Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > > At 3:52 PM +0000 6/26/03, n rf 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. > > > >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).
Is this what you had in mind? :-) http://unixsex.com/netadmin/noclust/routergirl.jpg Priscilla > > I cite that noted networking authority, Leslie Nielsen, in his > autobiography. He describes a screen test in which he was > directed > to cross the room and turn on a radio. > > Walking to the instrument, he reached out and stroked it > softly, > crooning "you're a pretty cute radio." > > >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) > > In that case, nrf, I suggest you do not meditate deeply on the > functionality of the Physical Layer, whose scope includes male, > female, and gender-bender connectors. > > > > > > >And you ask about the integrity of the background check > procedure. Well, I > >am proposing using the same procedure that some employers > today use for > >their job candidates, where they hire companies to fact-check > your resume. > > I don't remember the specifics, but I believe Nortel did > something > like this for your case study writeups for the Architect > certification. Might have been a letter, might have been spot > checking. > > One of the issues that I keep coming back to is that highly > verified > certifications, be it a professional engineer, medical > certification, > etc., which may use oral exams, peer-reviewed documents, etc., > tend > not to be highly scalable or lend themselves to scaling the way > it > would seem Cisco would like. > > Of course, this is rough for the people that worked on > sensitive or > classified networks (I can tell you what the candidate built, > but > then I'll have to kill you). > > Mind you, I have a friend that was updating the cabling in the > Pentagon, who still claims she put a test set on a random wire > and > got the following telegraph message: > > Many Indians. Send help. > > Custer > > :-) > > Actually, not so :-), when we have the reality that a command > post > heard 30-odd successive SOS messages, interspersed with "we are > being > boarded", from the USS Pueblo, and dismissed it as "operator > chatter". > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71483&t=71479 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
