Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Unless your union I think most jobs are "at will" positions. Dave Peter van Oene wrote: > > Michael> > > >(speaking of contract firms), I've noticed that regardless of certs or > >experience, it seems many more places are doing a "6-month right-to-hire" > >because it's so hard to really tell from a resume, certs, experience, or > >even an interview if someone really knows what they're doing. So a 6-month > >trial period usually is plenty for them to see if the person has the mettle > >or not. > Pete> > > Of note, most jobs I've looked at including my own include the ability for > the employer to terminate employment at their discretion. The may be more > prevalent in the VAR/Vendor space however. > > Pete -- David Madland Sr. Network Engineer CCIE# 2016 Qwest Communications Int. Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-664-3367 "Emotion should reflect reason not guide it" Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45253&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Michael> >(speaking of contract firms), I've noticed that regardless of certs or >experience, it seems many more places are doing a "6-month right-to-hire" >because it's so hard to really tell from a resume, certs, experience, or >even an interview if someone really knows what they're doing. So a 6-month >trial period usually is plenty for them to see if the person has the mettle >or not. Pete> Of note, most jobs I've looked at including my own include the ability for the employer to terminate employment at their discretion. The may be more prevalent in the VAR/Vendor space however. Pete Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45237&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Comments inline. - Original Message - From: "nrf" To: Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 11:52 PM Subject: Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611] > Keep on reading through my old post, I was getting to the link between > experience and your network. The nutshell of it is that experience > generally lets you grow a good network (both the router kind and the people > kind).You don't meet too many people by hanging out at Sylvan Prometric. Yeah, the ratio between Cisco and everything-else examinees are 1 to 50. The ratio between 350-001 and everything-else is about 0.1 to 100. I know cause I work for a company that preaches exam-passing as a Gospel. I wonder how much percentage of the exam fees they get. > I said it before, I'll say it again. Some experience is exceptionally bad. > But some experience is exceptionally good. So when some guy says he has 5 > years experience, it might be bad experience, but it might be good > experience. So without any further information, it's not unreasonable to > say that 5 years is really worth 5 years, until you investigate further to > find out that it's actually 1, or 5, or 15, or whatever. You hit the nail right on the head again. There are certainly individuals who thrive on growth in their field. But I've seen too many who are just "doing time". Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45225&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
You didn't think that could pass by without a reply, did you? ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "nrf" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Aha. Here is the fundamental difference between you and me. > > > > The fact is, certifications are not really an effective foot-in-the-door, > > contrary to popular belief. Yeah yeah, would-be flamers, I just got your > > attention, didn't I? I can already hear you guys reaching for your > > keyboards. But hear me out. > > > > The fact is, certs are indeed useful to get publicly posted jobs. You > know, > > the jobs where you have to send out a resume which then gets parsed > through > > HR who look for certain keywords. Those keywords are often technologies, > > but are also often certs. It is indeed the case that to get your > > 'foot-in-the-door' in these kinds of jobs, you need present the proper > > keywords, which often means presenting the right kind of certs. > > > > However, consider this. CNN and other reputable news organization have > > stated that over 90% of all available jobs are never posted publicly, > > especially nowadays, and especially in the tech industry. Study after > study > > has shown that far and away the most common and preferred method for > > companies to find people is through employee referral. Surely you've > heard > > the phrase "It's not what you know, it's who you know." > > I don't agree (surprise surprise) with most of what was said above. > Although I would love more concrete information other than "they say 90% > of all jobs...", I would agree that many jobs, especially in the tech > industry, don't always make it to the public. However, I would have to > believe that by "the public" it means a company doesn't directly solicit > candidates, yet instead goes to a consulting/contract firm. Fact is, most > companies have policies that say they *have* to post a job publicly for 'x' > amount of time, so it VERY doubtful that jobs that aren't posted to the > public are full-time hires (even when the jobs don't make it to the public, > they're usually restricted to hiring an internal candidate unless the jobs > is posted publicly).. but instead most contract jobs that could > potentially turn into a full-time employment gig (even if they have to post > a job for x amount of time just to satisfy requirements). Furthermore, in > those situations (I'm claiming is a large part of that 90%) where the jobs > are filled by consulting firms, those companies are the ones that DO get to > charge more for people with those certs. those are the companies there > those certs ARE the foot in the door Uh, you do realize that it is eminently possible to garner a contract without going through an agency. Most contractors/indies I know prefer it that way, for the simple reason that they don't have to give a cut to the recruiter. So once again, it reduces to a case of finding work (perm or contract) by knowing the right people first, having the right certs second. > > (speaking of contract firms), I've noticed that regardless of certs or > experience, it seems many more places are doing a "6-month right-to-hire" > because it's so hard to really tell from a resume, certs, experience, or > even an interview if someone really knows what they're doing. So a 6-month > trial period usually is plenty for them to see if the person has the mettle > or not. Like I said, you don't always need to go through a contract firm unless you really don't know anybody, but then that speaks to the real problem right there, doesn't it? > > > In fact, surely you're seen all those books and all those websites that > tell > > people how to find jobs. What's the first piece of advice that they > always > > give? The first thing they always say is "use your network". It's not > "get > > proper certs" or "type up a really good resume". Those things are like > 5th > > or 6th on the list, but never first. The first thing is always "use > your > > network". Why is that? I think this speaks to the importance of having > > the proper contacts. It truly is far and away the most effective way to > > find work. > > Where did "get some experience" fall into that list? I guess that's not as > important at "using your network".. Seems to be it would be tho... Keep on reading through my old post, I was getting to the link between experience and your network. The nutshell of it is that experience generally lets you grow a good network (both the router kind and the people kind).You don't meet too many people by hanging out at Sylvan Prometric. > > > And the simple fact is, when you get jobs this way, certs become a > > relatively minor consideration. When the boss comes down and asks his > > people whether they know somebody with such-and-such skill, your colleague > > generally doesn't care whether you hold a cert or whatever - he eit
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
>What can I say, when the network is stable, there really isn't a whole lot >to do. > > > wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > My how I envy the spare time this posting demonstrates! Well, we could always redirect the thread from lab rats to lab mouses, trackballs, touchpads... Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45199&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
"nrf" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Aha. Here is the fundamental difference between you and me. > > The fact is, certifications are not really an effective foot-in-the-door, > contrary to popular belief. Yeah yeah, would-be flamers, I just got your > attention, didn't I? I can already hear you guys reaching for your > keyboards. But hear me out. > > The fact is, certs are indeed useful to get publicly posted jobs. You know, > the jobs where you have to send out a resume which then gets parsed through > HR who look for certain keywords. Those keywords are often technologies, > but are also often certs. It is indeed the case that to get your > 'foot-in-the-door' in these kinds of jobs, you need present the proper > keywords, which often means presenting the right kind of certs. > > However, consider this. CNN and other reputable news organization have > stated that over 90% of all available jobs are never posted publicly, > especially nowadays, and especially in the tech industry. Study after study > has shown that far and away the most common and preferred method for > companies to find people is through employee referral. Surely you've heard > the phrase "It's not what you know, it's who you know." I don't agree (surprise surprise) with most of what was said above. Although I would love more concrete information other than "they say 90% of all jobs...", I would agree that many jobs, especially in the tech industry, don't always make it to the public. However, I would have to believe that by "the public" it means a company doesn't directly solicit candidates, yet instead goes to a consulting/contract firm. Fact is, most companies have policies that say they *have* to post a job publicly for 'x' amount of time, so it VERY doubtful that jobs that aren't posted to the public are full-time hires (even when the jobs don't make it to the public, they're usually restricted to hiring an internal candidate unless the jobs is posted publicly).. but instead most contract jobs that could potentially turn into a full-time employment gig (even if they have to post a job for x amount of time just to satisfy requirements). Furthermore, in those situations (I'm claiming is a large part of that 90%) where the jobs are filled by consulting firms, those companies are the ones that DO get to charge more for people with those certs. those are the companies there those certs ARE the foot in the door (speaking of contract firms), I've noticed that regardless of certs or experience, it seems many more places are doing a "6-month right-to-hire" because it's so hard to really tell from a resume, certs, experience, or even an interview if someone really knows what they're doing. So a 6-month trial period usually is plenty for them to see if the person has the mettle or not. > In fact, surely you're seen all those books and all those websites that tell > people how to find jobs. What's the first piece of advice that they always > give? The first thing they always say is "use your network". It's not "get > proper certs" or "type up a really good resume". Those things are like 5th > or 6th on the list, but never first. The first thing is always "use your > network". Why is that? I think this speaks to the importance of having > the proper contacts. It truly is far and away the most effective way to > find work. Where did "get some experience" fall into that list? I guess that's not as important at "using your network".. Seems to be it would be tho... > And the simple fact is, when you get jobs this way, certs become a > relatively minor consideration. When the boss comes down and asks his > people whether they know somebody with such-and-such skill, your colleague > generally doesn't care whether you hold a cert or whatever - he either > thinks you're good (because he's worked with you before and he knows that > you're good) and will therefore recommend you, or he doesn't and he won't. > And if you do get recommended by your colleague, you have effectively > leapfrogged HR and their whole keyword-parsing step. Employees usually > don't want to professionally embarrass themselves by bringing in somebody > that they don't think is good, so the fact that you did get brought in for > an interview is already a powerful quality-control mechanism that the boss > can rely upon. Is it a perfect quality-control mechanism? No of course > not, there is no perfect mechanism. But it's been shown to be a lot more > reliable than anything else, and certainly more reliable than certs are. > The proof of this is simple - companies continue to rely on such references > for over 90% of their positions, which probably means that it's highly > effective, otherwise they should have stopped doing things this way by now. Personally, I've worked way too many places that worked on the "buddy system" (i.e. company that ends up hiring a friend of a friend just becaus
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Well, we're following an SMTP version of the film "Of Mice and Men"... Elmer - Original Message - From: "Priscilla Oppenheimer" To: Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611] > Don't you guys have a life!? :-) It's Memorial Day for heaven's sake. This > thread has been going on for way too long. > > Priscilla > > At 06:37 PM 5/27/02, nrf wrote: > >""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > "nrf" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Well, I don't know if it's a waste of time. Consider this. There > might > > > be > > > > some newbie guys who were all gung-ho about grabbing a bunch of certs > > > > because they believed that by doing so they would just be handed a > > > > super-kick-ass job (no doubt some training school told them so). Now > > > > perhaps after reading these threads they may be getting a whole new > > > > appreciation for exactly what certs can and cannot do for them, and > they > > > may > > > > be rethinking their whole strategy, and perhaps even stop studying and > > > > instead concentrate on building their experience first. > > > > > > Actually, in the case you pointed out, if someone stops studying to > > > concentrate on building experience first, then I believe you have done > >those > > > people a great disservice. > > > > > > Many people use certifications as a "foot in the door" into a network > >career > > > from other careers. We've agreed (many times) that just because one gets > >a > > > certifications that their not entitled to a high level job with lots of > > > money, but at the same time, a certification can be the difference > between > > > getting that foot in the door or not. If ones goal is to use > >certifications > > > to prove a certain level of knowledge and abilities in an attempt to get > > > into the field, then steering them in the direction of "get experience > > > first, then worry about certs later" is exactly the opposite of what > could > > > potentially help them the most. > > > >Aha. Here is the fundamental difference between you and me. > > > >The fact is, certifications are not really an effective foot-in-the-door, > >contrary to popular belief. Yeah yeah, would-be flamers, I just got your > >attention, didn't I? I can already hear you guys reaching for your > >keyboards. But hear me out. > > > >The fact is, certs are indeed useful to get publicly posted jobs. You know, > >the jobs where you have to send out a resume which then gets parsed through > >HR who look for certain keywords. Those keywords are often technologies, > >but are also often certs. It is indeed the case that to get your > >'foot-in-the-door' in these kinds of jobs, you need present the proper > >keywords, which often means presenting the right kind of certs. > > > >However, consider this. CNN and other reputable news organization have > >stated that over 90% of all available jobs are never posted publicly, > >especially nowadays, and especially in the tech industry. Study after study > >has shown that far and away the most common and preferred method for > >companies to find people is through employee referral. Surely you've heard > >the phrase "It's not what you know, it's who you know." > > > >In fact, surely you're seen all those books and all those websites that tell > >people how to find jobs. What's the first piece of advice that they always > >give? The first thing they always say is "use your network". It's not "get > >proper certs" or "type up a really good resume". Those things are like 5th > >or 6th on the list, but never first. The first thing is always "use your > >network". Why is that? I think this speaks to the importance of having > >the proper contacts. It truly is far and away the most effective way to > >find work. > > > >And the simple fact is, when you get jobs this way, certs become a > >relatively minor consideration. When the boss comes down and asks his > >people whether they know somebody with such-and-such skill, your colleague > >generally doesn't care whether you hold a cert or whatever - he either > >thinks you're good (becaus
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
>Don't you guys have a life!? :-) It's Memorial Day for heaven's sake. This >thread has been going on for way too long. > >Priscilla > _I_ spent the day, dealing with sages. Pineapple sage in particular. As I planted them, I was pleasantly surprised to find some that survived the winter. I am also making thyme for other things. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45191&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Don't you guys have a life!? :-) It's Memorial Day for heaven's sake. This thread has been going on for way too long. Priscilla At 06:37 PM 5/27/02, nrf wrote: >""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > "nrf" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Well, I don't know if it's a waste of time. Consider this. There might > > be > > > some newbie guys who were all gung-ho about grabbing a bunch of certs > > > because they believed that by doing so they would just be handed a > > > super-kick-ass job (no doubt some training school told them so). Now > > > perhaps after reading these threads they may be getting a whole new > > > appreciation for exactly what certs can and cannot do for them, and they > > may > > > be rethinking their whole strategy, and perhaps even stop studying and > > > instead concentrate on building their experience first. > > > > Actually, in the case you pointed out, if someone stops studying to > > concentrate on building experience first, then I believe you have done >those > > people a great disservice. > > > > Many people use certifications as a "foot in the door" into a network >career > > from other careers. We've agreed (many times) that just because one gets >a > > certifications that their not entitled to a high level job with lots of > > money, but at the same time, a certification can be the difference between > > getting that foot in the door or not. If ones goal is to use >certifications > > to prove a certain level of knowledge and abilities in an attempt to get > > into the field, then steering them in the direction of "get experience > > first, then worry about certs later" is exactly the opposite of what could > > potentially help them the most. > >Aha. Here is the fundamental difference between you and me. > >The fact is, certifications are not really an effective foot-in-the-door, >contrary to popular belief. Yeah yeah, would-be flamers, I just got your >attention, didn't I? I can already hear you guys reaching for your >keyboards. But hear me out. > >The fact is, certs are indeed useful to get publicly posted jobs. You know, >the jobs where you have to send out a resume which then gets parsed through >HR who look for certain keywords. Those keywords are often technologies, >but are also often certs. It is indeed the case that to get your >'foot-in-the-door' in these kinds of jobs, you need present the proper >keywords, which often means presenting the right kind of certs. > >However, consider this. CNN and other reputable news organization have >stated that over 90% of all available jobs are never posted publicly, >especially nowadays, and especially in the tech industry. Study after study >has shown that far and away the most common and preferred method for >companies to find people is through employee referral. Surely you've heard >the phrase "It's not what you know, it's who you know." > >In fact, surely you're seen all those books and all those websites that tell >people how to find jobs. What's the first piece of advice that they always >give? The first thing they always say is "use your network". It's not "get >proper certs" or "type up a really good resume". Those things are like 5th >or 6th on the list, but never first. The first thing is always "use your >network". Why is that? I think this speaks to the importance of having >the proper contacts. It truly is far and away the most effective way to >find work. > >And the simple fact is, when you get jobs this way, certs become a >relatively minor consideration. When the boss comes down and asks his >people whether they know somebody with such-and-such skill, your colleague >generally doesn't care whether you hold a cert or whatever - he either >thinks you're good (because he's worked with you before and he knows that >you're good) and will therefore recommend you, or he doesn't and he won't. >And if you do get recommended by your colleague, you have effectively >leapfrogged HR and their whole keyword-parsing step. Employees usually >don't want to professionally embarrass themselves by bringing in somebody >that they don't think is good, so the fact that you did get brought in for >an interview is already a powerful quality-control mechanism that the boss >can rely upon. Is it a perfect quality-control mechanism? No of course >not, there is no perfect mechanism. But it's been shown to be a lot more >reliable than anything else, and certainly more reliable than certs are. >The proof of this is simple - companies continue to rely on such references >for over 90% of their positions, which probably means that it's highly >effective, otherwise they should have stopped doing things this way by now. > > >What that means is that if you got brought in for one of these 'hidden' jobs >(where such jobs are the vast majority of the available jobs), the boss >already knows that you're probably pretty good
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
I finally started looking at the topic and like the arguements written
here.
What can I say? I used computers since I was 10 and studied them in Uni
and Grad School. I never thought I would get a job doing computers even
though I had many years of experience and plenty of course work. (Yeah I
was being stupid but I am African-American and all of the techies I saw
were always White or Asian so I thought no one would hire me because of my
race. Again, I was being stupid)
Here in Japan, what finally got me in the door was passing NT Server,
Workstation, TCP/IP, and Networking Essentials. Before passing the tests
people would ask me if I was serious even though I had set up LANs for
companies in the States as side work and did networking and security in a
University setting. After I passed the tests I finally landed my first
job full time in IT. No one questioned my sincerity.
After that I really didn't need my certs to get another job. I just knew
people. However, for getting raises the certs were a must along with
working for a different company! Even in my current job, no matter how
much money I bring into the company, I won't get a raise without the CCIE
security. This is just how life is. I don't need to interview for
another job anymore, all I do is make a call to a friend and hey, I am
gettin' paid! But the certs make me more money and my company charges
more money to customers if I have more certs.
It is kind of a marketing gimic.
Theo
"nrf"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
05/28/2002 09:07 AM
Please respond to "nrf"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
What can I say, when the network is stable, there really isn't a whole lot
to do.
wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My how I envy the spare time this posting demonstrates!
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45180&t=44611
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Ditto that! That's the reward good engineers get for not falling asleep on the job. After all, who can sleep when you have pagers, cell phone, desktop phone, e-mail, NNM/CWSI alerts, etc. forming a chorus. ;-% - Original Message - From: "nrf" To: Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 8:07 PM Subject: Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611] > What can I say, when the network is stable, there really isn't a whole lot > to do. > > > wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > My how I envy the spare time this posting demonstrates! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45179&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
What can I say, when the network is stable, there really isn't a whole lot to do. wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > My how I envy the spare time this posting demonstrates! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45175&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
My how I envy the spare time this posting demonstrates! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45173&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "nrf" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Well, I don't know if it's a waste of time. Consider this. There might > be > > some newbie guys who were all gung-ho about grabbing a bunch of certs > > because they believed that by doing so they would just be handed a > > super-kick-ass job (no doubt some training school told them so). Now > > perhaps after reading these threads they may be getting a whole new > > appreciation for exactly what certs can and cannot do for them, and they > may > > be rethinking their whole strategy, and perhaps even stop studying and > > instead concentrate on building their experience first. > > Actually, in the case you pointed out, if someone stops studying to > concentrate on building experience first, then I believe you have done those > people a great disservice. > > Many people use certifications as a "foot in the door" into a network career > from other careers. We've agreed (many times) that just because one gets a > certifications that their not entitled to a high level job with lots of > money, but at the same time, a certification can be the difference between > getting that foot in the door or not. If ones goal is to use certifications > to prove a certain level of knowledge and abilities in an attempt to get > into the field, then steering them in the direction of "get experience > first, then worry about certs later" is exactly the opposite of what could > potentially help them the most. Aha. Here is the fundamental difference between you and me. The fact is, certifications are not really an effective foot-in-the-door, contrary to popular belief. Yeah yeah, would-be flamers, I just got your attention, didn't I? I can already hear you guys reaching for your keyboards. But hear me out. The fact is, certs are indeed useful to get publicly posted jobs. You know, the jobs where you have to send out a resume which then gets parsed through HR who look for certain keywords. Those keywords are often technologies, but are also often certs. It is indeed the case that to get your 'foot-in-the-door' in these kinds of jobs, you need present the proper keywords, which often means presenting the right kind of certs. However, consider this. CNN and other reputable news organization have stated that over 90% of all available jobs are never posted publicly, especially nowadays, and especially in the tech industry. Study after study has shown that far and away the most common and preferred method for companies to find people is through employee referral. Surely you've heard the phrase "It's not what you know, it's who you know." In fact, surely you're seen all those books and all those websites that tell people how to find jobs. What's the first piece of advice that they always give? The first thing they always say is "use your network". It's not "get proper certs" or "type up a really good resume". Those things are like 5th or 6th on the list, but never first. The first thing is always "use your network". Why is that? I think this speaks to the importance of having the proper contacts. It truly is far and away the most effective way to find work. And the simple fact is, when you get jobs this way, certs become a relatively minor consideration. When the boss comes down and asks his people whether they know somebody with such-and-such skill, your colleague generally doesn't care whether you hold a cert or whatever - he either thinks you're good (because he's worked with you before and he knows that you're good) and will therefore recommend you, or he doesn't and he won't. And if you do get recommended by your colleague, you have effectively leapfrogged HR and their whole keyword-parsing step. Employees usually don't want to professionally embarrass themselves by bringing in somebody that they don't think is good, so the fact that you did get brought in for an interview is already a powerful quality-control mechanism that the boss can rely upon. Is it a perfect quality-control mechanism? No of course not, there is no perfect mechanism. But it's been shown to be a lot more reliable than anything else, and certainly more reliable than certs are. The proof of this is simple - companies continue to rely on such references for over 90% of their positions, which probably means that it's highly effective, otherwise they should have stopped doing things this way by now. What that means is that if you got brought in for one of these 'hidden' jobs (where such jobs are the vast majority of the available jobs), the boss already knows that you're probably pretty good (because otherwise it is unlikely that you would have been referred in the first place), and can proceed with the interview based on that information. For example, he may run a few more tech questions by you just to double-check your tech skills, and he may ask you social que
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
"nrf" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Well, I don't know if it's a waste of time. Consider this. There might be > some newbie guys who were all gung-ho about grabbing a bunch of certs > because they believed that by doing so they would just be handed a > super-kick-ass job (no doubt some training school told them so). Now > perhaps after reading these threads they may be getting a whole new > appreciation for exactly what certs can and cannot do for them, and they may > be rethinking their whole strategy, and perhaps even stop studying and > instead concentrate on building their experience first. Actually, in the case you pointed out, if someone stops studying to concentrate on building experience first, then I believe you have done those people a great disservice. Many people use certifications as a "foot in the door" into a network career from other careers. We've agreed (many times) that just because one gets a certifications that their not entitled to a high level job with lots of money, but at the same time, a certification can be the difference between getting that foot in the door or not. If ones goal is to use certifications to prove a certain level of knowledge and abilities in an attempt to get into the field, then steering them in the direction of "get experience first, then worry about certs later" is exactly the opposite of what could potentially help them the most. > So you could say > that in these cases, these threads have not only not wasted people's time, > they have actually saved people's time. > > Then of course, there are those guys who've already made up their minds > about what they want to do and don't want to hear what anybody else has to > say (I call them the "certification religion" people). But I'd like to > think that some people do indeed maintain an open mind about these kinds of > things. I am by no means a "certification religion" person. You speak of maintaining an open mind but from your comments, it's easy to see that your blinders are on as tightly as can be. You only see things from your point-of-view, and no amount of logical reasoning will convince you that your point-of-view isnt' always the best for other people. You fail to realize and admit that there are many different ways that certifications can help and can be used in ones career path. You assume that by encouraging one to work on experience and worry about certs later is the best thing someone can do, but many times it's not. I knew 9 months before we moved to a much bigger town that I wanted to change over into networking. So given my experience in desktop/server admin, etc and knowledge of networking, I saw that getting CCNA/DA and working on CCNP would look much better to an employer looking to hire someone into an entry level Cisco job than just my experience alone. In that case the certification was a sign to the employer that I understand what the OSI is... understand the difference between switches and routers understand how to log into a router and get into enable mode and do basic commands. That's exactly what the certification is meant for, and that's exactly how I used it. Now, I'm much more into networking, have been doing it a while, and am studying for CCIE lab... At this point, I'm not doing a cert for anyone else but me. To help improve me... So it's all, again, just a matter of perspective. Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45165&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Well, I don't know if it's a waste of time. Consider this. There might be some newbie guys who were all gung-ho about grabbing a bunch of certs because they believed that by doing so they would just be handed a super-kick-ass job (no doubt some training school told them so). Now perhaps after reading these threads they may be getting a whole new appreciation for exactly what certs can and cannot do for them, and they may be rethinking their whole strategy, and perhaps even stop studying and instead concentrate on building their experience first. So you could say that in these cases, these threads have not only not wasted people's time, they have actually saved people's time. Then of course, there are those guys who've already made up their minds about what they want to do and don't want to hear what anybody else has to say (I call them the "certification religion" people). But I'd like to think that some people do indeed maintain an open mind about these kinds of things. ""Gaz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It seems to me that this group spends more time bumping it's gums about what > makes a good engineer, than it does discussing the actual engineering. > Yes, I tend to join in myself sometimes. I suppose everybody does it, but I > was just wondering - head count - is anybody actually studying as well as > doing all this banter. > No offence meant to anyone in particular - I'm British, so excel in > upsetting every bugger at the same time.. > > Gaz > > > > > You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, > making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Cisco Exam! > So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's > getting us nowhere! > I agree. This is a complete waste of time. > Right! This calls for immediate discussion! > Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action-- > Ah, once the vote has been taken. > Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution > till you've voted on it... > > 1 point for the film > 2 points for the discussion group > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > "nrf" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > The fact is, arrogance and insecurity cuts both ways. Both sides (the > > > experienced guys and the inexperienced guys) are guilty from time to > time. > > > And it's bad no matter who's doing it. > > > > > > Agreed 100% > > > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45160&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
""Gaz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > It seems to me that this group spends more time bumping it's gums about what > makes a good engineer, than it does discussing the actual engineering. what was that Star Trek movie - where Jordi's visor is bugged by the Klingons, so they can see on their screens everything he sees through the visor. They want to find out the shield frequency so they can program their weapons tp match, thus getting a clean shot. The sound of rage and frustration as Jordi seems to spend all his time everywhere EXCEPT in engineering. > Yes, I tend to join in myself sometimes. I suppose everybody does it, but I > was just wondering - head count - is anybody actually studying as well as > doing all this banter. > No offence meant to anyone in particular - I'm British, so excel in > upsetting every bugger at the same time.. > > Gaz > > > > > You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, > making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Cisco Exam! > So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's > getting us nowhere! > I agree. This is a complete waste of time. > Right! This calls for immediate discussion! > Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action-- > Ah, once the vote has been taken. > Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution > till you've voted on it... > > 1 point for the film > 2 points for the discussion group > > ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > "nrf" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > The fact is, arrogance and insecurity cuts both ways. Both sides (the > > > experienced guys and the inexperienced guys) are guilty from time to > time. > > > And it's bad no matter who's doing it. > > > > > > Agreed 100% > > > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45040&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
It seems to me that this group spends more time bumping it's gums about what makes a good engineer, than it does discussing the actual engineering. Yes, I tend to join in myself sometimes. I suppose everybody does it, but I was just wondering - head count - is anybody actually studying as well as doing all this banter. No offence meant to anyone in particular - I'm British, so excel in upsetting every bugger at the same time.. Gaz You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Cisco Exam! So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's getting us nowhere! I agree. This is a complete waste of time. Right! This calls for immediate discussion! Completely new motion, eh, that, ah-- that there be, ah, immediate action-- Ah, once the vote has been taken. Well, obviously once the vote's been taken. You can't act another resolution till you've voted on it... 1 point for the film 2 points for the discussion group ""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "nrf" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > The fact is, arrogance and insecurity cuts both ways. Both sides (the > > experienced guys and the inexperienced guys) are guilty from time to time. > > And it's bad no matter who's doing it. > > > Agreed 100% > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45038&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
"nrf" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > The fact is, arrogance and insecurity cuts both ways. Both sides (the > experienced guys and the inexperienced guys) are guilty from time to time. > And it's bad no matter who's doing it. Agreed 100% Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45036&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "Tom Scott" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I've seen a goodly number of network administrators who are in positions > of > > power, but > > who don't know even the basics of classful subnetting, VLSM, routing, L2 > LAN > > switching, > > and VLANs. (Even some telco ATM techs who don't understand the difference > > between > > L2/LAN switches vs. VLAN switches, but that's a whole 'nother story in > > itself). These > > hands-on guys moved up from the ranks of network operating systems (NOSs), > > usually > > Novell, Unix and Windows. I respect their ability to handle a production > > network but > > it's a shame they won't listen to the young CCNAs and CCNPs who work for > > them. They > > (the old desktop/NOS guys who moved up to network management roles) > couldn't > > even > > conceive of migrating their RIP networks to OSPF, but with the help of > their > > CCNx/CCDx > > employees they could really do something good. It's the age-old problem of > > control and > > fear of the unknown. > > I couldn't have said it better myself.. you really hit some key points, > especially about the people that moved their way up from desktop to NOS to > network not trusting the CCNx/CCDx, not being able to fathom moving from RIP > to OSPF, etc. Well, on the other hand, surely you have also seen the flip-side of the coin. For example, I run into CCxx's who hold little experience but have shut their ears to people who do hold more experience, under the guide that 'what he's telling me wasn't in the Cisco textbooks so it can't possibly be true...'. It too is often coupled with feelings of insecurity - the paper- CCxx guy feels nervous about his job and doesn't want to reveal to the other guys on his team just how inexperienced he really is, so he never wants to do any work in front of anybody else for fear of making a bonehead mistake, etc. etc., and he never has anything meaningful to contribute during meetings because he doesn't want to say something foolish. The fact is, arrogance and insecurity cuts both ways. Both sides (the experienced guys and the inexperienced guys) are guilty from time to time. And it's bad no matter who's doing it. > > Good comments! > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45010&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
The problem, again, is not with guys who are willing to learn and stay humble and hungry. There is nothing wrong with being a lab-rat per se. The problems come when those lab-rats now start demanding the same pay and respect as guys who also hold their CCIE and have many years of experience. For example, to extend your med-school analogy, there's no problem with some fresh kid who's in med-school and is carving up cadavers for surgery practice. The problem comes when that kid becomes a whiz at cadaver-carving, but still hasn't done a real live operation, but because of his cadaver-carving skills now thinks he should be automatically promoted to Head of Surgery. ""cebuano"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I posted this message in response to a lot of rap, crap, xyz-rap, etc. that > individuals who devote their time, effort and money towards advancing > their knowledge and skill (and hopefully career) by building their own home > lab because this is the ONLY way they can get experience are getting. > When are we going to stop shoving this chicken-and-egg syndrome down > their throat? Everybody has to start somewhere. > Hell, do you think med school students start their career in medicine by > working in a "production" clinic? The only time they get to that level is > after years of learning the ins/outs involved in clinical practice IN A > LAB environment. > Nothing personal, but I just wanted to encourage "lab rats" who've been > discriminated against and wrongfully labeled by people who feel insecure > with their career. > > Hope that clears things up. > > Elmer > > - Original Message - > From: "Johnny Routin" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:11 AM > Subject: Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611] > > > > Nice of you to take Jeff's words and use them out of context. I believe > > what Jeff meant is that as we are experienced network engineers pursuing > > CCIE certification, we should set up a lab for practice as we cannot > perform > > the necessary configurations on our production networks. The thing you > > forgot to mention while taking liberities with his words is that lab rats > do > > not know what a production network looks like. > > > > > > JR > > -- > > Johnny Routin > > The "Routin" One > > > > > > > > ""cebuano"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Excerpt from Doyle's Vol.2 page 792. > > > "Labs also provide an area of the network where you can just play around > > > with the commands, testing the effect of misconfigurations and > practicing > > > troubleshooting. The lab can be used in this way for training and CCIE > > > preparation. Only with a lab can you THOROUGHLY experiment with > > > configurations, break things to see what happens, and determine what > > > symptoms identify misconfigurations." > > > > > > This is exactly how we are all educated in colleges and universities. > > > Remember the labs in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Human Anatomy... > > > So for those of you that have no respect for lab rats, you might need > > > to rethink your opinions. > > > I say more swiss cheese to lab rats! > > > > > > Elmer > > > P.S. Don't forget the wine. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45009&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
"Tom Scott" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I've seen a goodly number of network administrators who are in positions of > power, but > who don't know even the basics of classful subnetting, VLSM, routing, L2 LAN > switching, > and VLANs. (Even some telco ATM techs who don't understand the difference > between > L2/LAN switches vs. VLAN switches, but that's a whole 'nother story in > itself). These > hands-on guys moved up from the ranks of network operating systems (NOSs), > usually > Novell, Unix and Windows. I respect their ability to handle a production > network but > it's a shame they won't listen to the young CCNAs and CCNPs who work for > them. They > (the old desktop/NOS guys who moved up to network management roles) couldn't > even > conceive of migrating their RIP networks to OSPF, but with the help of their > CCNx/CCDx > employees they could really do something good. It's the age-old problem of > control and > fear of the unknown. I couldn't have said it better myself.. you really hit some key points, especially about the people that moved their way up from desktop to NOS to network not trusting the CCNx/CCDx, not being able to fathom moving from RIP to OSPF, etc. Good comments! Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44999&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Thompson Alton wrote: > Your comments are false and you sound very ignorant. > I work with guys who have 20 years experience and to trouble shoot a problem > take months. This is because they don't know how the protocols work. How > much money can a company afford to lose when production is downloading for a > considerable amount of time? That's why as a mangers? we send Engineers on > training to learn about new and merging technologies. And that?s before you > can put or do any upgrades to the production network you must first try it > out in the lab. An ideal scneario would be to pass the CCNP with production network experience or at least with plenty of lab experience from home/office labs and the Cisco Academies that are popping up all over the country. Moving to the CCIE, the ideal is pretty much production network plus home/office labs. If you're not working with routers and switches that are actually used in a production network, passing the CCIE is not as meaningful as it would be for those who have daily hands-on experience with real design and troubleshooting. I've seen a goodly number of network administrators who are in positions of power, but who don't know even the basics of classful subnetting, VLSM, routing, L2 LAN switching, and VLANs. (Even some telco ATM techs who don't understand the difference between L2/LAN switches vs. VLAN switches, but that's a whole 'nother story in itself). These hands-on guys moved up from the ranks of network operating systems (NOSs), usually Novell, Unix and Windows. I respect their ability to handle a production network but it's a shame they won't listen to the young CCNAs and CCNPs who work for them. They (the old desktop/NOS guys who moved up to network management roles) couldn't even conceive of migrating their RIP networks to OSPF, but with the help of their CCNx/CCDx employees they could really do something good. It's the age-old problem of control and fear of the unknown. -- TT Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44947&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Your comments are false and you sound very ignorant. I work with guys who have 20 years experience and to trouble shoot a problem take months. This is because they don't know how the protocols work. How much money can a company afford to lose when production is downloading for a considerable amount of time? That's why as a mangersÂ’ we send Engineers on training to learn about new and merging technologies. And thatÂ’s before you can put or do any upgrades to the production network you must first try it out in the lab. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44644&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
I posted this message in response to a lot of rap, crap, xyz-rap, etc. that individuals who devote their time, effort and money towards advancing their knowledge and skill (and hopefully career) by building their own home lab because this is the ONLY way they can get experience are getting. When are we going to stop shoving this chicken-and-egg syndrome down their throat? Everybody has to start somewhere. Hell, do you think med school students start their career in medicine by working in a "production" clinic? The only time they get to that level is after years of learning the ins/outs involved in clinical practice IN A LAB environment. Nothing personal, but I just wanted to encourage "lab rats" who've been discriminated against and wrongfully labeled by people who feel insecure with their career. Hope that clears things up. Elmer - Original Message - From: "Johnny Routin" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:11 AM Subject: Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611] > Nice of you to take Jeff's words and use them out of context. I believe > what Jeff meant is that as we are experienced network engineers pursuing > CCIE certification, we should set up a lab for practice as we cannot perform > the necessary configurations on our production networks. The thing you > forgot to mention while taking liberities with his words is that lab rats do > not know what a production network looks like. > > > JR > -- > Johnny Routin > The "Routin" One > > > > ""cebuano"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Excerpt from Doyle's Vol.2 page 792. > > "Labs also provide an area of the network where you can just play around > > with the commands, testing the effect of misconfigurations and practicing > > troubleshooting. The lab can be used in this way for training and CCIE > > preparation. Only with a lab can you THOROUGHLY experiment with > > configurations, break things to see what happens, and determine what > > symptoms identify misconfigurations." > > > > This is exactly how we are all educated in colleges and universities. > > Remember the labs in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Human Anatomy... > > So for those of you that have no respect for lab rats, you might need > > to rethink your opinions. > > I say more swiss cheese to lab rats! > > > > Elmer > > P.S. Don't forget the wine. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44623&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
I think that everyone agrees that in order to pass the CCIE lab, you have to spend a decent amount of time in a lab playing with scenarios and technologies you might otherwise have never experienced in a real life network, or experienced it so long ago that you don't have any where else to test and learn it. No matter who you are, you are going to have to get "some" of your experience for the CCIE lab in a lab on your own, not a production network. Perhaps some people do get all of their experience in a production network..or several production networks and I am not going to dispute that, but it is certainly the exception, not the rule. I think the problem here is with people who get "all" of their experience in a lab network. Today, it is possible to pass the CCIE written and lab with little to no real world experience and that is not what the CCIE is about. I can hardly fault someone who has the time, money and desire to sit down and attempt the CCIE without much real world experience because I am seeing more and more employers looking for entry to mid-level network engineers with CCIE's required or highly desired. I don't think that was the original intent of the CCIE either. The CISSP already does, or is going to require that you send your resume in with your "application" to be a CISSP. In fact, they audit them to make sure that people aren't lying on their applications. I don't claim to know all the details of the CISSP certification process, but what would something like this do for the CCIE program? It appears to keep the CISSP relavent. Does it really? -Original Message- From: Johnny Routin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611] Nice of you to take Jeff's words and use them out of context. I believe what Jeff meant is that as we are experienced network engineers pursuing CCIE certification, we should set up a lab for practice as we cannot perform the necessary configurations on our production networks. The thing you forgot to mention while taking liberities with his words is that lab rats do not know what a production network looks like. JR -- Johnny Routin The "Routin" One ""cebuano"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Excerpt from Doyle's Vol.2 page 792. > "Labs also provide an area of the network where you can just play around > with the commands, testing the effect of misconfigurations and practicing > troubleshooting. The lab can be used in this way for training and CCIE > preparation. Only with a lab can you THOROUGHLY experiment with > configurations, break things to see what happens, and determine what > symptoms identify misconfigurations." > > This is exactly how we are all educated in colleges and universities. > Remember the labs in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Human Anatomy... > So for those of you that have no respect for lab rats, you might need > to rethink your opinions. > I say more swiss cheese to lab rats! > > Elmer > P.S. Don't forget the wine. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44620&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doyle on Lab Rats [7:44611]
Nice of you to take Jeff's words and use them out of context. I believe what Jeff meant is that as we are experienced network engineers pursuing CCIE certification, we should set up a lab for practice as we cannot perform the necessary configurations on our production networks. The thing you forgot to mention while taking liberities with his words is that lab rats do not know what a production network looks like. JR -- Johnny Routin The "Routin" One ""cebuano"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Excerpt from Doyle's Vol.2 page 792. > "Labs also provide an area of the network where you can just play around > with the commands, testing the effect of misconfigurations and practicing > troubleshooting. The lab can be used in this way for training and CCIE > preparation. Only with a lab can you THOROUGHLY experiment with > configurations, break things to see what happens, and determine what > symptoms identify misconfigurations." > > This is exactly how we are all educated in colleges and universities. > Remember the labs in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Human Anatomy... > So for those of you that have no respect for lab rats, you might need > to rethink your opinions. > I say more swiss cheese to lab rats! > > Elmer > P.S. Don't forget the wine. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44616&t=44611 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
