Re: ZONE Tests vs Boson Tests [7:26639]
After purchasing your product and failing the test, I purchased the Boson tests and find the format superior. Additionally the ability to download updates and have a more detail explanation in the answer as well as a Cisco web reference makes Boson tests a superior value. While your study guides are nice, they do not have the necessary detail to pass the test. If you would like to visit with me about the differences and what you can do to improve your product, please contact me directly. Mike Cinquanti wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I'm responding to Shawn's Boson Tests border on Unethical post because CertificationZone.com does market Practice Exams that do help prepare users for Cisco's CCNA, CCIE, and CCNP Routing and Switching tests but we do not ask our Authors to get their questions as close as possible to the questions on the actual exam. Here's why: CertificationZone.com publishes Study Guides that address the key technical topics our users must master to earn their CCNA, CCNP, and CCIE certifications. Each month, we introduce new Study Guides written by experts in the topics they address. The purpose of a Study Guide is to examine and explain the key technical concepts of the featured topic and to provide the reader with tools that can be used to assess their comprehension of that topic. One such assessment tool included in every ZONE Study Guide is a set of approximately 25 Study Questions, written by the same expert. Along with the correct answer, each Question is accompanied by a complete Explanation. Every ZONE Study Question and Explanation is first technically reviewed by a qualified networking professional, then reviewed for grammar and punctuation, and finally undergoes a review for user friendliness. What's the purpose of our user friendliness review? We have a very competent MIS professional who knows just a little about networking read each question and explanation to make sure he can understand what is being asked by the question and explained by the explanation. The vast majority of the over 2,000 questions that feed the ZONE's on-line Exam Engine were, therefore, originally written as Study Guide Questions. And that's the key difference between the ZONE series of Practice Tests for Cisco exams and everyone else's. Instead of helping you memorize, ZONE exams force you to think. Our questions are harder than those you'll encounter on the real test, but they are easier to read and well-explained. We like to tell people who ask about ZONE exams that they learn more flunking one of ours than they will learn passing five of their's. Of course, we're not perfect. We make mistakes. And I'm sure we have questions in our database that are very similar to those you'll see on Boson exams or Cisco's for that matter. But I want to make sure the members of this forum understand that I do not agree with Shawn Kaminski's statement. CertificationZone.com does do things differently than Boson and other Practice Exam providers because we are much more than a provider of practice exams. And I also don't mean to insinuate that Boson does ask their authors to do anything unethical. I only know how the ZONE's Practice Exams are created. It's easy to see what's happening here. All of Boson's tests are done by different authors. Each author is going to try like hell to get their questions as close as possible to the questions on the actual exams, if not right from the exams. Boson doesn't care because they state right in their author contract that they are not responsible for exams that contain questions that break the NDA. The author will be held responsible. It's not like Boson's going to double-check every authored exam for NDA violations. Anyway, the closer the author comes to the actual exam questions, the more exams he'll sell when word gets around that, for example, Boson Test #2 is the one you need to get. However, Boson isn't doing anything different than any other company selling certification practice exams. It's a ridiculously huge, cut-throat, and competitive market out there for study materials. Shawn -Original Message- From: Logan, Harold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Boson Tests border on Unethical [7:26639] I thought about that after I took the exam, but there was something else I noticed when taking the boson tests. Try taking one of the more popular CCIE prep books, or maybe even the CCIE Professional Development books, and go through a section. (Not a chapter, but one section of a chapter). Then, try to think of 5 questions you could ask someone that would test their comprehension of that section. I'm willing to bet that 4 of those 5 questions you thought of will show up, worded slightly differently, on the boson tests, and 1 or 2 of those 5 questions are in the test bank for the written.
RE: ZONE Tests vs Boson Tests [7:26639]
As one of CertificationZone's study question authors, I'll attest to what Mike has said - that questions are meant to reinforce key concepts. Yet another exam certification preparation series that follows this same philosophy is Sybex's Virtual Test Center line. The CCNA series has been quite successful - and shortly Sybex will be going live with their new CCNP Virtual Test series. CertificationZone and Sybex are both successful in their product in that people use them to enhance their skills, rather than as a simple way of getting just enough knowledge to pass the exam--and that in turn makes the people who purchase their products more employable because they've got the skills and knowledge to get the job done. In the end, generally it's the person with the knowledge and skills that's going to get the job--rather than the person with a few letters of the alphabet tacked onto their name. So no Shawn, not every test preparation company out there ascribes to that philosophy - but granted, many do. -- Leigh Anne (CCNP) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Cinquanti Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ZONE Tests vs Boson Tests [7:26639] I'm responding to Shawn's Boson Tests border on Unethical post because CertificationZone.com does market Practice Exams that do help prepare users for Cisco's CCNA, CCIE, and CCNP Routing and Switching tests but we do not ask our Authors to get their questions as close as possible to the questions on the actual exam. Here's why: CertificationZone.com publishes Study Guides that address the key technical topics our users must master to earn their CCNA, CCNP, and CCIE certifications. Each month, we introduce new Study Guides written by experts in the topics they address. The purpose of a Study Guide is to examine and explain the key technical concepts of the featured topic and to provide the reader with tools that can be used to assess their comprehension of that topic. One such assessment tool included in every ZONE Study Guide is a set of approximately 25 Study Questions, written by the same expert. Along with the correct answer, each Question is accompanied by a complete Explanation. Every ZONE Study Question and Explanation is first technically reviewed by a qualified networking professional, then reviewed for grammar and punctuation, and finally undergoes a review for user friendliness. What's the purpose of our user friendliness review? We have a very competent MIS professional who knows just a little about networking read each question and explanation to make sure he can understand what is being asked by the question and explained by the explanation. The vast majority of the over 2,000 questions that feed the ZONE's on-line Exam Engine were, therefore, originally written as Study Guide Questions. And that's the key difference between the ZONE series of Practice Tests for Cisco exams and everyone else's. Instead of helping you memorize, ZONE exams force you to think. Our questions are harder than those you'll encounter on the real test, but they are easier to read and well-explained. We like to tell people who ask about ZONE exams that they learn more flunking one of ours than they will learn passing five of their's. Of course, we're not perfect. We make mistakes. And I'm sure we have questions in our database that are very similar to those you'll see on Boson exams or Cisco's for that matter. But I want to make sure the members of this forum understand that I do not agree with Shawn Kaminski's statement. CertificationZone.com does do things differently than Boson and other Practice Exam providers because we are much more than a provider of practice exams. And I also don't mean to insinuate that Boson does ask their authors to do anything unethical. I only know how the ZONE's Practice Exams are created. It's easy to see what's happening here. All of Boson's tests are done by different authors. Each author is going to try like hell to get their questions as close as possible to the questions on the actual exams, if not right from the exams. Boson doesn't care because they state right in their author contract that they are not responsible for exams that contain questions that break the NDA. The author will be held responsible. It's not like Boson's going to double-check every authored exam for NDA violations. Anyway, the closer the author comes to the actual exam questions, the more exams he'll sell when word gets around that, for example, Boson Test #2 is the one you need to get. However, Boson isn't doing anything different than any other company selling certification practice exams. It's a ridiculously huge, cut-throat, and competitive market out there for study materials. Shawn -Original Message- From: Logan, Harold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Boson Tests border on Unethical
Re: ZONE Tests vs Boson Tests [7:26639]
I disagree. Everyone seems to think teaching to the test is a bad thing, but I think it's a lot more fuzzy than that. Here's an example, If I ask you what 3x3 equals, you can answer 9 (I hope). How do you know that? Did you go to college and study math theory for four years? Do you how many pages it takes to prove that 3x3=9? Do you know the concepts needed for the proof? I'm assuming that you were learned 3x3 just like I did, with a 3rd grade teacher going over it and over it and over it. She was in effect, was teaching to the test. Let's jump forward a few years. Lately I've been dealing with L2TP/IPSEC/VPN. I think I understand the basic concepts these protocols well, seeing that I use them daily, but in truth do I really? If someone asked me to code a tcp/ip stack for vpn, I wouldn't have a clue where to start. I think it would take me years just to start understanding the high math needed to code a vpn protocol. My point being that I have learned the correct answers on how to use vpn by being told the correct answers thru self study, reading and experience. I have in effect taught myself the correct answers to use when I see the correct questions. Is there a difference here other than learning that 3x3=9 and passing third grade math test? I'm not sure there is. I think anyway you look at it, a pass is pass. If someone can learn to pass the test, but can't effectively use that knowledge in the real world, maybe we will find the fault is in the test itself. Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... As one of CertificationZone's study question authors, I'll attest to what Mike has said - that questions are meant to reinforce key concepts. Yet another exam certification preparation series that follows this same philosophy is Sybex's Virtual Test Center line. The CCNA series has been quite successful - and shortly Sybex will be going live with their new CCNP Virtual Test series. CertificationZone and Sybex are both successful in their product in that people use them to enhance their skills, rather than as a simple way of getting just enough knowledge to pass the exam--and that in turn makes the people who purchase their products more employable because they've got the skills and knowledge to get the job done. In the end, generally it's the person with the knowledge and skills that's going to get the job--rather than the person with a few letters of the alphabet tacked onto their name. So no Shawn, not every test preparation company out there ascribes to that philosophy - but granted, many do. -- Leigh Anne (CCNP) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Cinquanti Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ZONE Tests vs Boson Tests [7:26639] I'm responding to Shawn's Boson Tests border on Unethical post because CertificationZone.com does market Practice Exams that do help prepare users for Cisco's CCNA, CCIE, and CCNP Routing and Switching tests but we do not ask our Authors to get their questions as close as possible to the questions on the actual exam. Here's why: CertificationZone.com publishes Study Guides that address the key technical topics our users must master to earn their CCNA, CCNP, and CCIE certifications. Each month, we introduce new Study Guides written by experts in the topics they address. The purpose of a Study Guide is to examine and explain the key technical concepts of the featured topic and to provide the reader with tools that can be used to assess their comprehension of that topic. One such assessment tool included in every ZONE Study Guide is a set of approximately 25 Study Questions, written by the same expert. Along with the correct answer, each Question is accompanied by a complete Explanation. Every ZONE Study Question and Explanation is first technically reviewed by a qualified networking professional, then reviewed for grammar and punctuation, and finally undergoes a review for user friendliness. What's the purpose of our user friendliness review? We have a very competent MIS professional who knows just a little about networking read each question and explanation to make sure he can understand what is being asked by the question and explained by the explanation. The vast majority of the over 2,000 questions that feed the ZONE's on-line Exam Engine were, therefore, originally written as Study Guide Questions. And that's the key difference between the ZONE series of Practice Tests for Cisco exams and everyone else's. Instead of helping you memorize, ZONE exams force you to think. Our questions are harder than those you'll encounter on the real test, but they are easier to read and well-explained. We like to tell people who ask about ZONE exams that they learn more flunking one of ours than they will learn passing five of their's. Of course, we're not perfect. We
Re: ZONE Tests vs Boson Tests [7:26639]
I am digressing a bit, and want to concentrate specifically on raw memorization vs understanding. I am a big fan of theory for a few reasons. I mean REALLY understanding theory, not just saying yeah I get the theory, but I do not understand it. No. If you understand the theory, you understand it, period. If you cannot explain something to someone, you do NOT know that something. Period. Implementation details aside. Although both ways can be used to conquer any test, be it raw memorization or knowing the theory well and having some cached info in your head, ultimately, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by failing to understand the theory. 1) For someone who just memorizes and memorizes answers, when new technology comes out, they are baffled at first, and take a long time to relearn. 2) For someone who knows the theory, when new technology comes out, it is trivial to apply the theory to most new technologies and easily understand it. While this is a bit drastic, simply because many people begin to learn the theory as they memorize all sorts of information, I feel this is closer to the truth than most people realize. Some people just outright never learn it. As for the 3x3 bit, that is just embedding cached knowledge in someone's head. No different than someone eventually memorizing the decimal - binary conversions. The difference is, the man who knows the theory will be able to derive back the answer should he forget. The one who just memorizes will forget, and fail. 3x3 is somewhat of the simple extreme case since it has been drilled in since day 1. Also, it is akin to realizing that 3x3 is merely a shortcut for 3+3+3. The one who just memorizes would sadly never know that. It is also why you learn addition before multiplication. Being asked to code a tcp/ip stack for vpn and understanding the different phases of IKE and IPsec are a bit different. Ultimately, you should only need to learn what you need to succeed in whatever job field you are in. However, UNDERSTANDING it is a key issue. Also, to design a protocol in itself does NOT require high math. A protocol, by definition, is a language of types. A form of communication. You need zero math to do that. As for the actual encryption ciphers and how they function, if you wanted to know precisely how they worked or were to design a new cipher, then math would enter into the fray. I do not blame the test. The test has no way of discerning between one who truly understands and someone who memorizes. Sure there are ways to draw it out a bit more (written essays, open ended answers), but that makes things a bit difficult to grade and handle effectively in large numbers. I just worry a lot more when someone simply passes by pure memorization, and does not know WHY answer A is so. Odds are that individual will quickly forget, and will take a long time to get back his knowledge. The one who understood it will easily regain that knowledge. I think HR should stop depending on the CERT as a shortcut verification system and just ask the senior engineers for doing their own little cross examination. Of course, there could be a chicken and the egg syndrome. What if you have no seniors? ;) At 06:11 PM 11/20/01 -0500, Michael Snyder wrote: I disagree. Everyone seems to think teaching to the test is a bad thing, but I think it's a lot more fuzzy than that. Here's an example, If I ask you what 3x3 equals, you can answer 9 (I hope). How do you know that? Did you go to college and study math theory for four years? Do you how many pages it takes to prove that 3x3=9? Do you know the concepts needed for the proof? I'm assuming that you were learned 3x3 just like I did, with a 3rd grade teacher going over it and over it and over it. She was in effect, was teaching to the test. Let's jump forward a few years. Lately I've been dealing with L2TP/IPSEC/VPN. I think I understand the basic concepts these protocols well, seeing that I use them daily, but in truth do I really? If someone asked me to code a tcp/ip stack for vpn, I wouldn't have a clue where to start. I think it would take me years just to start understanding the high math needed to code a vpn protocol. My point being that I have learned the correct answers on how to use vpn by being told the correct answers thru self study, reading and experience. I have in effect taught myself the correct answers to use when I see the correct questions. Is there a difference here other than learning that 3x3=9 and passing third grade math test? I'm not sure there is. I think anyway you look at it, a pass is pass. If someone can learn to pass the test, but can't effectively use that knowledge in the real world, maybe we will find the fault is in the test itself. -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=26945t=26639
Re: ZONE Tests vs Boson Tests [7:26639]
I disagree. Everyone seems to think teaching to the test is a bad thing, but I think it's a lot more fuzzy than that. Here's an example, If I ask you what 3x3 equals, you can answer 9 (I hope). How do you know that? Did you go to college and study math theory for four years? Do you how many pages it takes to prove that 3x3=9? Do you know the concepts needed for the proof? Well, yes, I do. Bear with me. I'm assuming that you were learned 3x3 just like I did, with a 3rd grade teacher going over it and over it and over it. She was in effect, was teaching to the test. Let's jump forward a few years. Lately I've been dealing with L2TP/IPSEC/VPN. I think I understand the basic concepts these protocols well, seeing that I use them daily, but in truth do I really? If someone asked me to code a tcp/ip stack for vpn, I wouldn't have a clue where to start. I think it would take me years just to start understanding the high math needed to code a vpn protocol. There's a big difference among protocol design, protocol coding, network design, and network implementation. You don't need to know the mechanics of label manipulation and recursive tunneling to bring up a decent VPN. While I haven't specifically written TCP/IP VPN code, but I have written X.25 and frame relay code, and am current at the why level in IETF VPN specifications. I've very recently done BGP code reviews, including the feasibility of implementing RFC 2547 VPNs with the specific code. First, I wouldn't say a great deal of higher math is involved: basic finite state machines and some techniques of coding and searching. I can teach this stuff, perhaps minus some of the proofs, to a high school student. Let's put it this way...I can and have given enough information to a junior programmer that they can produce the code without being qualified to create the algorithms. My point being that I have learned the correct answers on how to use vpn by being told the correct answers thru self study, reading and experience. My feeling is that if the generic you had a basic knowledge of state machines, a more than Cisco-cursory discussion of OSI and protocol design in general, you could find the correct answers more quickly. I have in effect taught myself the correct answers to use when I see the correct questions. Is there a difference here other than learning that 3x3=9 and passing third grade math test? I'm not sure there is. I think anyway you look at it, a pass is pass. If someone can learn to pass the test, but can't effectively use that knowledge in the real world, maybe we will find the fault is in the test itself. Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... As one of CertificationZone's study question authors, I'll attest to what Mike has said - that questions are meant to reinforce key concepts. Yet another exam certification preparation series that follows this same philosophy is Sybex's Virtual Test Center line. The CCNA series has been quite successful - and shortly Sybex will be going live with their new CCNP Virtual Test series. CertificationZone and Sybex are both successful in their product in that people use them to enhance their skills, rather than as a simple way of getting just enough knowledge to pass the exam--and that in turn makes the people who purchase their products more employable because they've got the skills and knowledge to get the job done. In the end, generally it's the person with the knowledge and skills that's going to get the job--rather than the person with a few letters of the alphabet tacked onto their name. So no Shawn, not every test preparation company out there ascribes to that philosophy - but granted, many do. -- Leigh Anne (CCNP) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Cinquanti Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ZONE Tests vs Boson Tests [7:26639] I'm responding to Shawn's Boson Tests border on Unethical post because CertificationZone.com does market Practice Exams that do help prepare users for Cisco's CCNA, CCIE, and CCNP Routing and Switching tests but we do not ask our Authors to get their questions as close as possible to the questions on the actual exam. Here's why: CertificationZone.com publishes Study Guides that address the key technical topics our users must master to earn their CCNA, CCNP, and CCIE certifications. Each month, we introduce new Study Guides written by experts in the topics they address. The purpose of a Study Guide is to examine and explain the key technical concepts of the featured topic and to provide the reader with tools that can be used to assess their comprehension of that topic. One such assessment tool included in every ZONE Study Guide is a set of approximately 25 Study Questions, written by the same expert. Along
RE: ZONE Tests vs Boson Tests [7:26639]
Here's a little story from the Bering Sea. Bear with me and you'll see why the 'thread' fits. The Anacortes, Washington fishing family had been very successful in the late 1980's. Early 1990 saw four brand-new crab boats ready to plunder the king crab population in an area the coast guard describes as 'the major leagues' compared to North Atlantic fishing ground weather conditions. Not too far out of Dutch Harbor, Alaska, two of those boats capsized, killing all 15 crew members aboard, including the son of one of the surviving vessels. While the craft were carrying out a load of 800lb. 'pots, photos of the loaded boats before their doomed departure showed nothing visible to point toward load instability. Investigations, of course, followed. Over a year later, as the investigation was closing, without answers, almost as an afterthought, a shipyard worker approached one investigator. I don't know if it really matters, but we had some extra bottom paint, and we added an extra 12 inches around the hull of both boats, he told them. Anti-fouling bottom paint, to combat marine organisms, makes a very visible waterline on the hull of a vessel. Normally, this would be considered a 'bonus' for an owner. This time, however, was different. The engineering specifications had the craft designed with bottom paint to a certain level on the hull. The 25 year-old skipper had loaded the crab pots *to the waterline as indicated by the additional 12 inches of paint*. No one, not the planners, not the skipper, not the investigators, had thought that the paint-line, so visible in the after-the-fact photos, was so 'out of spec.' Twelve inches deeper on a 150 foot boat equals tons of additional displacement. The boats flipped like tops; there was not even time for a 'mayday'. There are a couple of lessons here. The first, and most obvious, is follow the engineering specifications without error. The second, and more relevant to this thread, was that the skipper was operating by rote. He apparently did not understand that the stability of the vessel was not due to a line in the water, but to exact engineering specifications that were inviolate physics. So, does learning to pass the CCxx test(s) require rote learning? Yes. Does that rote learning style make you a safe skipper? Probably not. Know your engineering, as much as possible. The Why's it do that? are perhaps more important than just knowing it does... Very best, G. VP OGC And have a happy Thanksgiving. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=26955t=26639 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
