Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
I have a feeling that I'm going to regret doing this. But anyway, inline. The bottom line is that these aren't 'myths', but actual facts as to how Cisco engineers are perceived by employers. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. Look, I never said there was anything wrong with knowing less than the next guy. The real problem is knowing less than the next guy and still demanding the same respect and pay as that next guy simply because you have a piece of paper, and then when you don't get that same respect and pay, then whining incessantly about it. Again, the problem is not that lab-rats exist, but that they have delusions of grandeur. 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I frequently spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to get my MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read alot about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You have less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. But on the other hand, while things may not be cheap or easy, things may have gotten cheaper or easier. I'm not referring to the one-day test for which it is still unclear whether it is easier or not (in fact I suspect probably not). But the fact is that when something gets easier, it inevitably gets devalued. 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I didn't get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early in my career. Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your success today. But so do things like hard work and ambition. Luck indeed plays a role in everybody's life, I would be a fool to say otherwise. But I believe it is also true that you can 'make your own luck'. When two groups of people are presented the same set of opportunities, the first group may exploit them much more effectively than the second group. For example, I'll make a digresssion here, the history of United States immigration (and actually immigration around the world) is replete with such examples, where penniless immigrant ethnic groups were forced to take the worst possible job opportunities or the worst possible farming land (because they couldn't speak English or due to overt discrimination or whatever) that the native population could not or would not exploit, but after a few generations, those immigrants were earning incomes equal to or exceeding that of the native population. How's this possible if your success primarily is dictated primarily by whether you were provided opportunities or not? It's not so much whether you are exposed to lots of opportunities but what you do with the opportunities you are exposed to that really determines your success. Taking it back to the networking arena, I know lots of guys who weren't provided opportunities to run networks. Rather, they had to 'provide themselves' with opportunites by basically hanging around the network guys at night or on the weekends on their own time. Or when their companies were offering network training to only a certain group of employees, they immediately finagled their way and played the corporate political game into making sure they were included in that training. These are just some examples of guys 'making their own luck'. This is the kind of attitude that fosters greater success. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender by return e-mail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44353t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
nrf, reading all your long, sarcastic, and unreasonable comments, mostly having a negative impact on hte Groupstudy, are you actually a CCIE? You seem very jealous about ppl having a CCIE certifications, or at least demoralizing ppl not to take CCIE if not 50 years old with rich networking experience. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I frequently spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to get my MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read alot about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You have less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I didn't get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early in my career. Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your success today. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender by return e-mail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44358t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
I believe nrf is a CCIE. Erwin wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... nrf, reading all your long, sarcastic, and unreasonable comments, mostly having a negative impact on hte Groupstudy, are you actually a CCIE? You seem very jealous about ppl having a CCIE certifications, or at least demoralizing ppl not to take CCIE if not 50 years old with rich networking experience. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I frequently spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to get my MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read alot about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You have less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I didn't get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early in my career. Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your success today. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender by return e-mail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44362t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Steve, Is 'nrf' your alter ego? LOL =) Steven A. Ridder wrote: I believe nrf is a CCIE. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44367t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
You caught me! Michael Williams wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Steve, Is 'nrf' your alter ego? LOL =) Steven A. Ridder wrote: I believe nrf is a CCIE. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44368t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
I also seem to recall that he is a CCIE and I have to completely disagree that his comments have a negative impact on the list. I don't recall a single one of his posts that has been unreasonable, including his comments in this thread. To the contrary, he's been an excellent contributor for quite a while. I'm not going to speak for him but I do notice that he tends to place more value on actual practical knowledge and experience rather than certifications alone. It's apparent that he has quite a lot of real-world experience in advanced topics so I feel his opinion is always worthy of consideration. Regards, John p.s. It just occurred to me that I really don't even know if nrf is male or female! Email aliases such as nrf and noglikirf are pretty gender neutral. :-) So, nrf, feel free to replace all references to he/him/his with the appropriate gender-specific terms, if necessary. Steven A. Ridder 5/17/02 9:47:15 AM I believe nrf is a CCIE. Erwin wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... nrf, reading all your long, sarcastic, and unreasonable comments, mostly having a negative impact on hte Groupstudy, are you actually a CCIE? You seem very jealous about ppl having a CCIE certifications, or at least demoralizing ppl not to take CCIE if not 50 years old with rich networking experience. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I frequently spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to get my MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read alot about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You have less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I didn't get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early in my career. Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your success today. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender by return e-mail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44370t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
I'm no psychologist, but he's posts can be quite aggressive, so I'm going to say that that is a male behavior pattern. John Neiberger wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I also seem to recall that he is a CCIE and I have to completely disagree that his comments have a negative impact on the list. I don't recall a single one of his posts that has been unreasonable, including his comments in this thread. To the contrary, he's been an excellent contributor for quite a while. I'm not going to speak for him but I do notice that he tends to place more value on actual practical knowledge and experience rather than certifications alone. It's apparent that he has quite a lot of real-world experience in advanced topics so I feel his opinion is always worthy of consideration. Regards, John p.s. It just occurred to me that I really don't even know if nrf is male or female! Email aliases such as nrf and noglikirf are pretty gender neutral. :-) So, nrf, feel free to replace all references to he/him/his with the appropriate gender-specific terms, if necessary. Steven A. Ridder 5/17/02 9:47:15 AM I believe nrf is a CCIE. Erwin wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... nrf, reading all your long, sarcastic, and unreasonable comments, mostly having a negative impact on hte Groupstudy, are you actually a CCIE? You seem very jealous about ppl having a CCIE certifications, or at least demoralizing ppl not to take CCIE if not 50 years old with rich networking experience. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I frequently spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to get my MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read alot about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You have less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I didn't get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early in my career. Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your success today. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender by return e-mail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44373t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Erwin wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... nrf, reading all your long, sarcastic, and unreasonable comments, mostly having a negative impact on hte Groupstudy, are you actually a CCIE? Interesting. I get this a lot. But let me ask you this. Let's say I was a CCIE, would it change your mind? Probably not, so why exactly should I tell you one way or another? Because looks like you're not going to agree with me no matter what. You seem very jealous about ppl having a CCIE certifications, or at least demoralizing ppl not to take CCIE if not 50 years old with rich networking experience. Really? Did I say that? Please provide me instances where I have typed such a thing. Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that not that I hate all 'lab-rat' CCIE's because everybody has to start somewhere.Rather that I find the phenomena that people view the CCIE as an easy shortcut highly suspect. This phenomena manifests itself in guys obtaining their cert and then immediately demanding a level of salary and respect equal to another guy who has significantly more experience. Or it manifests itself in guys who don't want to pay their dues and do grunt-work and just want to be the senior network guy without having spent any time as the non-senior network guy. It is that kind of behavior that is what I'm targeting. Is my finding this phenomena highly skeptical really objectionable? I think most people here would find it quite reasonable. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I frequently spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to get my MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read alot about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You have less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I didn't get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early in my career. Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your success today. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender by return e-mail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44375t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Steven A. Ridder wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I'm no psychologist, but he's posts can be quite aggressive, so I'm going to say that that is a male behavior pattern. Well, I'd like to think that I'm aggressive only about behavior that I consider objectionable. The behavior to which I'm referring is guys who think that the CCIE not as a stepping stone in a career and a component that belongs in a wide suite of qualifications, but rather as an easy way to make money. Again, this manifests itself in guys who get the lab done and then think they now deserve the same salary as the guy who's been doing networks for ages. Or guys who have decided that they simply don't want to pay their dues and would rather be the senior network guy without having spent any time as the junior network guy. That's what I'm talking about, and I don't think this viewpoint is particularly objectionable or controversial. So when you read other people's comments about my comments, I would just ask you to look at what I have specifically said, and not what other people are claiming that I've said. If you don't agree with what I'm saying, that's fine, but don't put words in my mouth. John Neiberger wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I also seem to recall that he is a CCIE and I have to completely disagree that his comments have a negative impact on the list. I don't recall a single one of his posts that has been unreasonable, including his comments in this thread. To the contrary, he's been an excellent contributor for quite a while. I'm not going to speak for him but I do notice that he tends to place more value on actual practical knowledge and experience rather than certifications alone. It's apparent that he has quite a lot of real-world experience in advanced topics so I feel his opinion is always worthy of consideration. Regards, John p.s. It just occurred to me that I really don't even know if nrf is male or female! Email aliases such as nrf and noglikirf are pretty gender neutral. :-) So, nrf, feel free to replace all references to he/him/his with the appropriate gender-specific terms, if necessary. Steven A. Ridder 5/17/02 9:47:15 AM I believe nrf is a CCIE. Erwin wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... nrf, reading all your long, sarcastic, and unreasonable comments, mostly having a negative impact on hte Groupstudy, are you actually a CCIE? You seem very jealous about ppl having a CCIE certifications, or at least demoralizing ppl not to take CCIE if not 50 years old with rich networking experience. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I frequently spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to get my MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read alot about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You have less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I didn't get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early in my career. Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your success today. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender by return e-mail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44376t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Myth or Fact Unless your post includes a statistcal sampling of people who employ CCIEs, I am afraid it isn't a fact. I don't like to speak on behalf of the rest of the world so I chose the word myth, maybe generalization would have been a better choice. My post was directed at all posts that use the words real CCIE, not just yours. Point #1 I agree a new CCIE should make less and it is silly to complain about it, but then that wasn't my point and this wasn't directed entirely at you. I object to lumping people into the categories lab-rat and calling the CCIE a piece of paper. There are alot of people on this list working hard and sincerely to obtain there CCIE. Point #2 Again, my post was not entirely directed at you, but the general perception that the CCIE is so easy anyone can do it. I am sure the difficulty will still discourage most people from pursuing the CCIE, even if your posts don't. :O Point #3 I am sure we are all happy you are in the clever lucky not a paper CCIE group. My point was be thankful for what you have, because there are alot of people who would like to be CCIEs. -Original Message- From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342] I have a feeling that I'm going to regret doing this. But anyway, inline. The bottom line is that these aren't 'myths', but actual facts as to how Cisco engineers are perceived by employers. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. Look, I never said there was anything wrong with knowing less than the next guy. The real problem is knowing less than the next guy and still demanding the same respect and pay as that next guy simply because you have a piece of paper, and then when you don't get that same respect and pay, then whining incessantly about it. Again, the problem is not that lab-rats exist, but that they have delusions of grandeur. 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I frequently spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to get my MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read alot about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You have less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. But on the other hand, while things may not be cheap or easy, things may have gotten cheaper or easier. I'm not referring to the one-day test for which it is still unclear whether it is easier or not (in fact I suspect probably not). But the fact is that when something gets easier, it inevitably gets devalued. 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I didn't get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early in my career. Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your success today. But so do things like hard work and ambition. Luck indeed plays a role in everybody's life, I would be a fool to say otherwise. But I believe it is also true that you can 'make your own luck'. When two groups of people are presented the same set of opportunities, the first group may exploit them much more effectively than the second group. For example, I'll make a digresssion here, the history of United States immigration (and actually immigration around the world) is replete with such examples, where penniless immigrant ethnic groups were forced to take the worst possible job opportunities or the worst possible farming land (because they couldn't speak English or due to overt discrimination or whatever) that the native population could not or would not exploit, but after a few generations, those immigrants were earning incomes equal to or exceeding that of the native population. How's this possible if your success primarily is dictated primarily by whether you were provided opportunities or not? It's not so much whether you are exposed to lots of opportunities but what you do with the opportunities you are exposed to that really determines your success. Taking it back to the networking arena, I know lots of guys who weren't provided opportunities to run networks. Rather, they had to 'provide themselves' with opportunites by basically hanging around the network guys at night or on the weekends on their own time. Or when their companies were offering network training to only a certain group of e
RE: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
I agree with nrf. People are quick to jump to conclusions and forget to read comments posted in this group. Key word is READ. -Original Message- From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 12:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342] Steven A. Ridder wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I'm no psychologist, but he's posts can be quite aggressive, so I'm going to say that that is a male behavior pattern. Well, I'd like to think that I'm aggressive only about behavior that I consider objectionable. The behavior to which I'm referring is guys who think that the CCIE not as a stepping stone in a career and a component that belongs in a wide suite of qualifications, but rather as an easy way to make money. Again, this manifests itself in guys who get the lab done and then think they now deserve the same salary as the guy who's been doing networks for ages. Or guys who have decided that they simply don't want to pay their dues and would rather be the senior network guy without having spent any time as the junior network guy. That's what I'm talking about, and I don't think this viewpoint is particularly objectionable or controversial. So when you read other people's comments about my comments, I would just ask you to look at what I have specifically said, and not what other people are claiming that I've said. If you don't agree with what I'm saying, that's fine, but don't put words in my mouth. John Neiberger wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I also seem to recall that he is a CCIE and I have to completely disagree that his comments have a negative impact on the list. I don't recall a single one of his posts that has been unreasonable, including his comments in this thread. To the contrary, he's been an excellent contributor for quite a while. I'm not going to speak for him but I do notice that he tends to place more value on actual practical knowledge and experience rather than certifications alone. It's apparent that he has quite a lot of real-world experience in advanced topics so I feel his opinion is always worthy of consideration. Regards, John p.s. It just occurred to me that I really don't even know if nrf is male or female! Email aliases such as nrf and noglikirf are pretty gender neutral. :-) So, nrf, feel free to replace all references to he/him/his with the appropriate gender-specific terms, if necessary. Steven A. Ridder 5/17/02 9:47:15 AM I believe nrf is a CCIE. Erwin wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... nrf, reading all your long, sarcastic, and unreasonable comments, mostly having a negative impact on hte Groupstudy, are you actually a CCIE? You seem very jealous about ppl having a CCIE certifications, or at least demoralizing ppl not to take CCIE if not 50 years old with rich networking experience. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. 2.) I have been working on Cisco certifications since 1999 and I frequently spend a month studying for a single test, while it took me a month to get my MCSE and a month for my CNE. I also only spent about $1,000 on those certifications and at least 8k on Cisco study materials. I also read alot about how the CCIE is devalued, because of the new one day format. You have less time and cover the same material that sounds harder to me. Lesson: It isn't easy and it isn't cheap. 3.) Jobs only want someone with experience, but how do you get it? I didn't get lucky enough to end up in a job where I got Cisco experience early in my career. Lesson: No matter how smart you are, luck had something to do with your success today. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and all copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and contact the sender by return e-mail. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44382t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Admittedly, what I'm going to discuss is not strictly Cisco certification, but I think it ties in with what NRF says about dues. Eons back, when I was in IBM application programming and user support, I really wanted to get into systems programming. The real systems programming manuals (looseleaf) were of rather limited distribution -- not quite a heavy NDA, but licensed material. As the operating system was updated, new update pages, or complete new manual versions, would replace the old. I began to haunt the trash cans in the systems programming area, grabbing all discarded updates and starting to put them into a one-release-behind library that let me study. Eventually, I was able to go to the head of system programming and establish that I knew enough to be useful, and explained to Irv how I had done it. He respected that -- he, like many other systems programmers of the time, had his job because he was ex-IBM, and indeed having worked his way up their ladder from hardware repair engineer. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44384t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Comments inline... nrf wrote: What I said is that not that I hate all 'lab-rat' CCIE's because everybody has to start somewhere.Rather that I find the phenomena that people view the CCIE as an easy shortcut highly suspect. This phenomena manifests itself in guys obtaining their cert and then immediately demanding a level of salary and respect equal to another guy who has significantly more experience. A couple of comments here. First, given that the CCIE is quite difficult to obtain, I think that one who has achieved it deserves a certain minumum amount of respect whether they have 'real world' experience or not, and the fact that you (often) use the word 'labrat' to stereotype them denies them even that minimum level of respect. I'm not saying any CCIE (or anyone for that matter) should demand a level of respect which they are not due, but they also (regardless of how obtained) should never be denied that level of respect they've earned, especially from fellow networkers. Second, IMHO, you are making a grave mistake in assuming that experience always teaches one the lessons of networking any more than a certification. Experience can teach things certs dont. But certs can educate someone about things they've never done before they ever have to call upon that knowledge, and one type of knowledge is no less valuable than the other. There are many lessons that someone needs to learn in the school of hard knocks to really understand because the certification doesn't deal with such issues. However, a very wise man once told me, Sometimes 5 years experience isn't 5 years experience. Many times it's the same 1 year of experience 5 times over. Think about that. I'll give an excellent example that shows this point (which I've given before, but I think it's needed to support my position). I worked with a gentleman at a previous job when I was 3 months into my first 6 months of real hands-on networking experience. This gentleman who had been dealing with Cisco and networking for 5+ years. I had just completed CCNP. He did a sniffer trace and was surprised when he saw multicast traffic and said outloud to all of his fellow experienced engineers Where's this multicast traffic coming from? I, the lowly inexperienced CCNP, asked Aren't we using EIGRP (which we were). He said Yeah, but what's that got to do with this multicast traffic. I just turned and walked away. I was floored that a room full of engineers with a combined 50+ years of experience couldn't answer this, when ANYONE who has made it through the CCNP Routing exam would have answered the question in a heartbeat. Experience limits you to what you deal with. Certification encourages you (and requires you) to read and learn new things that you may never use just to be exposed to them. Experience is only as good as what it exposes you to. If you have 10 years experience with RIP networks and that's it, then that 10 years may just as well be 6 months. Because all that experience isn't going to mean squat in a shop running OSPF/BGF/EIGRP, etc... That's where having the knowledge that a certification gives you is advantageous. Or it manifests itself in guys who don't want to pay their dues and do grunt-work and just want to be the senior network guy without having spent any time as the non-senior network guy. It is that kind of behavior that is what I'm targeting. Is my finding this phenomena highly skeptical really objectionable? I think most people here would find it quite reasonable. I think your skepticism here is valid, and a good thing. The only thing I would interject here is this: Believing that one must perform years of simple go patch these ports in. go mount this switch in the closet type of gruntwork is nonsense. I'll use myself as an example. (kinda picking up from my story above) After my 6 months of good experience at my first job, and armed with CCNP, I got my current job... Sr. Network Engineer... I setup dial-in access routers, I setup VoIP trunks between PBXs, I implemented many things that were there that they weren't using because they didn't know they could (i.e. using MLS on Cat5500s with RSMs)... No one else here with their vast experience could do or did do any of these things Within 6 months of being here my boss realized that I could take the knowledge from my certs and put them with the built-in skill I had to understand and troubleshoot things, and put me in charge of our multi-state ATM WAN network including charging me with redesigning the way we do our routing, QoS, etc Every day I stand toe-to-toe with my lead network engineer and debate (and most times win) issues regarding switching, routing, etc and this is a guy with 8+ years of (good) experience in Cisco networking. In my case, and I belive the idea behind certs, is that you can gain a vast knowledge of networking in a shorter amount of time (just over 1 year for me from CCNA to CCNP) as opposed to
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
I agree with Michael! Working with Intel boxes and bay hubs, for 5 years isn't quite the same as saying 5 years with SUN systems and ATM.No matter how you pass the test, you still pass the test. That in itself eliminates 95% of the parrots. If you still don't know what you are doing, well,, then you qualify for IT Director or maybe CIO. So either way you're set. Have a great day! Kevin McCarty CCNA CCNP Computer Sciences Corporation Defense Sector Michael Williams To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342] Sent by: nobody 05/17/2002 01:08 PM Please respond to Michael Williams Comments inline... nrf wrote: What I said is that not that I hate all 'lab-rat' CCIE's because everybody has to start somewhere.Rather that I find the phenomena that people view the CCIE as an easy shortcut highly suspect. This phenomena manifests itself in guys obtaining their cert and then immediately demanding a level of salary and respect equal to another guy who has significantly more experience. A couple of comments here. First, given that the CCIE is quite difficult to obtain, I think that one who has achieved it deserves a certain minumum amount of respect whether they have 'real world' experience or not, and the fact that you (often) use the word 'labrat' to stereotype them denies them even that minimum level of respect. I'm not saying any CCIE (or anyone for that matter) should demand a level of respect which they are not due, but they also (regardless of how obtained) should never be denied that level of respect they've earned, especially from fellow networkers. Second, IMHO, you are making a grave mistake in assuming that experience always teaches one the lessons of networking any more than a certification. Experience can teach things certs dont. But certs can educate someone about things they've never done before they ever have to call upon that knowledge, and one type of knowledge is no less valuable than the other. There are many lessons that someone needs to learn in the school of hard knocks to really understand because the certification doesn't deal with such issues. However, a very wise man once told me, Sometimes 5 years experience isn't 5 years experience. Many times it's the same 1 year of experience 5 times over. Think about that. I'll give an excellent example that shows this point (which I've given before, but I think it's needed to support my position). I worked with a gentleman at a previous job when I was 3 months into my first 6 months of real hands-on networking experience. This gentleman who had been dealing with Cisco and networking for 5+ years. I had just completed CCNP. He did a sniffer trace and was surprised when he saw multicast traffic and said outloud to all of his fellow experienced engineers Where's this multicast traffic coming from? I, the lowly inexperienced CCNP, asked Aren't we using EIGRP (which we were). He said Yeah, but what's that got to do with this multicast traffic. I just turned and walked away. I was floored that a room full of engineers with a combined 50+ years of experience couldn't answer this, when ANYONE who has made it through the CCNP Routing exam would have answered the question in a heartbeat. Experience limits you to what you deal with. Certification encourages you (and requires you) to read and learn new things that you may never use just to be exposed to them. Experience is only as good as what it exposes you to. If you have 10 years experience with RIP networks and that's it, then that 10 years may just as well be 6 months. Because all that experience isn't going to mean squat in a shop running OSPF/BGF/EIGRP, etc... That's where having the knowledge that a certification gives you is advantageous. Or it manifests itself in guys who don't want to pay their dues and do grunt-work and just want to be the senior network guy without having spent any time as the non-senior network guy. It is that kind of behavior that is what I'm targeting. Is my finding this phenomena highly skeptical really objectionable? I think most people here would find it quite reasonable. I think your
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Myth or Fact Unless your post includes a statistcal sampling of people who employ CCIEs, I am afraid it isn't a fact. I don't like to speak on behalf of the rest of the world so I chose the word myth, maybe generalization would have been a better choice. My post was directed at all posts that use the words real CCIE, not just yours. Point #1 I agree a new CCIE should make less and it is silly to complain about it, but then that wasn't my point and this wasn't directed entirely at you. I object to lumping people into the categories lab-rat and calling the CCIE a piece of paper. There are alot of people on this list working hard and sincerely to obtain there CCIE. I'm not out to denigrate people's efforts. What I'm saying is that people need to put the CCIE in perspective. It is not an end-goal in itself but a single step (albeit a fairly substantial step) in what is a long chain of goals necessary for a successful network engineer. People who are studying hard should continue to do so, but also be realistic about what the cert can and cannot do for them. Point #2 Again, my post was not entirely directed at you, but the general perception that the CCIE is so easy anyone can do it. I am sure the difficulty will still discourage most people from pursuing the CCIE, even if your posts don't. :O I have never lumped the words 'easy' and 'CCIE' together. I may have lumped the words 'easier' (but not the word 'easy') and 'CCIE' together in regards to the one-day-lab change, but as you can see, I have actually stated that the one-day-lab is probably not easier. And if my posts encourage or discourage people to do something, than so be it. I believe people are best served by getting complete information on what is going on. The fact is, there are guys who are passing the lab without any experience (which is not necesarily a problem, but when they start demanding outlandish salaries, then that is a problem). Whether you want to call them the 'L' word or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter, it's just words. If you think the 'L' word is pejorative and you want to call them something else, fine. So using or not using the 'L' word in not going to change the fact that people really are passing the lab without experience. That's the truth, and if that encourages more people to try the lab, then so be it. What it might also do is convince Cisco to make changes to the program. Point #3 I am sure we are all happy you are in the clever lucky not a paper CCIE group. My point was be thankful for what you have, because there are alot of people who would like to be CCIEs. Without answering the question of whether I'm a CCIE or not (for reasons I stated in a previous post), let me say this. Those people who occupy high-level networking positions should be thankful not so much for being a CCIE, but more for being given strong networking opportunities and experiences. Or actually, what I should really say is that they should be thankful for having been raised within a culture that has instilled in them a set of personal values (like a strong work ethic, a respect for skills, etc.) that allows them to take advantage of whatever opportunities have been presented to them. Like I said, success is determined not so much because a person has been presented with an exceptionally large number of good opportunities, but rather that they take advantage of whatever opportunities that do get presented to them. Luck is indeed an important component, but things like personal attitudes and a willingness to do hard work are important also. -Original Message- From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342] I have a feeling that I'm going to regret doing this. But anyway, inline. The bottom line is that these aren't 'myths', but actual facts as to how Cisco engineers are perceived by employers. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts knowing nothing. Look, I never said there was anything wrong with knowing less than the next guy. The real problem is knowing less than the next guy and still demanding the same respect and pay as that next guy simply because you have a piece of paper, and then when you don't get that same respect and pay, then whining incessantly about it. Again, the problem is not that lab-rats exist, but that they have delus
RE: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
I think most of our disagreement is over semantics. There is one thing you said that took me a minute to figure out, but here is my hypothesis. there are guys who are passing the lab without any experience (which is not necesarily a problem, but when they start demanding outlandish salaries, then that is a problem). I think this boils down to an example of capitalism. We have an experienced CCIE called nrf and a labrat CCIE called labrat1. Labrat1 tells people that interview him he wants 200,000, because he passed his CCIE. The employers all turn him down. Labrat1 has unrealistic expectations and there is enough of a supply the employers can wait or find someone else. Poor labrat1 can go back to crimping cable and getting coffee for nrf or accept there offer for a mere 80,000. Why is this a problem for you? I didn't really understand it until I realized what happens when the supply of labrats goes down. Nrf convinces Cisco to make the tests more difficult so poor labrat1 can't pass and there are 3,000 CCIEs in the world instead of 10,000. Nrf goes to get a job and says I want 200,000. The company hires him, because poor labrat1 is crimping cable. Nrf makes more money when labrat1 can't pass the exam. If this isn't true then why do you care if labrat1 gets a job or not? How does that affect you? Whether you want to call them the 'L' word or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter, it's just words. If you think the 'L' word is pejorative and you want to call them something else, fine. So using or not using the 'L' word in not going to change the fact that people really are passing the lab without experience. I think alot of us don't have a choice. If you don't have a job that provides alot of Cisco experience, you probably have a hard time finding one that does. I don't see why I should be looked down on for that. -Original Message- From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 3:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342] Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Myth or Fact Unless your post includes a statistcal sampling of people who employ CCIEs, I am afraid it isn't a fact. I don't like to speak on behalf of the rest of the world so I chose the word myth, maybe generalization would have been a better choice. My post was directed at all posts that use the words real CCIE, not just yours. Point #1 I agree a new CCIE should make less and it is silly to complain about it, but then that wasn't my point and this wasn't directed entirely at you. I object to lumping people into the categories lab-rat and calling the CCIE a piece of paper. There are alot of people on this list working hard and sincerely to obtain there CCIE. I'm not out to denigrate people's efforts. What I'm saying is that people need to put the CCIE in perspective. It is not an end-goal in itself but a single step (albeit a fairly substantial step) in what is a long chain of goals necessary for a successful network engineer. People who are studying hard should continue to do so, but also be realistic about what the cert can and cannot do for them. Point #2 Again, my post was not entirely directed at you, but the general perception that the CCIE is so easy anyone can do it. I am sure the difficulty will still discourage most people from pursuing the CCIE, even if your posts don't. :O I have never lumped the words 'easy' and 'CCIE' together. I may have lumped the words 'easier' (but not the word 'easy') and 'CCIE' together in regards to the one-day-lab change, but as you can see, I have actually stated that the one-day-lab is probably not easier. And if my posts encourage or discourage people to do something, than so be it. I believe people are best served by getting complete information on what is going on. The fact is, there are guys who are passing the lab without any experience (which is not necesarily a problem, but when they start demanding outlandish salaries, then that is a problem). Whether you want to call them the 'L' word or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter, it's just words. If you think the 'L' word is pejorative and you want to call them something else, fine. So using or not using the 'L' word in not going to change the fact that people really are passing the lab without experience. That's the truth, and if that encourages more people to try the lab, then so be it. What it might also do is convince Cisco to make changes to the program. Point #3 I am sure we are all happy you are in the clever lucky not a paper CCIE group. My point was be thankful for what you have, because there are alot of people who would like to be CCIEs. Without answering the question of whether I'm a CCIE or not (for reasons I stated in a previous post), let me say this. Those people who occupy high-level networking positions should be thankful not so much for bein
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
OK, inline Michael Williams wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Comments inline... nrf wrote: What I said is that not that I hate all 'lab-rat' CCIE's because everybody has to start somewhere.Rather that I find the phenomena that people view the CCIE as an easy shortcut highly suspect. This phenomena manifests itself in guys obtaining their cert and then immediately demanding a level of salary and respect equal to another guy who has significantly more experience. A couple of comments here. First, given that the CCIE is quite difficult to obtain, I think that one who has achieved it deserves a certain minumum amount of respect whether they have 'real world' experience or not, and the fact that you (often) use the word 'labrat' to stereotype them denies them even that minimum level of respect. I never said that anybody, even a lab-rat, deserves zero respect. I've never said that. What I'm saying is that he most likely deserves less respect than a non-lab-rat. That's not to say that he can't earn more respect by continuing to build on his knowledge. But at that point in his career, I think I'm on very safe ground when I say that such a guy doesn't deserve the level of respect as the average CCIE (which would naturally include all those experienced and highly knowledgeable guys) I'm not saying any CCIE (or anyone for that matter) should demand a level of respect which they are not due, but they also (regardless of how obtained) should never be denied that level of respect they've earned, especially from fellow networkers. Hey, if you've earned respect that is due, then there's no problem. The problem is not with those guys but, as you said, with guys who think they deserve more respect than they are actually due. So we are in full agreement here. Second, IMHO, you are making a grave mistake in assuming that experience always teaches one the lessons of networking any more than a certification. Experience can teach things certs dont. But certs can educate someone about things they've never done before they ever have to call upon that knowledge, and one type of knowledge is no less valuable than the other. I've never said that certs are not useful. Indeed they can be. Again, it's a case that some people think they are more useful than they actually are. There are many lessons that someone needs to learn in the school of hard knocks to really understand because the certification doesn't deal with such issues. However, a very wise man once told me, Sometimes 5 years experience isn't 5 years experience. Many times it's the same 1 year of experience 5 times over. On the other hand, surely you would agree that sometimes 5 years experience is actually 15 years experience, if you catch my drift. Really really good experience is immensely valuable, just like really bad experience is practically worthless. So if you want to make the point that certain kinds of experience aren't very useful, you must concede that other kinds of experience are exceptionally useful. So basically, it's a wash. When you examine a guy with 5 years experience, he might actually only have 1 year of real experience. But on the other hand, he might actually have 15 years of experience. So saying that 5 years = 5 years is probably a good average number to use. Think about that. I'll give an excellent example that shows this point (which I've given before, but I think it's needed to support my position). I worked with a gentleman at a previous job when I was 3 months into my first 6 months of real hands-on networking experience. This gentleman who had been dealing with Cisco and networking for 5+ years. I had just completed CCNP. He did a sniffer trace and was surprised when he saw multicast traffic and said outloud to all of his fellow experienced engineers Where's this multicast traffic coming from? I, the lowly inexperienced CCNP, asked Aren't we using EIGRP (which we were). He said Yeah, but what's that got to do with this multicast traffic. I just turned and walked away. I was floored that a room full of engineers with a combined 50+ years of experience couldn't answer this, when ANYONE who has made it through the CCNP Routing exam would have answered the question in a heartbeat. Experience limits you to what you deal with. Certification encourages you (and requires you) to read and learn new things that you may never use just to be exposed to them. Again, I agree that experience is not a perfect indicator for employee success. But I believe that it is a better indicator than anything else out there. It is certainly a better indicator than the number of certs a guy holds. The job market agrees with me - you've probably noticed how companies are demanding experience first, and certs second. Not because experience is the perfect indicator, but that it's the best thing available right now. Experience is only
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Comments inline.. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I think alot of us don't have a choice. If you don't have a job that provides alot of Cisco experience, you probably have a hard time finding one that does. I don't see why I should be looked down on for that. I have to agree with Tom here.. nrf, you put too much value on 'experience', period. I'm not one to argue that certs are better than experience, but as my previous posts said, both certs and experience add different components to ones knowledge and skills, and to claim that one is better than the other has no merit. (here's a lighter view) A network engineer is like a good peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Could you eat and enjoy a peanut butter sandwich? Sure... Could you eat and enjoy a jelly sandwich? Sure. But a good PBJ has just the right mixture of both.. Certs alone are not better than experience. Experience alone is not (always) better than certs. If I'm running a network running OSPF and using ATM and VoIP, I'd much rather hire a CCIE labrat over someone with years of experience on a network running X.25 over T1 lines You say Dial-Peer, ASBR Virtual Link, or VPI/VCI to the X.25/T1 person and they go huh? I don't understand what you're talking about, but I've got years of experience. At least you know the labrat has done the configuration of said things, enough to pass a proctored lab exam What has the person with experience got to prove (s)he can configure these things? Nothing. Personally, I realize the value of both experience (don't debug EIGRP on your busiest core router during an EIGRP storm without 'no logging console') and certs. Remember, everything is relative.. If someone who is a CCIE with little experience is interviewing for a job somewhere that the top network people couldn't get through any of the CCNP exams, then perhaps they should demand a higher salary. who's to say they shouldn't? If that same CCIE is interviewing for a job at a place that has 3 CCIEs (or good experienced people) on staff and they expect much more from them, then perhaps that CCIE should take the lower salary and see this as a great opportunity to learn from other seasoned network professionals. I'm sorry, but I've worked many places where the network people were goons that though RIP was the best thing since sliced bread. I'd hire a labrat CCIE over them anyday. besides, I've seen labrat CCIEs that have gotten their first network job and done great things. one friend of mine was a labrat CCIE (for the most part), and walked into a very well known top financial firm (the headquarters) and all of the 'experienced' engineers there (up to the very top of the network engineering ladder) stood by and watched him virtually single handedly setup and configure their VoIP, their Hoot-n-Hollar system, ALL of their Multicast IP routing architechtures (involving some very complex situations with passing routes thru PIX, NATs, etc) and their IPTV system. You wouldn't have hired him because he didn't have experience and you would have been passing up possibly (IMHO) one of the best examples of a top network engineer there is Don't forget. people with certs and little experience can do great things. Depends on the person. not always the certs. not always the experience Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=44413t=44342 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
s became more successful than the native population.The point is that people's spirits and attitudes can and often does triumph over limited opportunities. -Original Message- From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 3:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342] Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Myth or Fact Unless your post includes a statistcal sampling of people who employ CCIEs, I am afraid it isn't a fact. I don't like to speak on behalf of the rest of the world so I chose the word myth, maybe generalization would have been a better choice. My post was directed at all posts that use the words real CCIE, not just yours. Point #1 I agree a new CCIE should make less and it is silly to complain about it, but then that wasn't my point and this wasn't directed entirely at you. I object to lumping people into the categories lab-rat and calling the CCIE a piece of paper. There are alot of people on this list working hard and sincerely to obtain there CCIE. I'm not out to denigrate people's efforts. What I'm saying is that people need to put the CCIE in perspective. It is not an end-goal in itself but a single step (albeit a fairly substantial step) in what is a long chain of goals necessary for a successful network engineer. People who are studying hard should continue to do so, but also be realistic about what the cert can and cannot do for them. Point #2 Again, my post was not entirely directed at you, but the general perception that the CCIE is so easy anyone can do it. I am sure the difficulty will still discourage most people from pursuing the CCIE, even if your posts don't. :O I have never lumped the words 'easy' and 'CCIE' together. I may have lumped the words 'easier' (but not the word 'easy') and 'CCIE' together in regards to the one-day-lab change, but as you can see, I have actually stated that the one-day-lab is probably not easier. And if my posts encourage or discourage people to do something, than so be it. I believe people are best served by getting complete information on what is going on. The fact is, there are guys who are passing the lab without any experience (which is not necesarily a problem, but when they start demanding outlandish salaries, then that is a problem). Whether you want to call them the 'L' word or whatever you want to call it, it doesn't matter, it's just words. If you think the 'L' word is pejorative and you want to call them something else, fine. So using or not using the 'L' word in not going to change the fact that people really are passing the lab without experience. That's the truth, and if that encourages more people to try the lab, then so be it. What it might also do is convince Cisco to make changes to the program. Point #3 I am sure we are all happy you are in the clever lucky not a paper CCIE group. My point was be thankful for what you have, because there are alot of people who would like to be CCIEs. Without answering the question of whether I'm a CCIE or not (for reasons I stated in a previous post), let me say this. Those people who occupy high-level networking positions should be thankful not so much for being a CCIE, but more for being given strong networking opportunities and experiences. Or actually, what I should really say is that they should be thankful for having been raised within a culture that has instilled in them a set of personal values (like a strong work ethic, a respect for skills, etc.) that allows them to take advantage of whatever opportunities have been presented to them. Like I said, success is determined not so much because a person has been presented with an exceptionally large number of good opportunities, but rather that they take advantage of whatever opportunities that do get presented to them. Luck is indeed an important component, but things like personal attitudes and a willingness to do hard work are important also. -Original Message- From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342] I have a feeling that I'm going to regret doing this. But anyway, inline. The bottom line is that these aren't 'myths', but actual facts as to how Cisco engineers are perceived by employers. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I want to write about all the posts that use the words real CCIE. I hope we can beat this into the ground and never speak of it again. 1.) I think people should spend more time on technical issues and career opportunities and less on putting people into categories. Yes, I have less Cisco experience than most people on this list, oh my god crucify me now! Lesson: Everyone starts k
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Ok, inline Michael L. Williams wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Comments inline.. Tom Monte wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I think alot of us don't have a choice. If you don't have a job that provides alot of Cisco experience, you probably have a hard time finding one that does. I don't see why I should be looked down on for that. I have to agree with Tom here.. nrf, you put too much value on 'experience', period. I'm not one to argue that certs are better than experience, but as my previous posts said, both certs and experience add different components to ones knowledge and skills, and to claim that one is better than the other has no merit. (here's a lighter view) A network engineer is like a good peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Could you eat and enjoy a peanut butter sandwich? Sure... Could you eat and enjoy a jelly sandwich? Sure. But a good PBJ has just the right mixture of both.. Certs alone are not better than experience. Experience alone is not (always) better than certs. True, a blend is always better. But let me say this. Experience alone is usually better than certs alone. Naturally the blend is better. But if you had to pick one (continued later) If I'm running a network running OSPF and using ATM and VoIP, I'd much rather hire a CCIE labrat over someone with years of experience on a network running X.25 over T1 lines You say Dial-Peer, ASBR Virtual Link, or VPI/VCI to the X.25/T1 person and they go huh? I don't understand what you're talking about, but I've got years of experience. At least you know the labrat has done the configuration of said things, enough to pass a proctored lab exam What has the person with experience got to prove (s)he can configure these things? Nothing. The biggest problem that lab-rats face is simple. They don't have experience in working in a production environment. And it gets down to simple work attitudes and skills. Will the guy show up on time for his shift (if it's shift work)? Will he freak out and break under pressure when the network's down and the bosses are screaming at him?If the routers are acting oddly, will he approach the problem methodically, or will he pull a cowboy stunt like clearing all the BGP sessions? Does he have a personality that lets him relate to and get along with other network guys? With a lab-rat CCIE, these questions are all unknown, because he's never actually worked on a network before. My point is, far more important than whatever technical skills a person may have, is whether the guy is reliable while working on a network. As far as the guy with experience, at least I have some assurance, because if he really sucked, he probably would have been fired before he had the chance to accumulate the experience. Now obviously this isn't perfect (like I said, there is no perfect indicator), but it's still a useful indication, or at least, a whole lot more useful than a cert. With a cert, I know the guy can pass a test, but how do I know what he's going to do on a network? Is he going to do 'clear ip bgp *'? That's my point. Personally, I realize the value of both experience (don't debug EIGRP on your busiest core router during an EIGRP storm without 'no logging console') and certs. Remember, everything is relative.. If someone who is a CCIE with little experience is interviewing for a job somewhere that the top network people couldn't get through any of the CCNP exams, then perhaps they should demand a higher salary. who's to say they shouldn't? If that same CCIE is interviewing for a job at a place that has 3 CCIEs (or good experienced people) on staff and they expect much more from them, then perhaps that CCIE should take the lower salary and see this as a great opportunity to learn from other seasoned network professionals. I'm sorry, but I've worked many places where the network people were goons that though RIP was the best thing since sliced bread. I'd hire a labrat CCIE over them anyday. besides, I've seen labrat CCIEs that have gotten their first network job and done great things. one friend of mine was a labrat CCIE (for the most part), and walked into a very well known top financial firm (the headquarters) and all of the 'experienced' engineers there (up to the very top of the network engineering ladder) stood by and watched him virtually single handedly setup and configure their VoIP, their Hoot-n-Hollar system, ALL of their Multicast IP routing architechtures (involving some very complex situations with passing routes thru PIX, NATs, etc) and their IPTV system. You wouldn't have hired him because he didn't have experience and you would have been passing up possibly (IMHO) one of the best examples of a top network engineer there is Well, I wouldn't have hired him because I could have
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
More inline =) nrf wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... True, a blend is always better. But let me say this. Experience alone is usually better than certs alone. Naturally the blend is better. But if you had to pick one (continued later) I would agree that experience alone is usually better than certs alone but it depends on experience in what I've beat that horse to death with the previous X.25/T1 example, so I'll let it lie The biggest problem that lab-rats face is simple. They don't have experience in working in a production environment. And it gets down to simple work attitudes and skills. Will the guy show up on time for his shift (if it's shift work)? Will he freak out and break under pressure when the network's down and the bosses are screaming at him?If the routers are acting oddly, will he approach the problem methodically, or will he pull a cowboy stunt like clearing all the BGP sessions? Does he have a personality that lets him relate to and get along with other network guys? With a lab-rat CCIE, these questions are all unknown, because he's never actually worked on a network before. You bring up a very good point.. work attitudes and skills This is something I don't believe experience or certs has anything to do with so it's not quite fair to favor the experience over the certs because experience has nothing to do with work attitudes (good work ethic, etc) and skills (Yet another anecdote) I used to do PC support and then later server admin work.. although my experience in networking was not much (I knew what routers, switches, and hubs were, and understood IP and subnetting, but by no means had any hands-on with Cisco network gear), I had a solid record of having good work habits, being good at troubleshooting, using logic, learning new things, and being able to multitask... My CCNA, CCNP, etc aren't meant to show an employer that I'm reliable. They're meant to show a level of knowledge My resume and past work history (and letters of recommendations, references, etc) are meant to vouch for my reliability. Now, the gentleman I spoke of earlier that is the lead engineer in my group, has years of experience and is very good with Cisco gear. but he is the *first* one to pull a cowboy stunt in an attempt to get things working... (he smoked 2 - 6500Sup2s trying to convert from Hybrid to Native because he *refused* to (even made fun of me for) following the steps from Cisco's website). As an aside it's funny you used the phrase 'cowboy' because that's the exact phrase I used when trying to explain him to my other network friends.. also used the phrase shoot from the hip.. =) So to recap my point here, to favor experience over certs because of 'work ethic and skills' is a demonstration in faulty logic because one should consider ones work ethic and skills aside from experience or certs. i.e. Experience and certs are ways to quantize ones knowledge. Work ethic and skills are a way to judge one's ability to be a good worker.. They're (IMHO) mutually exclusive. And more to the point, I wouldn't have hired him because I have personally had bad experiences with lab-rats. One guy just sat around and played Solitaire all-day and while still demanding a high salary. Another 2 completely screwed up a bunch of 6500's and 4000's that we had (remember, those switches are not part of the exam). I understand your bad experiences It sounds to me like your blaming the cert for lack of being able to choose qualified employees (not meant to piss you off, but you cannot even begin to blame the cert for Mr. Solitaire being a lazy sack no more than I can blame a college for a lazy graduate I mean he sat around playing Solitaire and demanded a high salary who was the fool that agreed to pay or or didn't fire his ass?) As far as the labrats toasting a couple of switches, as I pointed out above, where I work Mr. Cowboy lead engineer, with tons of experience, fried two Sup2s because he didn't wanna follow directions. so again, blaming the cert (IMHO) isn't valid because I could turn that around and blame experience for the same thing. (i.e. well, he's got years of experience... he should've *known* better) (I mean, I was a 'virtually experienceless' CCNP, but I've never toasted a switch, router, etc because I'm NOT A BOOB!!! I know how to READ DIRECTIONS) (not shouting at you, just adding emphasis) (you like my multi-parenthesis statements..?. hehe) (it's like they'll never stop.) (ever) LOL So I agree with you that some lab-rats are obviously good. But on the other hand, there are enough bad ones out there that it makes me wary to hire one. Again I think you could make the case (even moreso) for experienced people.. There are enough bad people out there that it makes me wary to hire one And surely you would agree, employers are looking to
Re: dispelling CCIE myths [7:44342]
Michael L. Williams wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... More inline =) nrf wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... True, a blend is always better. But let me say this. Experience alone is usually better than certs alone. Naturally the blend is better. But if you had to pick one (continued later) I would agree that experience alone is usually better than certs alone but it depends on experience in what I've beat that horse to death with the previous X.25/T1 example, so I'll let it lie The biggest problem that lab-rats face is simple. They don't have experience in working in a production environment. And it gets down to simple work attitudes and skills. Will the guy show up on time for his shift (if it's shift work)? Will he freak out and break under pressure when the network's down and the bosses are screaming at him?If the routers are acting oddly, will he approach the problem methodically, or will he pull a cowboy stunt like clearing all the BGP sessions? Does he have a personality that lets him relate to and get along with other network guys? With a lab-rat CCIE, these questions are all unknown, because he's never actually worked on a network before. You bring up a very good point.. work attitudes and skills This is something I don't believe experience or certs has anything to do with so it's not quite fair to favor the experience over the certs because experience has nothing to do with work attitudes (good work ethic, etc) and skills I have to part company with you here. I believe experience is indeed extremely useful as it pertains to work attitudes and skills, for 2 reasons. #1, a guy who has experience has had more chances to mature and develop proper work attitudes. Nobody is just born with proper work attitudes, it has to be learned from somewhere. If not from the parents, then from school, and if not from school, then from the job. For example, I might expect a 16-year-old kid to perhaps not have developed a good understanding of what it and is not acceptable in the workplace, even for a minimum-wage job. That pretty much described myself and all my peers when we were 16, I admit I didn't understand how the world really worked when I was that age. But as you hold down a job, over a period of time you generally you learn more about what it takes to be a good worker. You learn just how important it is to show up on time, present an acceptable personal appearance, get along with your coworkers, etc. etc. The same thing holds true for the networking field - being within an actual datacenter for the first few times may be overwhelming and the first few times you may make silly mistakes - for example, when some new guy brought in a cup of coffee and then put it on top of a server, which is a no-no (because he then spilled it and we had lots of fun watching smoke come out of the server). But as you do it for awhile, you learn the little things that allow you to do your job more productively and more importantly avoid stupid mistakes. You learn what is and is not acceptable behavior. And secondly, experience is important as a benchmark for acceptable work habits. Like I said, let's say a guy had unacceptable work habits. Let's say he was always chronically late for work. Or he showed up to work drunk. Or he had an obnoxious personality and everybody hated him. Or he liked to surf porn in front of women coworkers. Or he was a racist. Or something like that. If this is the case, then it is unlikely that the guy would be able to present a resume full of years of solid experience, because it is likely that he would have been fired before he had a chance to build up any significant experience, and certainly he probably would not be able to provide good references who are willing to validate his experience.So if a guy can show a demonstrable and verifiable amount of solid experience, then it is likely that he indeed has acceptable work habits, because if he didn't, then why exactly did those other companies keep him on? Now, like I said, this rule is not absolute, clearly there are exceptions. But in general it is true that if a guy has lots of experience, then it is quite likely that his work habits are acceptable. You simply can't say that with the L word guy. An L guy has demonstrated that he could show up on time for 2 appointments ( the written and the lab), and that his personality wasn't so obnoxious that he didn't completely piss off the proctor. But other than that, you really can't say much of anything. He might be a complete as*hole to his coworkers. He might have a problem showing up on time. He might make racist statements at work. Etc. etc. Now you might say that this could be the case with the experienced guy too, but what I'm saying is that it is much less likely (because again, if his behavior and attitude really was
