someone else is footing the bill, and there is > no disincentive for failure, then people will act accordingly. They will > book themselves and make attempts even when they know they have no hope of > passing. They will schedule attempt after attempt because there is no reason > not to, especially if someone else pays, and especially if there is no > penalty for failure. > > To be frank, I don't see any incentive for Cisco to do anything to change > things on the demand side. They might add more racks, or more lab locations. > But do the numbers some time. Cisco is booking something like 25 - 30 people > a week in San Jose alone. That's 25-30 K per week in revenue, or at least > 1.3 million a year. So they pay a couple of lab proctors 150K each. The rest > is pure profit. ( yes, I know from an accounting standpoint there are > several other cost factors ) So the incentive from Cisco's standpoint is do > figure out ways to add revenue, rather than limit testing attempts. > > I look for Cisco to announce a bit more capacity, either in terms of adding > another location or adding more racks at existing locations. Or both. There > is a ton of money to be made in the certification game, and as the entity > that controls the rules and the market, Cisco certainly enjoys the lion's > share of that revenue. > > Chuck > > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 9:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least) > > I am a little behind on my mail, so please forgive me if this has been > answered. > > I called to schedule my lab on Dec 21. The next date available was June > 11-12 at RTP. SIX MONTH BACKLOG...WOW!!! > > I did not ask about other te
Re: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
In all of their certification program, I don't think Cisco's own goals really have changed. While there are people in training who will point at the revenue results, the total training/certification revenue is tiny in comparison with equipment sales. Cisco introduced certification as a means of reducing their cost of sales and support, by being able to identify resellers with adequate qualifications so Cisco didn't itself have to do pre- and post-sales. _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
Chuck, I think your numbers are way off. Even if we forget the overhead for lab equipment, electricity, etc. I believe that the staff and hours to support the CCIE exam is substantial (there's more than just a lab proctor or two behind the scenes - what about people who do training, write exams, etc.). Cisco SEs spend many hours each week presenting free CCIE prep seminars to Cisco resellers. And so on. On a cost accounting basis, I wouldn't be surprised if Cisco is actually losing money. I have been told by several Cisco SEs (and I assume they were just repeating the party line) that Cisco needs CCIEs (and other certified Cisco professionals) to design and service Cisco equipment pure and simple. They don't have near enough employees to handle the huge demand. One even told me that Cisco would love to have thousands and thousands of CCIEs out there but it simply is not possible to lower the standards. -Jonathan Chuck Larrieu wrote: > >> I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were > going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck)<< > > some cruel and unusual thoughts come to mind. > > 1) Set some arbitrary standard such that people who fail day one by more > than so many points have a 90 day wait for retest, rather than 30 days. Or > you have to at least made it into day 2 to be able to retest within 30 days. > Some such thing > > 2) Limit the number of times one may attempt the lab in any 12 month period. > > 3) Increase the price charged for each lab attempt. E.g. 1K for first > attempt, 2K for 2nd, 5K for third > > I say this half jokingly, but half seriously. I talk to a lot of people who > take the lab, both those who have passed and those who have not. > The old rule of economics holds true - people act according to their > perceived best interest. If someone else is footing the bill, and there is > no disincentive for failure, then people will act accordingly. They will > book themselves and make attempts even when they know they have no hope of > passing. They will schedule attempt after attempt because there is no reason > not to, especially if someone else pays, and especially if there is no > penalty for failure. > > To be frank, I don't see any incentive for Cisco to do anything to change > things on the demand side. They might add more racks, or more lab locations. > But do the numbers some time. Cisco is booking something like 25 - 30 people > a week in San Jose alone. That's 25-30 K per week in revenue, or at least > 1.3 million a year. So they pay a couple of lab proctors 150K each. The rest > is pure profit. ( yes, I know from an accounting standpoint there are > several other cost factors ) So the incentive from Cisco's standpoint is do > figure out ways to add revenue, rather than limit testing attempts. > > I look for Cisco to announce a bit more capacity, either in terms of adding > another location or adding more racks at existing locations. Or both. There > is a ton of money to be made in the certification game, and as the entity > that controls the rules and the market, Cisco certainly enjoys the lion's > share of that revenue. > > Chuck > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 9:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least) > > I am a little behind on my mail, so please forgive me if this has been > answered. > > I called to schedule my lab on Dec 21. The next date available was June > 11-12 at RTP. SIX MONTH BACKLOG...WOW!!! > > I did not ask about other test centers, but would imagine similar bookings. > I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were > going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck) > > Jon Burns > CCNP, CCDP, Lab Candidate > Now, I just need to get a job! ;-) > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
t existing locations. Or both. There > > is a ton of money to be made in the certification game, and as the entity > > that controls the rules and the market, Cisco certainly enjoys the lion's > > share of that revenue. > > > > Chuck > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 9:04 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject:Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least) > > > > I am a little behind on my mail, so please forgive me if this has been > > answered. > > > > I called to schedule my lab on Dec 21. The next date available was June > > 11-12 at RTP. SIX MONTH BACKLOG...WOW!!! > > > > I did not ask about other test centers, but would imagine similar bookings. > > I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were > > going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck) > > > > Jon Burns > > CCNP, CCDP, Lab Candidate > > Now, I just need to get a job! ;-) > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
