how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Just the same as the subject,anyone who know it please tell!Thank u! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71143&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Never enough ;) Dave james kong wrote: > Just the same as the subject,anyone who know it please tell!Thank u! -- David Madland CCIE# 2016 Sr. Network Engineer Qwest Communications 612-664-3367 "Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people." -- Thomas Jefferson Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71164&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say about this post? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71177&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
- jvd wrote: > > I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say > about this post? So basically, you want us to lie, eh? ;->. Seriously, CCIE salaries have been down for awhile and any honest discussion about salaries is going to be necessarily negative. When something's black, it would be a lie to call it white. As far as the original question, so much depends on your experience level, the geographical location, things like holding a degree (or not). Strong candidates that have lots of experience, are well educated, and are in places can still pull nice salaries. But I'm also aware of CCIE's applying for positions that pay less than 30k - and not getting them. The point is that the CCIE by itself guarantees nothing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71196&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
That being said... I think the OP would just like a general answer. Ball-park figures aren't lies, as so long as they are indicated as ball-park figures. It's not a lie if you just simply state/indicate what the average figure is that you've seen in your area. So, if someone can contribute such an answer, let them do so. I'm sure the OP was just trying to get a general idea- Scholar or not. Geeesh... sometimes it amazes me how simple answers are so hard to come by on this list. No offense intended NRF. As for myself, I don't know what the going salary/consulting rate is in the D/FW area of Texas for a CCIE... So I can't comment on such. -Mark -Original Message- From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] - jvd wrote: > > I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say > about this post? So basically, you want us to lie, eh? ;->. Seriously, CCIE salaries have been down for awhile and any honest discussion about salaries is going to be necessarily negative. When something's black, it would be a lie to call it white. As far as the original question, so much depends on your experience level, the geographical location, things like holding a degree (or not). Strong candidates that have lots of experience, are well educated, and are in places can still pull nice salaries. But I'm also aware of CCIE's applying for positions that pay less than 30k - and not getting them. The point is that the CCIE by itself guarantees nothing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71206&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
I'd say diversity is the key. I know several CCIEs who, outside of R/S don't have much to offer in the way of skillset and they are not commanding as high of salaries as guys without a number but deeper and more diverse expertise. It totally depends on the individual, the need, the location and the experiences (which are unique to and every one of us). Will Gragido CISSP CCNP CIPTSS CCDA MCP Suite 325 9450 W. Bryn Mawr Ave. Rosemont, Il 60018 [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The Knowledge Behind The Network" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n rf Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] - jvd wrote: > > I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say > about this post? So basically, you want us to lie, eh? ;->. Seriously, CCIE salaries have been down for awhile and any honest discussion about salaries is going to be necessarily negative. When something's black, it would be a lie to call it white. As far as the original question, so much depends on your experience level, the geographical location, things like holding a degree (or not). Strong candidates that have lots of experience, are well educated, and are in places can still pull nice salaries. But I'm also aware of CCIE's applying for positions that pay less than 30k - and not getting them. The point is that the CCIE by itself guarantees nothing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71207&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Theres a survey link on www.tcpmag.com, check it out. Bri - Original Message - From: "james kong" To: Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:51 AM Subject: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] > Just the same as the subject,anyone who know it please tell!Thank u! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71212&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Based on anecdotal evidence I've seen on this list before, I can give you an excellent ball-park figure: zero. You won't get a job if you are "just" a CCIE. See also NRF's post below. My hard-earned $0.02. :) Thanks, Zsombor At 02:25 AM 6/24/2003 +, Mark W. Odette II wrote: >That being said... I think the OP would just like a general answer. > >Ball-park figures aren't lies, as so long as they are indicated as >ball-park figures. > >It's not a lie if you just simply state/indicate what the average figure >is that you've seen in your area. > >So, if someone can contribute such an answer, let them do so. I'm sure >the OP was just trying to get a general idea- Scholar or not. > >Geeesh... sometimes it amazes me how simple answers are so hard to come >by on this list. > >No offense intended NRF. > >As for myself, I don't know what the going salary/consulting rate is in >the D/FW area of Texas for a CCIE... So I can't comment on such. > >-Mark >-Original Message----- >From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:39 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] > >- jvd wrote: > > > > I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say > > about this post? > >So basically, you want us to lie, eh? ;->. > >Seriously, CCIE salaries have been down for awhile and any honest >discussion >about salaries is going to be necessarily negative. When something's >black, >it would be a lie to call it white. > >As far as the original question, so much depends on your experience >level, >the geographical location, things like holding a degree (or not). >Strong >candidates that have lots of experience, are well educated, and are in >places can still pull nice salaries. But I'm also aware of CCIE's >applying >for positions that pay less than 30k - and not getting them. The point >is >that the CCIE by itself guarantees nothing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71213&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
That is anecdotal nonsense. Any major corporation in need of real techs and that has a Cisco infrastructure will certainly consider CCIEs very seriously, yes even above so-called "CS" degree holders without much experience, for technical lead positions. I can bring examples that are not merely "anecdotal." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Zsombor Papp Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] Based on anecdotal evidence I've seen on this list before, I can give you an excellent ball-park figure: zero. You won't get a job if you are "just" a CCIE. See also NRF's post below. My hard-earned $0.02. :) Thanks, Zsombor At 02:25 AM 6/24/2003 +, Mark W. Odette II wrote: >That being said... I think the OP would just like a general answer. > >Ball-park figures aren't lies, as so long as they are indicated as >ball-park figures. > >It's not a lie if you just simply state/indicate what the average figure >is that you've seen in your area. > >So, if someone can contribute such an answer, let them do so. I'm sure >the OP was just trying to get a general idea- Scholar or not. > >Geeesh... sometimes it amazes me how simple answers are so hard to come >by on this list. > >No offense intended NRF. > >As for myself, I don't know what the going salary/consulting rate is in >the D/FW area of Texas for a CCIE... So I can't comment on such. > >-Mark >-----Original Message----- >From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:39 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] > >- jvd wrote: > > > > I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say > > about this post? > >So basically, you want us to lie, eh? ;->. > >Seriously, CCIE salaries have been down for awhile and any honest >discussion >about salaries is going to be necessarily negative. When something's >black, >it would be a lie to call it white. > >As far as the original question, so much depends on your experience >level, >the geographical location, things like holding a degree (or not). >Strong >candidates that have lots of experience, are well educated, and are in >places can still pull nice salaries. But I'm also aware of CCIE's >applying >for positions that pay less than 30k - and not getting them. The point >is >that the CCIE by itself guarantees nothing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71222&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
At 10:17 PM 6/23/2003 -0700, Jack Nalbandian wrote: >That is anecdotal nonsense. Any major corporation in need of real techs and >that has a Cisco infrastructure will certainly consider CCIEs very >seriously, yes even above so-called "CS" degree holders without much >experience, for technical lead positions. I can bring examples that are not >merely "anecdotal." I would be interested. Seriously. Thanks, Zsombor >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of >Zsombor Papp >Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 8:52 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] > > >Based on anecdotal evidence I've seen on this list before, I can give you >an excellent ball-park figure: zero. You won't get a job if you are "just" >a CCIE. See also NRF's post below. > >My hard-earned $0.02. :) > >Thanks, > >Zsombor > >At 02:25 AM 6/24/2003 +, Mark W. Odette II wrote: > >That being said... I think the OP would just like a general answer. > > > >Ball-park figures aren't lies, as so long as they are indicated as > >ball-park figures. > > > >It's not a lie if you just simply state/indicate what the average figure > >is that you've seen in your area. > > > >So, if someone can contribute such an answer, let them do so. I'm sure > >the OP was just trying to get a general idea- Scholar or not. > > > >Geeesh... sometimes it amazes me how simple answers are so hard to come > >by on this list. > > > >No offense intended NRF. > > > >As for myself, I don't know what the going salary/consulting rate is in > >the D/FW area of Texas for a CCIE... So I can't comment on such. > > > >-Mark > >-Original Message- > >From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:39 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] > > > >- jvd wrote: > > > > > > I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say > > > about this post? > > > >So basically, you want us to lie, eh? ;->. > > > >Seriously, CCIE salaries have been down for awhile and any honest > >discussion > >about salaries is going to be necessarily negative. When something's > >black, > >it would be a lie to call it white. > > > >As far as the original question, so much depends on your experience > >level, > >the geographical location, things like holding a degree (or not). > >Strong > >candidates that have lots of experience, are well educated, and are in > >places can still pull nice salaries. But I'm also aware of CCIE's > >applying > >for positions that pay less than 30k - and not getting them. The point > >is > >that the CCIE by itself guarantees nothing. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71223&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
A lot of us have mentioned that it is not usually just the raw certification that gets the job, and in some cases, not even both experience and the certification. Even NRF has mentioned diversity is the key, but on top of that people skills. Lack people skills, you will find yourself not making as much as you "could" be (within a reasonable degree considering realistic opportunity costs). As you mentioned as well, depending on the kind of job you are going for and the politics involved around it, a certification may be useful, experience may be useful, the people skills...there is a whole plethora of things and all of the "importance" levels of each requirement vary greatly for each job. Basically, I do not think it is easy to make a full checklist of all the things you need and if you do it, you will instantly get the job. It changes per job a lot. Employers have different requirements and goals. I think at best we can leave it at that. NRF is not saying diversity is not the key either, all he is saying is that, considering all of those "requirements" that I mentioned, NRF is saying that the CCIE alone will almost certainly never match most of the jobs out there. I am assuming NRF means such because he has not explicitly mentioned otherwise. All he said was, the CCIE alone is not enough. I think he responded to the "Linux vs CCIE" thread by saying how most should know both, but not necessarily go all gung ho on the Linux cert. > I'd say diversity is the key. I know several CCIEs who, outside of R/S > don't have much to offer in the way of skillset and they are not commanding > as high of salaries as guys without a number but deeper and more diverse > expertise. It totally depends on the individual, the need, the location and > the experiences (which are unique to and every one of us). > > Will Gragido CISSP CCNP CIPTSS CCDA MCP > Suite 325 9450 W. Bryn Mawr Ave. > Rosemont, Il 60018 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "The Knowledge Behind The Network" > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n rf > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] > > - jvd wrote: > > > > I wonder if anybody is going to have anything positive to say > > about this post? > > So basically, you want us to lie, eh? ;->. > > Seriously, CCIE salaries have been down for awhile and any honest discussion > about salaries is going to be necessarily negative. When something's black, > it would be a lie to call it white. > > As far as the original question, so much depends on your experience level, > the geographical location, things like holding a degree (or not). Strong > candidates that have lots of experience, are well educated, and are in > places can still pull nice salaries. But I'm also aware of CCIE's applying > for positions that pay less than 30k - and not getting them. The point is > that the CCIE by itself guarantees nothing. -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71238&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Hi, I don't normally participate in threads like this but I could not resist. Everything posted so far is probably correct and necessary and would apply generically to any job hunt. I have my lab scheduled for October (first attempt). I started this odyssey a couple of years ago and like many of us have spent far too much time and money to back out now. But, I do not believe that getting my number is going to suddenly make a huge difference in my earning potential. Everyone's profile is different but I think the trick is to be diverse, willing to work long hours, travel and wear alot of hats. Let's face it, the 90's, God blessum, are over and so are the days of $150,000 salaries for CCIE's. I have worked overseas for the past several years on military bases and there is plenty of oppurtunity for experienced people in this little niche if you are willing to do it. The certifications will get you in the door, the USAF requires at least a CCNP for senior infrastructure guys but experience is the biggest factor by far. They will not consider someone with less than a couple of years experience, cert or not. I honestly cannot comment on the job market at home except to say it sounds dismal, if there really are CCIE's out there fighting over $35K jobs than to hell with this whole idea, open a taco stand. Regards, Douglas Mizell CCNP/CCDP >From: "Carroll Kong" >Reply-To: "Carroll Kong" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] >Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:17:55 GMT >Received: from mc5-f22.law1.hotmail.com ([65.54.252.29]) by >mc5-s20.law1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Tue, 24 Jun >2003 07:16:07 -0700 >Received: from groupstudy.com ([66.220.63.9]) by mc5-f22.law1.hotmail.com >with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 07:15:36 -0700 >Received: from groupstudy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])by groupstudy.com >(8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5ODHuKp020931GroupStudy Mailer; Tue, 24 >Jun 2003 13:17:56 GMT >Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by groupstudy.com >(8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h5ODHuMc020929GroupStudy Submission Server; >Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:17:56 GMT >Received: from groupstudy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])by groupstudy.com >(8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5ODHtKp020925GroupStudy Mailer; Tue, 24 >Jun 2003 13:17:55 GMT >Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by groupstudy.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) >id h5ODHtH2020924GroupStudy Submission Server; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:17:55 >GMT >X-Message-Info: KXYDjjzkRiDlBmn4YorfHSkwJ+8H7+i6 >Message-Id: >X-GroupStudy-Version: 3.1.1a >X-GroupStudy: Network Technical >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2003 14:15:36.0766 (UTC) >FILETIME=[152495E0:01C33A5B] > >A lot of us have mentioned that it is not usually just the raw >certification that gets the job, and in some cases, not even both >experience and the certification. > >Even NRF has mentioned diversity is the key, but on top of that >people skills. Lack people skills, you will find yourself not making >as much as you "could" be (within a reasonable degree considering >realistic opportunity costs). > >As you mentioned as well, depending on the kind of job you are going >for and the politics involved around it, a certification may be >useful, experience may be useful, the people skills...there is a >whole plethora of things and all of the "importance" levels of each >requirement vary greatly for each job. > >Basically, I do not think it is easy to make a full checklist of all >the things you need and if you do it, you will instantly get the job. > It changes per job a lot. Employers have different requirements and >goals. I think at best we can leave it at that. > >NRF is not saying diversity is not the key either, all he is saying >is that, considering all of those "requirements" that I mentioned, >NRF is saying that the CCIE alone will almost certainly never match >most of the jobs out there. > >I am assuming NRF means such because he has not explicitly mentioned >otherwise. All he said was, the CCIE alone is not enough. I think >he responded to the "Linux vs CCIE" thread by saying how most should >know both, but not necessarily go all gung ho on the Linux cert. > > > I'd say diversity is the key. I know several CCIEs who, outside of R/S > > don't have much to offer in the way of skillset and they are not >commanding > > as high of salaries as guys without a number but deeper and more diverse > > expertise. It totally depends on the individual, the need, the location >and > > the experiences (which are unique to and ever
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
douglas mizell wrote: > not. I honestly cannot comment on the job market at home except > to say it > sounds dismal, if there really are CCIE's out there fighting > over $35K jobs > than to hell with this whole idea, open a taco stand. > Which is why a growing number of them are leaving the industry. Without naming names (I want to respect their privacy), I can now count in double figures the number of CCIE's who have left the field for othe work. Some have gone back to being UNIX admins, which is what they had been doing before they got into networks. Some are in graduate school. Some have finished graduate school and are in entirely different fields - strategy consulting, Wall Street, etc. I know one who became a real-estate agent. Invariably they all say the same thing, which is that while networks are interesting, they gotta do what they gotta do to pay the bills, and if networks aren't going to butter their bread, they have to find something that will. And in some cases, they butter their bread with Lurpak. The guy who's a real-estate agent now makes several times more than he ever made as a network guy even during the dotcom boom. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71320&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > That is anecdotal nonsense. Any major corporation in need of > real techs and > that has a Cisco infrastructure will certainly consider CCIEs > very > seriously, yes even above so-called "CS" degree holders without > much > experience, for technical lead positions. I can bring examples > that are not > merely "anecdotal." At the risk of restarting a war, that's a bit unfair, don't you think? You're saying that a CCIE (with experience, although you left that part unstated) will be considered above a degree-holder without experience for a lead position. I think it's more fair to say that nobody without experience will ever be considered for a lead position, regardless of other qualifications. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71322&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Carroll Kong wrote: > > > Even NRF has mentioned diversity is the key, "Even" me, eh? Ouch. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71321&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
dear n rf, area you still in networking business, and are you a CCIE? Just curious :) Xy - Original Message - From: "n rf" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 4:46 PM Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] > douglas mizell wrote: > > not. I honestly cannot comment on the job market at home except > > to say it > > sounds dismal, if there really are CCIE's out there fighting > > over $35K jobs > > than to hell with this whole idea, open a taco stand. > > > > Which is why a growing number of them are leaving the industry. Without > naming names (I want to respect their privacy), I can now count in double > figures the number of CCIE's who have left the field for othe work. Some > have gone back to being UNIX admins, which is what they had been doing > before they got into networks. Some are in graduate school. Some have > finished graduate school and are in entirely different fields - strategy > consulting, Wall Street, etc. I know one who became a real-estate agent. > > Invariably they all say the same thing, which is that while networks are > interesting, they gotta do what they gotta do to pay the bills, and if > networks aren't going to butter their bread, they have to find something > that will. And in some cases, they butter their bread with Lurpak. The guy > who's a real-estate agent now makes several times more than he ever made as > a network guy even during the dotcom boom. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71329&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
True, fairness is a must. CCIEs without much experience are rare in the field percentage-wise in comparison, as no-nothing frat boys who drank through college are aplenty. These chaps sure played good paintball, but they were not good techs. CCIEs with some experience are considered to have "college equivalent experience and training" as it pertains to technical know-how, knowledge that has proven to be crucial in the survival of a few companies that I have worked in. The companies did not care very much whether the CCIE had any "soft skills" when it came time to salvage a disaster of a network. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > That is anecdotal nonsense. Any major corporation in need of > real techs and > that has a Cisco infrastructure will certainly consider CCIEs > very > seriously, yes even above so-called "CS" degree holders without > much > experience, for technical lead positions. I can bring examples > that are not > merely "anecdotal." At the risk of restarting a war, that's a bit unfair, don't you think? You're saying that a CCIE (with experience, although you left that part unstated) will be considered above a degree-holder without experience for a lead position. I think it's more fair to say that nobody without experience will ever be considered for a lead position, regardless of other qualifications. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71331&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Xy Hien Le wrote: > > dear n rf, > > area you still in networking business, and are you a CCIE? > Just curious :) > Xy It's more fun to remain anonymous. ;-) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71337&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > > > CCIEs with some experience are considered to have "college > equivalent > experience and training" as it pertains to technical know-how, > knowledge > that has proven to be crucial in the survival of a few > companies that I have > worked in. The companies did not care very much whether the > CCIE had any > "soft skills" when it came time to salvage a disaster of a > network. But then what are we really talking about here - is it the CCIE or is it the experience that matters? I think we both agree that a CCIE with no experience - the prototype "lab-rat"- is not one to be trusted with running a live network until and unless that lab-rat gets experience. A much more fair comparison would be the CCIE with some experience vs. the college graduate with equal experience. And I would wonder whether there really are enough network disasters around that one could really make a reliable living off them merely with strong technical skills but no soft-skills. I would contend probably not. The fact is, if nobody in the company likes you, then you either better be an absolutely awesome firefighter, or you're going to get canned. Companies these days simply don't have a lot of room anymore for guys who may be technically brilliant but socially inept. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71338&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
douglas mizell wrote: > > Hi, > >I don't normally participate in threads like this > but I could not > resist. Everything posted so far is probably correct and > necessary and would > apply generically to any job hunt. I have my lab scheduled for > October > (first attempt). I started this odyssey a couple of years ago > and like many > of us have spent far too much time and money to back out now. > But, I do not > believe that getting my number is going to suddenly make a huge > difference > in my earning potential. Everyone's profile is different but I > think the > trick is to be diverse, willing to work long hours, travel and > wear alot of > hats. Let's face it, the 90's, God blessum, are over and so are > the days of > $150,000 salaries for CCIE's. I have worked overseas for the > past several > years on military bases and there is plenty of oppurtunity for > experienced > people in this little niche if you are willing to do it. The > certifications > will get you in the door, the USAF requires at least a CCNP for > senior > infrastructure guys but experience is the biggest factor by > far. They will > not consider someone with less than a couple of years > experience, cert or > not. I honestly cannot comment on the job market at home except > to say it > sounds dismal, if there really are CCIE's out there fighting > over $35K jobs > than to hell with this whole idea, open a taco stand. > > Regards, > Douglas Mizell > CCNP/CCDP > > You forgot to include something there. To take advantage of that USAF possibility you not only have to be willing to do it, but able to do it. The moment you start talking about a position that requires a Secret clearence I would estimate that you slice 35-40 percent of those who are technically qualified right out of the picture. make it a TS and you probably killed 75+ percent. CCIE's trying to get ccna level jobs? I suppose some are. But I have to say I only have 6 years in the computer arena with just 2 years holding my CCNA. (I'm sitting the BSCI exam next week). I was a contracted employee at my last job and the project ended. The first thing I did was file for unemployment (since I paid for it) and start job hunting. When I was down there filing there was a group of 11 Cisco/nortel people who were there together. They had come from their meeting at AT&T where they had just found out that they were losing their jobs. They said there were another 20-30 in their group who were also about to hit the skids. I job hunted for 2 months before being offered an acceptable position. I took a cut but I got a job I love. I was very intimidated when I found out that 30-40 qualified experienced Cisco people were jumping in the job hunt at the same time as I was but I bet I did better than at least half of them and in less time. I just don't believe that you can not find a job if you are experienced and certified. It might not be your dream job. it might not pay as much as you thought you would be making now. And it might require you to relocate. But there are jobs out there. David Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71369&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
The consensus among all corporate managers that I have dealt with is that CCIEs cannot obtain their status with at least some real experience. That is the consensus. Don't shoot me for it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > > > CCIEs with some experience are considered to have "college > equivalent > experience and training" as it pertains to technical know-how, > knowledge > that has proven to be crucial in the survival of a few > companies that I have > worked in. The companies did not care very much whether the > CCIE had any > "soft skills" when it came time to salvage a disaster of a > network. But then what are we really talking about here - is it the CCIE or is it the experience that matters? I think we both agree that a CCIE with no experience - the prototype "lab-rat"- is not one to be trusted with running a live network until and unless that lab-rat gets experience. A much more fair comparison would be the CCIE with some experience vs. the college graduate with equal experience. And I would wonder whether there really are enough network disasters around that one could really make a reliable living off them merely with strong technical skills but no soft-skills. I would contend probably not. The fact is, if nobody in the company likes you, then you either better be an absolutely awesome firefighter, or you're going to get canned. Companies these days simply don't have a lot of room anymore for guys who may be technically brilliant but socially inept. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71375&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > The consensus among all corporate managers that I have dealt > with is that > CCIEs cannot obtain their status with at least some real > experience. That > is the consensus. Don't shoot me for it. \ Those corporate managers are wrong. They may want to look up the term "lab-rat" and see how it is commonly used, especially on this ng. Also, consider this. Those people who really think that the CCIE is impossible to pass without experience should freely support (or at least have no objection to) an idea I've been pushing for awhile - namely requiring a minimum number of years of verifiable networking experience in order to be eligible to take the exam, and for which all candidates would be subject to a random background check to catch liars - similar to how some companies run background checks on their job candidates. If it's categorically true that nobody could ever pass the lab without experience, then this new requirement should not be a problem, right? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71397&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
\> > > > I just don't believe that you can not > find a job if you are experienced and certified. It might not > be your dream job. it might not pay as much as you thought you > would be making now. And it might require you to relocate. > But there are jobs out there. The issue is not finding a job, any job. I agree that if you're willing to work for, say, minimum wage, and relocate to Podunk, then you can probably find a job. But that's the rub, isn't it? How many experienced people are willing to work for puny pay and be forced to relocate when, quite frankly, they don't have to? In particular, how many are going to do it when they can simply transfer into another profession that pays better and doesn't require them to relocate? I am not aware of any mandate that requires you to work in networking simply because you're a CCIEr or simply because you have a lot of experience in it. Take the case of my highly experienced CCIE buddies who went back to UNIX admin-work. Sure, they COULD continue to be network guys if they were willing to take grand-mal paycut, but why should they when they can continue to get a nice UNIX redux paycheck? Therefore when people say there are no jobs, they don't mean that there are literally no jobs, they mean that the overall quality of the jobs has declined dramatically (something which I doubt anybody will seriously dispute) such that other options look mighty attractive by comparison. People will therefore leave this field not because there are literally no jobs, but because other fields other decidedly better opportunities. > > David Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71396&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
n rf wrote: > Therefore when people say there are no jobs, they don't mean > that there are literally no jobs, they mean that the overall > quality of the jobs has declined dramatically (something which > I doubt anybody will seriously dispute) such that other options > look mighty attractive by comparison. People will therefore > leave this field not because there are literally no jobs, but > because other fields other decidedly better opportunities. > > > Well... 4 years ago I was making about 13K a year doing Cisco, Microsoft and Unix for Uncle Sam. I say if the people are willing to leave the Networking field due to job dissatisfaction, all the better for me. That sounds great for my future, but I really don't believe it will happen in significant enough a number to be a silver lining in my bank account. Leaving networking for Real Estate. ok.. switching back to Unix and still making great money. Good Lord. What a great life it is to be able to do that. My frame of reference must just be so dramatically different from a lot of the other's here. I don't understand what all the griping is about. I read a quote in an article the other day that just rings totally true to me. "Nobody is worth $200,000 a year. NOBODY. " If you can get it, more power to you. But if you were getting that or $100,000 a year and suddenly you can't and the only thing you can get is a 70K or 80 K job... Even in another area.. That's astounding to me that you would be so upset . But maybe it's why you made that kind of money and I never have. You believe you can and I'm smiling all the way to the bank with less. I guess the picture all depends on the angle you are viewing it from. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71408&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Oh, but I thought "corporate management can never be wrong." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > The consensus among all corporate managers that I have dealt > with is that > CCIEs cannot obtain their status with at least some real > experience. That > is the consensus. Don't shoot me for it. \ Those corporate managers are wrong. They may want to look up the term "lab-rat" and see how it is commonly used, especially on this ng. Also, consider this. Those people who really think that the CCIE is impossible to pass without experience should freely support (or at least have no objection to) an idea I've been pushing for awhile - namely requiring a minimum number of years of verifiable networking experience in order to be eligible to take the exam, and for which all candidates would be subject to a random background check to catch liars - similar to how some companies run background checks on their job candidates. If it's categorically true that nobody could ever pass the lab without experience, then this new requirement should not be a problem, right? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71415&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
David Vital wrote: My frame of reference > must just be so dramatically different from a lot of the > other's here. I don't understand what all the griping is > about. I read a quote in an article the other day that just > rings totally true to me. "Nobody is worth $200,000 a year. > NOBODY. " If you can get it, more power to you. But if you > were getting that or $100,000 a year and suddenly you can't and > the only thing you can get is a 70K or 80 K job... Even in > another area.. That's astounding to me that you would be so > upset . But maybe it's why you made that kind of money and I > never have. You believe you can and I'm smiling all the way > to the bank with less. I guess the picture all depends on the > angle you are viewing it from. Well, first of all, I never said anything about them being upset. Those people who I referred to are simply making an unemotional, yet perfectly logical choice, which is to leave the industry. Simply put - people are going to follow the path that they think will lead them to their life goals, and if networking looks unpromising, then they will choose something else. Nobody said anything about being upset. Second of all, I emphatically disagree that nobody is worth $200,000 year. I agree that not many people are worth that. But to say that nobody is worth that is simply false. Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant, for example, are worth that and far more, simply because people are willing to cough up for very expensive tickets to see them play. They are directly responsible for earning boatloads of money for the Lakers so it is entirely fair that they get paid well. With apologies to Mr. Duncan, Shaq and Kobe are the 2 best players in basketball and they deserve to be paid accordingly. Or consider the salesmen at your company. Those star salesmen who are really bringing in the bacon deserve to be paid very well. (Those salesmen who are bringing in nothing deserve to be paid nothing). I know a bunch of salesmen who make over a quarter-million a year - but that's because they are directly responsible for bringing in millions of dollars of business into their companies. We are not talking about some secretary or some janitor that just so happen to be working at a startup that gets big and now think that their mere presence means they deserve to be millionaires - we're talking about people who are directly responsible for the success of the company in that they are extremely difficult to replace with somebody else (heck, Shaq is essentially impossible to replace), and for which their presence is directly linked to the success of the company (how many championships would the Lakers have won without Shaq and Kobe?). The point is, some people really are worth massive amounts of money. Not a lot, obviously. But some. Some people really do have a set of unique skills that makes them unusually valuable in the market. Tom Hanks is arguably the best actor of our generation. Barry Bonds may be the best baseball player in history. These guys deserve all the financial success that they can get. Let's take it to the networking field. Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn deserve all the success and accolades they can get. After all, they are arguably the 2 most important network engineers in history, for they directly invented much of the underlying technology of the Internet. If there are network engineers who deserve $200,000 salaries, it's these 2 guys. I think those guys are doing fairly well for themselves, though. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71417&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > Oh, but I thought "corporate management can never be wrong." I never said that. Corporate management can indeed be wrong - but not for long. Slowly but eventually, the free market adjusts. For example, right now, what if Harvard all of a sudden got really easy - easy to be admitted to, easy to graduate from, just all-around easy? For a few years, people wouldn't know and those guys who happened to be Crimson during that time would be living it up, because people would be thinking that they're just as good as previous alum, when they're not. But eventually word would get out, and the value of that degree would plummet. The same thing happened with the ccie. It took awhile for information about the 1-day change to filter out, but eventually it did and now all new CCIE's are, unfortunately, paying the price. And just like what would happen if Cisco decided to restore the rigor of the exam - for awhile, nobody would notice but eventually people would discover that the new ccie's really are surprisingly good and they would adjust accordingly. But I know where you're going, you want to take this back to the old discussion of how you believe companies are slowly changing to de-emphasize the college degree for hiring purposes (see, I have my own decoder ring too). Unfortunately, I cannot find any evidence of such a change, and if anything, I am finding the exact opposite. Consider the following articles: "...the wage ratio between college and high school graduates reversed and began a long-term rise. By 1985, the ratio had reached 1.6, and by 1994, it reached nearly 1.8. This pattern has also appeared in other countries..." http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/hecon/he11-98/value.html "The main index of the return to human capital investment, the Dow Jones Average of the labor market as it were, is the wage premium paid to workers with a college degree relative to the wage for those with just a high school diploma. In 1980, this premium was about 35 percent (close to its all time low); by the mid–1990s, the college wage premium had risen to an all time high of over 70 percent (roughly double its level just fifteen years earlier). The rise in the college premium was mirrored in other educational returns as well. The premium for a graduate degree, like those being conferred on many of you here today, has also doubled, from roughly 45 percent in 1980 to more than 90 percent by the mid–1990s. Hence, measured broadly, the economic value of higher education roughly doubled in the fifteen years from 1980 to 1995, a rather incredible change. " http://www.uchicago.edu/docs/education/record/5-28-98/451convocation.html Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71419&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Jeez, That is ridiculous, the program is run by Cisco, a private corporation. It is not a government entity and requiring those types of prerequisites makes no sense. How do you quantify experience anyway? What about a guy who has fifteen years in the industry, gets his CCIE but has worked on the same technology, same network etc for years, he is not working with new technology so has no real experience with it either. A "labrat" as you call it has taken the time to explore the new stuff and will at least have an idea how to work with it in a production environment. There are two side to this arguement but I think there are a few who seem to be angry that a motivated individual is able to study and pull off something that they believe is reserved for only experienced engineers. It would not be in Cisco's best interest to load the CCIE with unnecessary baggage. The fact is that if you can pass the test you are probably an above average guy technically and have the potential to learn and master just about anything that could reasonably be expected of a network engineer. Regards, Douglas Mizell CCNP/CCDP >From: "n rf" >Reply-To: "n rf" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143] >Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:48:01 GMT >Received: from mc9-f36.bay6.hotmail.com ([65.54.166.43]) by >mc9-s13.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 25 Jun >2003 20:12:30 -0700 >Received: from groupstudy.com ([66.220.63.9]) by mc9-f36.bay6.hotmail.com >with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:12:07 -0700 >Received: from groupstudy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])by groupstudy.com >(8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5Q1m2Kp018857GroupStudy Mailer; Thu, 26 >Jun 2003 01:48:02 GMT >Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by groupstudy.com >(8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h5Q1m24T018856GroupStudy Submission Server; >Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:48:02 GMT >Received: from groupstudy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])by groupstudy.com >(8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5Q1m1Kp018851GroupStudy Mailer; Thu, 26 >Jun 2003 01:48:01 GMT >Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by groupstudy.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) >id h5Q1m13K018850GroupStudy Submission Server; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 01:48:01 >GMT >X-Message-Info: KXYDjjzkRiDlBmn4YorfHSkwJ+8H7+i6 >Message-Id: >X-GroupStudy-Version: 3.1.1a >X-GroupStudy: Network Technical >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2003 03:12:07.0637 (UTC) >FILETIME=[B9E11050:01C33B90] > >Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > > > The consensus among all corporate managers that I have dealt > > with is that > > CCIEs cannot obtain their status with at least some real > > experience. That > > is the consensus. Don't shoot me for it. > > >Those corporate managers are wrong. They may want to look up the term >"lab-rat" and see how it is commonly used, especially on this ng. > >Also, consider this. Those people who really think that the CCIE is >impossible to pass without experience should freely support (or at least >have no objection to) an idea I've been pushing for awhile - namely >requiring a minimum number of years of verifiable networking experience in >order to be eligible to take the exam, and for which all candidates would >be >subject to a random background check to catch liars - similar to how some >companies run background checks on their job candidates. If it's >categorically true that nobody could ever pass the lab without experience, >then this new requirement should not be a problem, right? _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71432&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
> > But then the next problem is "how many years" of experience is > considered valid? > > Honestly, I do not think the number of years of experience > means that > much a fair number of the time. Why? Well, it depends on the > "quality" of the experience, in my book. > > Advanced troubleshooting, initial deployments, fixing broken > deployments, putting out serious fires and network meltdowns, > isn't > that worth a bit more than... ho hum, I see the green light on > the > NMS. Let us talk more about bringing up a new T1 link and > calling in > Cisco TAC to help. Oh... got to recover a password again, let > us > call Cisco TAC again. Hrmp... using this /24 for this serial > link > sure seems to work at my last company. Let us do it again! > (given > the condition they have no valid reason to be using RIPv1 in > this > case either...). What are those pesky summaries used for > again? Why > is traffic being routed through my 56K link instead of the > adjacent > T1? This is the kind of stuff I hear. > > While I know there are plenty of bright guys with plenty of > years of > solid experience (you guys know who you are, this is not about > you > guys), since I work as a consultant, I am constantly seeing a > lot of > "veteran" senior network engineers who surprisingly have "far > more > years of experience" than me, but it is me fixing their > problems and > training them. > > Of course the people I consult for will "need help" or know a > bit > less, or else they would not be calling! ;) Sometimes it is > just > legitimate shortage of man power (I like those, then it is > really > working with people who know what they are doing, instead of > baby > feeding people who keep getting confused with that V-LAN thing). > > Let us just say, I know plenty of people who are NOT hurting > for work > in this department. I can tell you the people they are helping > are > NOT college graduates, but they are quite older and their > resumes > will be stacked with "years of venerable experience". What do > we > call these guys? > > If someone is spending quite some time in a NOC or > management/"watchdog" mode, how much real experience are they > really > acquiring? I would say they are growing at a ridiculously slow > rate. > Are they to blame? Hmmm not necessarily. Sure they could > educate > themselves, but remember, self-education is not worth anything > to > HR... :) > > Most companies are conservative, and by all means they should > be. > That is part of the basics of systems administration. Test the > latest code, do not run bleeding edge, etc. The goal of most > bigger > companies is good maintenance and uptime. This goal is > dichotomous > to the goal of learning which is new deployments, testing > slightly > worn in technology. A smaller company pushes more towards the > new > deployment, but then you lose on the conservative change > control > practices experience. So, HR wants people from "big name > firms", > yet, odds are they were router caressers and not really the > troubleshooters. (Can we say... just call support and let them > bail > for us? Every big company I know of always buys this type of > insurance ANYWAY). Yet, if you come from a small firm and DO > all the > dirty work (yah yah, those guys will buy the spare switch > instead of > the smartnet), the resume looks so much less impressive despite > the > fact that they might have harder technical experience. As for > the > change control experience, who knows? And honestly, that is a > self- > control issue vs something that really has to be "learned". > Okay so > spend the 5 minutes to learn conservative change control. > > So, how do you test for the experience? Manager vouching is > sooo > susceptible to nepotism or good old fashioned old boys > network. > Also, how many managers have we met that know the technical ins > and > outs just as well as their grunts? I am sure there are a > handful > sitting in the cold minority. How can those people vouch > technical > excellence when they themselves are have nots? How are we sure > we > are not going to get the router caresser to enter the lab > instead of > lab-rats? How many legitimate people will we invalidate in the > process? Look, first of all, I'm obviously not endorsing that anybody with x years of experience are automatically handed a ccie number. They would still have to pass the test just like anybody else. Therefore the idea is simple. You use a minimum number of years of experience to eliminate the labrats. So instead, you get router-caressers (hmmm, sounds like some people enjoy networking a little too much). You then eliminate those guys with the test itself - if that highly experienced person didn't actually learn how to do all those things you mentioned, then it's unlikely that he would pass the test. Now obviously, this is imperfect. You will still have some guys who carress routers (man, that just sounds disgusting) and the
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
At 3:53 PM + 6/26/03, douglas mizell wrote: >Jeez, > > That is ridiculous, the program is run by Cisco, a private >corporation. It is not a government entity and requiring those types of >prerequisites makes no sense. How do you quantify experience anyway? Several ways. In an actual certification context, the Nortel architect level certification requires that you submit five writeups of networks you have implemented, followed by an open-book design exercise that has realistic, not speed-typist, requirements. All of these writeups are graded by a board of human experts, which obviously limits the scalability of the program. The idea of presenting case studies is one of the methods used by medical specialty boards. Admittedly, they have the advantage of being able to approve residencies (or equivalents for nonphysicians), and require successful completion of an appropriate program. But for board certification, there are still oral examinations and case presentations. In the pre-1995 days of CCSI certification, there was no exam per se, just a variable period -- often several weeks -- of in-person oral exams, team and observed teaching, and lab exercises, that still just got you a provisional certification. Your full certification came after several months of satisfactory class evaluations. Interestingly, the old CCSI program was extremely flexible. I remember several occasions where it turned out I was the expert in residence (e.g., on OSI addressing) on a particular topic, and an ad-hoc workshop was set up, both to evaluate my presentation but also pick my brain. The CCIE program was introduced in mid-1993, so it's newer than CCSI. Sometime in 1995, the CCSI format changed to something more scalable, involving passing a written and coming to Cisco for two days of "charm school" and observed teaching. In the pre-1995 CCSI, there was rarely more than one or two people being evaluated, so you could have multiple proctors evaluating at the same time. >What >about a guy who has fifteen years in the industry, gets his CCIE but has >worked on the same technology, same network etc for years, he is not working >with new technology so has no real experience with it either. Returning to your original point, I have much less concern with "years of experience" than the ability to perform in the real world and explain what you did. I recognize this may be more difficult when the emphasis is configuration and troubleshooting, but it's still do-able: give writeups of how you solved particular and challenging problems. The ability to describe and document a troubleshooting approach is extremely valuable -- it speaks directly to things that you would do as a senior staffer and presumably mentor. I have some questions that I use in interviewing people where I tell them I really don't expect them to have the exact answer (although I'd be pleased if they did), but I'm looking for them to be able to make me understand how they approach the problem. One of the first five CCIEs uses a related strategy. He'll interview by giving you symptoms and asking what your next steps would be, with his giving you results. A favorite question is based on a two-router, two-serial line production environment where the routers were moved during the night, and the people doing the move accidentally switched the serial cables to the wrong routers. In the example, all the routers were running IGRP, so it wasn't that you didn't get some meaningful protocol activity -- but lots of very weird things as well. >A "labrat" as >you call it has taken the time to explore the new stuff and will at least >have an idea how to work with it in a production environment. There are two >side to this arguement but I think there are a few who seem to be angry that >a motivated individual is able to study and pull off something that they >believe is reserved for only experienced engineers. It would not be in >Cisco's best interest to load the CCIE with unnecessary baggage. The fact is >that if you can pass the test you are probably an above average guy >technically and have the potential to learn and master just about anything >that could reasonably be expected of a network engineer. > >Regards, >Douglas Mizell >CCNP/CCDP Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71463&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
> > But then the next problem is "how many years" of experience is > > considered valid? > > > > Honestly, I do not think the number of years of experience > > means that > > much a fair number of the time. Why? Well, it depends on the > > "quality" of the experience, in my book. > > > > Advanced troubleshooting, initial deployments, fixing broken > > deployments, putting out serious fires and network meltdowns, > > isn't > > that worth a bit more than... ho hum, I see the green light on > > the > > NMS. Let us talk more about bringing up a new T1 link and > > calling in > > Cisco TAC to help. Oh... got to recover a password again, let > > us > > > > If someone is spending quite some time in a NOC or > > management/"watchdog" mode, how much real experience are they > > really > > acquiring? I would say they are growing at a ridiculously slow > > rate. > > Are they to blame? Hmmm not necessarily. Sure they could > > educate > > themselves, but remember, self-education is not worth anything > > to > > HR... :) > > > > So, how do you test for the experience? Manager vouching is > > sooo > > susceptible to nepotism or good old fashioned old boys > > network. > > How many legitimate people will we invalidate in the > > process? > > Look, first of all, I'm obviously not endorsing that anybody with x years of > experience are automatically handed a ccie number. They would still have to > pass the test just like anybody else. I trimmed down some of my extra fluff in the quote, sorry, just read the older archives with the same thread name. Oh I never suggested that either, I just said this initial "filtering" process is not clear cut, and we might be filtering innocent, bright individuals. > Therefore the idea is simple. You use a minimum number of years of > experience to eliminate the labrats. So instead, you get router-caressers > (hmmm, sounds like some people enjoy networking a little too much). You > then eliminate those guys with the test itself - if that highly experienced > person didn't actually learn how to do all those things you mentioned, then > it's unlikely that he would pass the test. Right. I am saying, it is NOT the number of years that matter, is it the quality of the number of years. One year of hardened fire fighting, troubleshooting, advanced deployment, cut over experience is sure worth a lot more than...three years of "maintaining the network" aka Router Carresser. But who gets to judge the ratio? So, do we 'weight' the one year of hardened experienced more? Or less? I am not talking about the exam yet, just, what about the legitimate people you are filtering out? What if they make it "three years of experience" because that is how long it takes for the "average" IT guy to figure out that Netbios can run over TCP/IP? What about the guy who figured it out in 5 minutes? Surely we do not want to disqualify him just because he figured it out in 5 minutes? Of course not, so how do those guys still benefit? > Now obviously, this is imperfect. You will still have some guys who carress > routers (man, that just sounds disgusting) and then bootcamp their way to > getting their ccie. I agree. But there is no perfect solution. It's better > than what we have today, where labrats bootcamp their way to their ccie. > Bottom line - a caresser CCIE is on average more skilled than a labrat CCIE. Perhaps that is true. (I am not going to argue either way, but I think it's debatable. :) ) However, this is akin to the scorched earth tactic. I suppose until we find out how many people passed the CCIE, are considered WORTHWHILE, and find out how many years of experience they had, we will not know how many "innocent" victims we will fry with this tactic. If you are okay with frying X number of "innocent, bright" people (I would be very interested in the statistics myself), then sure, we should do it, just like the CISSP. (which I strongly disagree with myself) My argument is, should we really be frying those innocent people when I see far more 'hardened' experience people worth far more than the router carressers? Odds are those hardened experience people also have faster learning capabilities to keep up. Those are very good people we are potentially filtering out. > And you ask about the integrity of the background check procedure. Well, I > am proposing using the same procedure that some employers today use for > their job candidates, where they hire companies to fact-check your resume. > I believe how it works is that those companies then go to who you claim to > be your former employers and obtain a signed legal document from their HR > departments using official company letterhead attesting to the fact that you > worked there from such-and-such dates and held such-and-such a position. > It's not just a matter of calling up some old managers who may secretly be > your golfing buddy and assessing your skill, it's about using a for
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Carroll Kong wrote: > > > > Look, first of all, I'm obviously not endorsing that anybody > with x years of > > experience are automatically handed a ccie number. They > would still have to > > pass the test just like anybody else. > > I trimmed down some of my extra fluff in the quote, sorry, just > read > the older archives with the same thread name. > > Oh I never suggested that either, I just said this initial > "filtering" process is not clear cut, and we might be filtering > innocent, bright individuals. > > > Therefore the idea is simple. You use a minimum number of > years of > > experience to eliminate the labrats. So instead, you get > router-caressers > > (hmmm, sounds like some people enjoy networking a little too > much). You > > then eliminate those guys with the test itself - if that > highly experienced > > person didn't actually learn how to do all those things you > mentioned, then > > it's unlikely that he would pass the test. > > Right. I am saying, it is NOT the number of years that matter, > is it > the quality of the number of years. One year of hardened fire > fighting, troubleshooting, advanced deployment, cut over > experience > is sure worth a lot more than...three years of "maintaining > the > network" aka Router Carresser. But who gets to judge the ratio? Well, obviously Cisco gets to judge the ratio. Hey, right now, Cisco gets to determine that people are internetworking 'experts' just from a 1-day test that deals with only network configuration but no troubleshooting, and we've all learned to accept that, so what exactly is so outrageous about Cisco also judging whether you've had 'enough' experience? The point is that in any profession, somewhere along the line, somebody is making an arbitrary decision. Medicine, law, you name it - somewhere along the line an arbitrary decision is being made. To say that the CCIE process should be any different is really to hold the program to perfection. > > So, do we 'weight' the one year of hardened experienced more? > Or > less? I am not talking about the exam yet, just, what about > the > legitimate people you are filtering out? What if they make it > "three > years of experience" because that is how long it takes for the > "average" IT guy to figure out that Netbios can run over TCP/IP? > > What about the guy who figured it out in 5 minutes? Surely we > do not > want to disqualify him just because he figured it out in 5 > minutes? > Of course not, so how do those guys still benefit? All this presumes that the only way a prodigiously precocious engineer will find work is if he gets his CCIE. If a guy is really so preternaturally brilliant that he can figure things out in 5 minutes what takes normal people 3 years, then surely some company will pick him up and he will then accumulate the experience necessary to meet the experience threshold. Is it really such a tragedy to force that guy to wait for a bit to get his ccie? After all, a guy with such networking perspicacity probably won't even care about the ccie after spending 3 years in the workforce - he's probably looking at getting his PhD and/or looking to join Howard and write BGP drafts. Consider the case of airplane pilots. Just to get an pilot's license, you must have a certain minimum number of documented flying hours. To be hired as a pilot for an airline, you must have documented proof that you had at least several hundred hours of flight time, and sometimes several thousand. But you might say what if I'm the next Chuck Yeager and I can learn in 1 hour what it takes normal pilots 10 to learn? Too bad, you still have to have that minimum number of documented flying hours to qualify. Simple as that. Or consider doctors. Every single Medical Board requirements dictate that you must spend a mandated amount of time in an approved internship/residency program that deals with the medical specialization in question. Even Doogie Howser himself can't flout those requirements - if you want to be Board-certified, you have to fulfill the time requirements. So if time requirements are OK for pilots and for doctors, why are they so inappropriate for network engineers? > > > Now obviously, this is imperfect. You will still have some > guys who carress > > routers (man, that just sounds disgusting) and then bootcamp > their way to > > getting their ccie. I agree. But there is no perfect > solution. It's better > > than what we have today, where labrats bootcamp their way to > their ccie. > > Bottom line - a caresser CCIE is on average more skilled than > a labrat CCIE. > > Perhaps that is true. (I am not going to argue either way, but > I > think it's debatable. :) ) I really don't see how it is debatable. The lab-rat CCIE has just the CCIE to his credit. The caressers has both the ccie and some experience. They have everything the lab-rat has and more. Or, if you prefer a more quantitative explanation, when x(i)>= y(i) for all instances o
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
douglas mizell wrote: > > Jeez, > > That is ridiculous, the program is run by Cisco, a > private > corporation. It is not a government entity and requiring those > types of > prerequisites makes no sense. Well, to use that line of thought, why not just go all the way? Why require any prereqs at all? Let's dispense with the CCIE-written. Heck, why not go even further and just make the test super-easy. Let's just dispense with the lab and make it a written test, just like the MCSE. Also, if you don't think that corporations don't use prereqs, you're sadly mistaken. Airlines require that anybody they hire as a pilot must have a certain number of documented flying hours. Heck, most large companies have an (unwritten) requirement that if you want to enter management, you must be a college graduate. I know one large insurance company that dictated that all secretaries and receptionists must be college graduates. You can debate the appropriateness of these requirements until the cows come home, but the point is that it's simply false to say that private corporations are somehow prereq-free. >How do you quantify experience > anyway? What > about a guy who has fifteen years in the industry, gets his > CCIE but has > worked on the same technology, same network etc for years, he > is not working > with new technology so has no real experience with it either. A > "labrat" as > you call it has taken the time to explore the new stuff and > will at least > have an idea how to work with it in a production environment. What about it? The simple fact is most enterprises do not run the new stuff. People keep talking about the new stuff as if it's more widespread than kudzu. The fact is, far more companies are running supposedly obsolete technologies like IPX and Tokenring than are running "modern" technologies like Ipsec or IP multicasting. I see people making this mistake time and time again, and in fact I'm going to start including it in my laundry list of "myths in the networking world. A lot of people think that since new CCIE has all the new technology on it, anybody who's passed it is automatically more prepared to work on production networks than the old-school CCIE's who passed the test back when it still had supposedly obsolete technologies. Not only is that false, it is diametrically false - meaning that not only is the fact that the recent ccie exam tests "modern" technologies not a good reason why recent ccie's are more prepared to work on production networks, it is also and in fact a strong and leading reason for why they are less prepared. > There are two > side to this arguement but I think there are a few who seem to > be angry that > a motivated individual is able to study and pull off something > that they > believe is reserved for only experienced engineers. It would > not be in > Cisco's best interest to load the CCIE with unnecessary > baggage. The fact is > that if you can pass the test you are probably an above average > guy > technically and have the potential to learn and master just > about anything > that could reasonably be expected of a network engineer. By the same token, you might feel that you should be able to walk in and take the Medical Board exams right now and if you pass them, you should be allowed to cut people up. Use the same logic you just used in the above paragraph - since you passed the Boards, you obviously know a lot about medicine, so therefore you should be able to start operating on people, right? You know that doesn't fly. You want to be a surgeon? You have to go through all the steps that the medical profession has laid out for prospective doctors. The key question is, I think, how do you view the CCIE? Do you view it as a method of designating true readiness to handle high-level, high-sensitivity jobs (like the Medical Boards or the Navy Top Gun pilot school) or do you view it as a de-facto entry-level qualification - something that is used by people to get their foot in the door? I much prefer the former and I think the vision of the former is closer to the spirit of what the CCIE should be. After all the 'E' in CCIE stands for 'expert'. It is simply inconceivable to think of any other industry where you can be an expert and yet have no real-world experience. Can you really be a medical expert without actually practicing medicine? Can you really be a mountain-climbing expert without actually climbing mountains? Can you really be a flying expert just by playing Microsoft Flight Simulator all day long? True, everybody has the right to call themselves an expert at whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that other people are going to agree with you. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71503&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL P
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
> The point is that in any profession, somewhere along the line, somebody is > making an arbitrary decision. Medicine, law, you name it - somewhere along > the line an arbitrary decision is being made. To say that the CCIE process > should be any different is really to hold the program to perfection. > I liked Howard's idea, however, yes it is not scalable, but would improve the quality. My other post suggested, Cisco has not shown any real attempt to make it that much harder, they do want more CCIEs out there. If that is what they want, nothing we do will really stop that. > > So, do we 'weight' the one year of hardened experienced more? > > Or > > less? I am not talking about the exam yet, just, what about > > the > > legitimate people you are filtering out? What if they make it > > "three > > years of experience" because that is how long it takes for the > > "average" IT guy to figure out that Netbios can run over TCP/IP? > > > > What about the guy who figured it out in 5 minutes? Surely we > > do not > > want to disqualify him just because he figured it out in 5 > > minutes? > > Of course not, so how do those guys still benefit? > > All this presumes that the only way a prodigiously precocious engineer will > find work is if he gets his CCIE. If a guy is really so preternaturally > brilliant that he can figure things out in 5 minutes what takes normal > people 3 years, then surely some company will pick him up and he will then Not true. I do not believe that causality will occur. From what I have seen bright individuals are usually exploited quite well. Also, remember, upper management and HR do NOT have the ability to detect the precocious engineer which I will now call as Doogie Howser, which further leads to exploitation. Also, I am not saying the knowledge itself is so difficult, in fact, I am saying it is pretty silly how "sacred" we consider some of this "covetted" so hard to get knowledge. So, there are a lot of Doogie Howsers out there. My comment was joking about the sheer lack of general knowledge many IT people have there. If you did not learn about network layering (in the generic sense), and did not identify the protocols or learn about the protocols you are working with within a few weeks, how long is it going to take you? They are either not actively trying at all or their background is so horrible in it you wonder how they even got to become a "Network Administrator". You can pick that up reading a few books and doing it in a home lab. (the TCP/IP and Netbios bit). A lot of this seems like just basic applications of the basic classes I took in college. And I wonder why people say college is so useless when it's the basis for most of my success (in a general fashion). Back to the story though. So, a good number of these Doogie Howsers have no way of easily distinguishing themselves. Even if you are a Doogie, you do not necessarily have the rest of the skill sets to acquire a job. i.e. social skills, people skills, the network of friends, etc. Let us ignore the "job finding" aspect of Doogie Howser. It is not important in this context. The certification is a "part" of the criterion one should hit to become more marketable. We are comparing who should be allowed to even have a chance to take the exam. > Consider the case of airplane pilots. Just to get an pilot's license, you > must have a certain minimum number of documented flying hours. To be hired > as a pilot for an airline, you must have documented proof that you had at > least several hundred hours of flight time, and sometimes several thousand. Well, even in THIS case it is far more reasonable. Documented hours of hard testing/working on networking gear in a "lab" by Cisco. That I would go for. Because, like I said 3 years of router rubbing ... come on, I am sure you have had assignments which let you demolish that "knowledge" in a few months! Thing is, you have no idea if they are actively working on networking for the 3 years. For the flying case you are directly clocking them for... flying. It is not even necessarily a "production network" (as in, commercial flying... :) ). I mean come on, hundreds of hours can be conquered within a few months for aggressive students. That is reasonable. YEARS of router rubbing? No thanks. > > > Bottom line - a caresser CCIE is on average more skilled than > > a labrat CCIE. > > > > Perhaps that is true. (I am not going to argue either way, but > > I > > think it's debatable. :) ) > > I really don't see how it is debatable. The lab-rat CCIE has just the CCIE > to his credit. The caressers has both the ccie and some experience. They > have everything the lab-rat has and more. I do not really want to get into this debate. What if the lab-rat is not a full rat, but a very good, bright learner? (um... he's a mouse!) He might have a stronger aptitude for growth and learning than the stagnant route
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
> I'm not quite sure where this is going to go, but as you may know, > I've worked pretty extensively in medicine, have developed expert > systems for diagnosis, etc. When you mentioned Doogie Howser, you > gave me several flashbacks to some very bright young interns that > don't necessarily have the practical experience. > > Now, Doogie would probably start by ordering a complete blood count > to decide, on the spot, if there is an infection, since the physical > exam is equivocal. While I could do the blood count if I had the > equipment, I don't. Instead, I reach back to what probably isn't in > any textbook, but I learned from watching good clinicians. The > complex diagnostic instrument I'm using is a ball-point pen. I > outline the red area each night and compare to see if there is > significant spreading (also checking for other warning signs that > would be immediate red flags). If I see spread beyond a certain > level, I'd call one of a couple of physicians I know well, and say > "It's looking as if I have mild cellulitis of the lower left > extremity. Do you mind phoning in a prescription for an appropriate > antibiotic, presumably a second-generation cephalosporin?" I'd > probably get the prescription, because that doctor knows I have the > experience to know I've done what he would have done. In any event, > I'll be seeing people at NIH on Tuesday, as part of a research trial, > so I'll get a doublecheck. While I think your analysis and diagnosis was very creative, however, would that fall under the years of advanced hardened experience or the tricks of the trade? Is that something you required years to learn or is it possible you could have just done it simply by being creative. (I want to find out if my swelling is getting worse, let's get a ball point pen or measuring tape!) I know some individuals who have this knack, yet, it is not quantifiable on the resume and it did not necessarily require years of experience. Also, I guess this depends on how we define Doogie as a character. I did not watch many of the shows, so I do not know if he was characterized as a bright guy but generally naove, inexperienced person. Let us say, Doogie is a Howard in his younger years. :) > An experienced physician does history and physical much differently > from a beginner. The beginnner will probably start by spending equal > time on each body system, where part of experience is knowing how to > identify *cough* the appropriate OSI layer and then to hone in on the > details. I suppose so, but I think that varies greatly. i.e the "experienced" person might be mal-experienced so to speak. He might think "ah ha, it has to be a network layer issue, I worked on this crap for 5 years and I always add all three protocols on Microsoft NT servers, and it always worked for me." Where as someone new but with a much stronger base on the theory might say, "but nothing showed it was the network layer and, there is no reason to put in all three protocols in there when we already validated one of the protocols work." The "old rotting knowledge" syndrome. Rotting experience that somehow is misapplied or has not been updated in a while. :) (yes it is okay to buy switches now, they do N way switching now...) I admit, I was the victim in this case. A few fellow engineers of mine who were "new" but were very bright and knew the theory of networking very well challenged some of my statements based on my "experience". Despite working on it significantly longer, if I cannot debunk the theoretical claims, something might be wrong with what I have done but coincidentally it "worked". I am sure you have seen that in your travels... hmm yes, look at this wonderful network that "works". You go in there and see it's a ticking timebomb ready to go off and it's been taking that 512K Frame Relay Circuit instead of the 1.5 Point to Point, and they were ready to buy ANOTHER T1 with the 1.5 Point to Point to do some load balancing since congestion was getting bad. While I am certainly not saying a bright individual with less experience is "better" or "equal" to a bright individual with greater experience, those with the greater experience and larger learning capacity are extremely rare or at least, tend not to be in this field for very long. (they get bored, as NRF pointed out) Being "out in the field" for a few years by no way guarantees this from what I have seen and may not even demonstrate any level of growth. > >My comment was joking about the sheer lack of general knowledge many > >IT people have there. If you did not learn about network layering > >(in the generic sense), and did not identify the protocols or learn > >about the protocols you are working with within a few weeks, how long > >is it going to take you? > > Often a long time, especially when someone mutters a mantra "there > are seven layers at which protocols go", and not realize (1
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
At 4:56 AM + 6/28/03, Carroll Kong wrote: > >I liked Howard's idea, however, yes it is not scalable, but would >improve the quality. My other post suggested, Cisco has not shown >any real attempt to make it that much harder, they do want more CCIEs >out there. If that is what they want, nothing we do will really stop >that. > >Not true. I do not believe that causality will occur. From what I >have seen bright individuals are usually exploited quite well. Also, >remember, upper management and HR do NOT have the ability to detect >the precocious engineer which I will now call as Doogie Howser, which >further leads to exploitation. I'm not quite sure where this is going to go, but as you may know, I've worked pretty extensively in medicine, have developed expert systems for diagnosis, etc. When you mentioned Doogie Howser, you gave me several flashbacks to some very bright young interns that don't necessarily have the practical experience. Now, one of the hits I took from the economy is losing my COBRA insurance. I have some miscellaneous coverage, but I have to be much more careful about medical expense. About two weeks ago, I tripped in my living room and landed on my knee, bruising it badly. After I stopped screaming, I am satisfied that I did an adequate physical examination to say safely nothing tore or broke. It's staying painful, and my lower leg has been swollen more than I like, as well as bruises turning more reddish. A pure layman might think that was just an unusual color, but someone trained should recognize that as a potential infection. Now, Doogie would probably start by ordering a complete blood count to decide, on the spot, if there is an infection, since the physical exam is equivocal. While I could do the blood count if I had the equipment, I don't. Instead, I reach back to what probably isn't in any textbook, but I learned from watching good clinicians. The complex diagnostic instrument I'm using is a ball-point pen. I outline the red area each night and compare to see if there is significant spreading (also checking for other warning signs that would be immediate red flags). If I see spread beyond a certain level, I'd call one of a couple of physicians I know well, and say "It's looking as if I have mild cellulitis of the lower left extremity. Do you mind phoning in a prescription for an appropriate antibiotic, presumably a second-generation cephalosporin?" I'd probably get the prescription, because that doctor knows I have the experience to know I've done what he would have done. In any event, I'll be seeing people at NIH on Tuesday, as part of a research trial, so I'll get a doublecheck. An experienced physician does history and physical much differently from a beginner. The beginnner will probably start by spending equal time on each body system, where part of experience is knowing how to identify *cough* the appropriate OSI layer and then to hone in on the details. > >Also, I am not saying the knowledge itself is so difficult, in fact, >I am saying it is pretty silly how "sacred" we consider some of this >"covetted" so hard to get knowledge. So, there are a lot of Doogie >Howsers out there. At least in medicine, it's not so much that the knowledge is sacred as it takes practice, and watching experts do things the way they do. One of the challenges of medical (and network diagnostic) expert system development is realizing that the expert took what seemed a non-obvious turn, and asking them why they did that. The really good teachers can tell you. On another thread, I'm trying to mentor as a good medical school professor would -- not answer questions directly, but help someone integrate their existing knowledge. If someone asked me as Dr. Berkowitz "what does the serum calcium do in breast cancer metastases in bone," I might answer "what does the serum sodium do in mineralocorticoid hypersecretion?" (Both go up.). I'm not answering a direct question about redistribution, but instead giving lots of hints at the underlying protocol mechanism with what may not be obvious parallels in other protocol operations. > >My comment was joking about the sheer lack of general knowledge many >IT people have there. If you did not learn about network layering >(in the generic sense), and did not identify the protocols or learn >about the protocols you are working with within a few weeks, how long >is it going to take you? Often a long time, especially when someone mutters a mantra "there are seven layers at which protocols go", and not realize (1) that's only half the OSI model, because service interfaces are just as important as protocol interfaces [Priscilla was talking about that the other day] and (2) OSI doesn't fit everything. From personal experience, I periodically am very deep in a protocol mechanism, perhaps actually writing router code, and suddenly get a new level of insight on what is REALLY going on. At
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
At 11:19 AM -0400 6/29/03, Carroll Kong wrote: > > I'm not quite sure where this is going to go, but as you may know, >> I've worked pretty extensively in medicine, have developed expert >> systems for diagnosis, etc. When you mentioned Doogie Howser, you >> gave me several flashbacks to some very bright young interns that >> don't necessarily have the practical experience. >> >> Now, Doogie would probably start by ordering a complete blood >>count > to decide, on the spot, if there is an infection, since the >>physical >> exam is equivocal. While I could do the blood count if I had the >> equipment, I don't. Instead, I reach back to what probably isn't in >> any textbook, but I learned from watching good clinicians. The >> complex diagnostic instrument I'm using is a ball-point pen. I >> outline the red area each night and compare to see if there is >> significant spreading (also checking for other warning signs that >> would be immediate red flags). If I see spread beyond a certain >> level, I'd call one of a couple of physicians I know well, and say >> "It's looking as if I have mild cellulitis of the lower left >> extremity. Do you mind phoning in a prescription for an appropriate >> antibiotic, presumably a second-generation cephalosporin?" I'd >> probably get the prescription, because that doctor knows I have the >> experience to know I've done what he would have done. In any event, >> I'll be seeing people at NIH on Tuesday, as part of a research trial, >> so I'll get a doublecheck. > >While I think your analysis and diagnosis was very creative, however, >would that fall under the years of advanced hardened experience or >the tricks of the trade? Is that something you required years to >learn or is it possible you could have just done it simply by being >creative. (I want to find out if my swelling is getting worse, let's >get a ball point pen or measuring tape!) I know some individuals who >have this knack, yet, it is not quantifiable on the resume and it did >not necessarily require years of experience. let's put it this way...there are ways of correlating medical laboratory tests that I worked out on my own. Indeed, when I was about 16, I came up with a hypothesis independently (but triggered by an aside in a paper on something else) that; (1) it would be clinically useful to be able to give penicillin along with something that protected it from penicillinase, a bacterial enzyme that destroys it and is one mechanism of resistance. (2) there existed at least one compound, which really hadn't been investigated, that could inhibit penicillinase. When I entered college, I did get permission to do this as independent research, but it didn't go very far for many reasons. The big one is that I wasn't economically or emotionally ready for college. Second, I had no real budget for the project, and my "basement biological warfare lab" (well, it was for a fungus, not a bacterium, but in principle could have grown anthrax) was just too improvised -- I lost about 2 out of three batches due to contamination in the air supply. Third, while I actually understood the theory of some of the measurements I wanted to take, I didn't have the hands-on skill to use some of the instruments. (Again a ..well... I'm now ok with using a dual beam UV spectrophotometer, but I still can't do RJ45 crimps worth anything0. But in the current case of monitoring potential infection, I learned that from a particular physician -- I've never seen it in a textbook. What I'd say is that a bright med student will work out some techniques, but there are a very wide range of unwritten methods that are best learned by mentoring. Learning to take blood from a vein is a reasonable example -- oh, it's written up well, but there's no way I know to learn the feeling of the "two pops" -- once when you get through the outermost skin, and once when you enter the vein. It takes constant practice to remain competent at this -- I could still probably draw blood from you, but it wouldn't have been fun for either of us. > >Also, I guess this depends on how we define Doogie as a character. I >did not watch many of the shows, so I do not know if he was >characterized as a bright guy but generally naove, inexperienced >person. Let us say, Doogie is a Howard in his younger years. :) Hahh...Doogie had MUCH better social skills. > >> An experienced physician does history and physical much differently >> from a beginner. The beginnner will probably start by spending equal >> time on each body system, where part of experience is knowing how to >> identify *cough* the appropriate OSI layer and then to hone in on the >> details. > >I suppose so, but I think that varies greatly. i.e the >"experienced" person might be mal-experienced so to speak. He might >think "ah ha, it has to be a network layer issue, I worked on this >crap for 5 years and I always ad
Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
I think we're really approaching a discussion of operational knowledge vs. technical knowledge. The young intern (and the ones at the teaching hospital here really do look they're right out of high school last week) has a lot of knowlege, and it isn't just crammed into her head; it's organized, systematically and topically, else she never would have made it past the comprehensive exams. Operational knowledge, acquired from experience, sets up non-academic linkages among the knowledge sets. Those linkages are empirical, and are thus never quite the same from one individual to the next. One reason interns get exposed to all the various rotations is to ensure they get a wide variety of opportunities to make new linkages (under supervision, for the patient's sake). That's also a reason to work them such long hours (as well as to ensure they can act reasonably under stress -- and "reasonably" has a very high accuracy component in medicine). We have not applied these principles in IT, or in the networking subdiscipline of IT. I doubt we could without a major shift in underlying knowledge required to be demonstrated before anyone is supervised as a network intern. It would probably take a major network disaster before such a system would be called for -- and I, for one, would rather avoid that if possible. The clean up afterwards is too big a pain. Annlee Howard replied to Carroll, et al: major snip-- > > Cisco, I believe, really needs to soul-search if knowing every > obscure knob is really useful. When I do complex network design, I > decide what I want to accomplish -- often that's more from reading of > RFCs, professional group participation, etc. -- and THEN look up the > commands. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71658&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
I think we're really approaching a discussion of operational knowledge vs. technical knowledge. The young intern (and the ones at the teaching hospital here really do look they're right out of high school last week) has a lot of knowlege, and it isn't just crammed into her head; it's organized, systematically and topically, else she never would have made it past the comprehensive exams. Operational knowledge, acquired from experience, sets up non-academic linkages among the knowledge sets. Those linkages are empirical, and are thus never quite the same from one individual to the next. One reason interns get exposed to all the various rotations is to ensure they get a wide variety of opportunities to make new linkages (under supervision, for the patient's sake). That's also a reason to work them such long hours (as well as to ensure they can act reasonably under stress -- and "reasonably" has a very high accuracy component in medicine). We have not applied these principles in IT, or in the networking subdiscipline of IT. I doubt we could without a major shift in underlying knowledge required to be demonstrated before anyone is supervised as a network intern. It would probably take a major network disaster before such a system would be called for -- and I, for one, would rather avoid that if possible. The clean up afterwards is too big a pain. Annlee Howard replied to Carroll, et al: major snip-- > > Cisco, I believe, really needs to soul-search if knowing every > obscure knob is really useful. When I do complex network design, I > decide what I want to accomplish -- often that's more from reading of > RFCs, professional group participation, etc. -- and THEN look up the > commands. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71709&t=71143 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
> let's put it this way...there are ways of correlating medical > laboratory tests that I worked out on my own. Indeed, when I was > about 16, I came up with a hypothesis independently (but triggered by > an aside in a paper on something else) that; > (1) it would be clinically useful to be able to give penicillin along > with something that protected it from penicillinase, a bacterial > enzyme that destroys it and is one mechanism of resistance. > (2) there existed at least one compound, which really hadn't been > investigated, that could inhibit penicillinase. > > When I entered college, I did get permission to do this as > independent research, but it didn't go very far for many reasons. The > big one is that I wasn't economically or emotionally ready for > college. Second, I had no real budget for the project, and my > "basement biological warfare lab" (well, it was for a fungus, not a > bacterium, but in principle could have grown anthrax) was just too > improvised -- I lost about 2 out of three batches due to > contamination in the air supply. Third, while I actually understood > the theory of some of the measurements I wanted to take, I didn't > have the hands-on skill to use some of the instruments. (Again a > ...well... I'm now ok with using a dual beam UV spectrophotometer, > but I still can't do RJ45 crimps worth anything0. > > But in the current case of monitoring potential infection, I learned > that from a particular physician -- I've never seen it in a textbook. > What I'd say is that a bright med student will work out some > techniques, but there are a very wide range of unwritten methods that > are best learned by mentoring. Learning to take blood from a vein is > a reasonable example -- oh, it's written up well, but there's no way > I know to learn the feeling of the "two pops" -- once when you get > through the outermost skin, and once when you enter the vein. It > takes constant practice to remain competent at this -- I could still > probably draw blood from you, but it wouldn't have been fun for > either of us. I knew it! You are the Doogie of Networking, save for his social skills (or so you say!)! :) I suppose if the networking realm was a bit smaller, what would be great is a mentor system. Kind of like back in the older medeival days. "I see, tis you, Squire Carroll Kong of the Knight Howard C. Berkowitz. Truly your skills have grown under this apprenticeship! We have great need of squires of the Knight Berkowitz! How is the Dame Priscilla Oppenheimer?" - says the now more qualified Human Resources of . So at least one can have a far superior vouching system. Nowadays, if I let potential clients know "Yes, I have read many of Knight.. er.. Howard C. Berkowitz's books. Designing Routing and Switching Architectures was my favorite book". Yeah, I "might" get a "wow I read that book too and get hired", but I think more likely I would get the "umm.. yeah. So, can you cook up a site to site VPN for me with Cisco routers and Netscreen firewalls or what?" After the vouchign system, add in some "mandatory" time in the Arena.. er.. Cisco Labs. Then make them take the Trial Of Fire...(True Conflagration) er.. CCIE Lab, and voila! Of course they can always pick the Trial Of Little Flame or... Trial of Smaller Conflagration..., but it's not mandatory. > Hahh...Doogie had MUCH better social skills. Haha, or so you say! If you can communicate and write well... surely your social skills cannot be lacking! I suppose we are talking further back... I will admit, my social skills weren't that good then. > >Most of the "busy body" corporations tend to care more about the > >"now" and the "instant command" gratification. "ooh ooh he can make > >it better". There is a very nasty stigma that "design is easy, but > >who cares, can he make it work?" > > > >Personally I am a bigger fan of a solid design, and so are quite a > >few of the more exceptional companies, and obviously the research > >field. Unfortunately, I think the market plays down the very area we > >care for, and because of that it is not marketable for Cisco to push > >that angle. Furthermore, one could easily argue that the design > >aspect, unless carefully monitored, would be even easier to "copy" > >than the labs now. > > > >"Oh I just happened to like that design layout... " > >"Really? The last 50 individuals all did it the same way too > >hmm... and it's wrong." :) >ways> > > It's pretty trivial to be able to auto-generate small but important > changes in design scenarios. I even have a test engine that for > adaptive administration of lab secenarios. Given that Cisco tries that it would not be as hard to generate "different" tests since they can always generate the slight changes. Furthermore they can restrict feedback on the exam (they somewhat do that currently). However, I wonder if even then it would be
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
At 11:19 AM -0400 6/29/03, Carroll Kong wrote: > > I'm not quite sure where this is going to go, but as you may know, >> I've worked pretty extensively in medicine, have developed expert >> systems for diagnosis, etc. When you mentioned Doogie Howser, you >> gave me several flashbacks to some very bright young interns that >> don't necessarily have the practical experience. >> >> Now, Doogie would probably start by ordering a complete blood >>count > to decide, on the spot, if there is an infection, since the >>physical >> exam is equivocal. While I could do the blood count if I had the >> equipment, I don't. Instead, I reach back to what probably isn't in >> any textbook, but I learned from watching good clinicians. The >> complex diagnostic instrument I'm using is a ball-point pen. I >> outline the red area each night and compare to see if there is >> significant spreading (also checking for other warning signs that >> would be immediate red flags). If I see spread beyond a certain >> level, I'd call one of a couple of physicians I know well, and say >> "It's looking as if I have mild cellulitis of the lower left >> extremity. Do you mind phoning in a prescription for an appropriate >> antibiotic, presumably a second-generation cephalosporin?" I'd >> probably get the prescription, because that doctor knows I have the >> experience to know I've done what he would have done. In any event, >> I'll be seeing people at NIH on Tuesday, as part of a research trial, >> so I'll get a doublecheck. > >While I think your analysis and diagnosis was very creative, however, >would that fall under the years of advanced hardened experience or >the tricks of the trade? Is that something you required years to >learn or is it possible you could have just done it simply by being >creative. (I want to find out if my swelling is getting worse, let's >get a ball point pen or measuring tape!) I know some individuals who >have this knack, yet, it is not quantifiable on the resume and it did >not necessarily require years of experience. let's put it this way...there are ways of correlating medical laboratory tests that I worked out on my own. Indeed, when I was about 16, I came up with a hypothesis independently (but triggered by an aside in a paper on something else) that; (1) it would be clinically useful to be able to give penicillin along with something that protected it from penicillinase, a bacterial enzyme that destroys it and is one mechanism of resistance. (2) there existed at least one compound, which really hadn't been investigated, that could inhibit penicillinase. When I entered college, I did get permission to do this as independent research, but it didn't go very far for many reasons. The big one is that I wasn't economically or emotionally ready for college. Second, I had no real budget for the project, and my "basement biological warfare lab" (well, it was for a fungus, not a bacterium, but in principle could have grown anthrax) was just too improvised -- I lost about 2 out of three batches due to contamination in the air supply. Third, while I actually understood the theory of some of the measurements I wanted to take, I didn't have the hands-on skill to use some of the instruments. (Again a .well... I'm now ok with using a dual beam UV spectrophotometer, but I still can't do RJ45 crimps worth anything0. But in the current case of monitoring potential infection, I learned that from a particular physician -- I've never seen it in a textbook. What I'd say is that a bright med student will work out some techniques, but there are a very wide range of unwritten methods that are best learned by mentoring. Learning to take blood from a vein is a reasonable example -- oh, it's written up well, but there's no way I know to learn the feeling of the "two pops" -- once when you get through the outermost skin, and once when you enter the vein. It takes constant practice to remain competent at this -- I could still probably draw blood from you, but it wouldn't have been fun for either of us. > >Also, I guess this depends on how we define Doogie as a character. I >did not watch many of the shows, so I do not know if he was >characterized as a bright guy but generally naove, inexperienced >person. Let us say, Doogie is a Howard in his younger years. :) Hahh...Doogie had MUCH better social skills. > >> An experienced physician does history and physical much differently >> from a beginner. The beginnner will probably start by spending equal >> time on each body system, where part of experience is knowing how to >> identify *cough* the appropriate OSI layer and then to hone in on the >> details. > >I suppose so, but I think that varies greatly. i.e the >"experienced" person might be mal-experienced so to speak. He might >think "ah ha, it has to be a network layer issue, I worked on this >crap for 5 years and I always add
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Carroll Kong wrote: > > I liked Howard's idea, however, yes it is not scalable, but > would > improve the quality. My other post suggested, Cisco has not > shown > any real attempt to make it that much harder, they do want more > CCIEs > out there. If that is what they want, nothing we do will > really stop > that. If that is the case, then it's put up or shut up time for Cisco. Do they want the CCIE to be a top-dog cert or not? If they do, they have to make some changes, and if they don't, then fine, either Cisco has to admit that they don't, or the networking community must realize that they don't. > > > > So, do we 'weight' the one year of hardened experienced > more? > > > Or > > > less? I am not talking about the exam yet, just, what about > > > the > > > legitimate people you are filtering out? What if they make > it > > > "three > > > years of experience" because that is how long it takes for > the > > > "average" IT guy to figure out that Netbios can run over > TCP/IP? > > > > > > What about the guy who figured it out in 5 minutes? Surely > we > > > do not > > > want to disqualify him just because he figured it out in 5 > > > minutes? > > > Of course not, so how do those guys still benefit? > > > > All this presumes that the only way a prodigiously precocious > engineer will > > find work is if he gets his CCIE. If a guy is really so > preternaturally > > brilliant that he can figure things out in 5 minutes what > takes normal > > people 3 years, then surely some company will pick him up and > he will then > > Not true. I do not believe that causality will occur. From > what I > have seen bright individuals are usually exploited quite well. > Also, > remember, upper management and HR do NOT have the ability to > detect > the precocious engineer which I will now call as Doogie Howser, > which > further leads to exploitation. > > Also, I am not saying the knowledge itself is so difficult, in > fact, > I am saying it is pretty silly how "sacred" we consider some of > this > "covetted" so hard to get knowledge. So, there are a lot of > Doogie > Howsers out there. > > My comment was joking about the sheer lack of general knowledge > many > IT people have there. If you did not learn about network > layering > (in the generic sense), and did not identify the protocols or > learn > about the protocols you are working with within a few weeks, > how long > is it going to take you? They are either not actively trying > at all > or their background is so horrible in it you wonder how they > even got > to become a "Network Administrator". You can pick that up > reading a > few books and doing it in a home lab. (the TCP/IP and Netbios > bit). > A lot of this seems like just basic applications of the basic > classes > I took in college. And I wonder why people say college is so > useless > when it's the basis for most of my success (in a general > fashion). > Back to the story though. > > So, a good number of these Doogie Howsers have no way of easily > distinguishing themselves. Even if you are a Doogie, you do > not > necessarily have the rest of the skill sets to acquire a job. > i.e. > social skills, people skills, the network of friends, etc. > > Let us ignore the "job finding" aspect of Doogie Howser. It is > not > important in this context. The certification is a "part" of > the > criterion one should hit to become more marketable. > > We are comparing who should be allowed to even have a chance to > take > the exam. Yeah, let's stick to that. > > > Consider the case of airplane pilots. Just to get an pilot's > license, you > > must have a certain minimum number of documented flying > hours. To be hired > > as a pilot for an airline, you must have documented proof > that you had at > > least several hundred hours of flight time, and sometimes > several thousand. > > Well, even in THIS case it is far more reasonable. Documented > hours > of hard testing/working on networking gear in a "lab" by > Cisco. That > I would go for. Because, like I said 3 years of router rubbing > ... > come on, I am sure you have had assignments which let you > demolish > that "knowledge" in a few months! Thing is, you have no idea > if they > are actively working on networking for the 3 years. For the > flying > case you are directly clocking them for... flying. It is not > even > necessarily a "production network" (as in, commercial flying... > :) ). > > I mean come on, hundreds of hours can be conquered within a few > months for aggressive students. That is reasonable. YEARS of > router > rubbing? No thanks. Actually, I must disagree. Hundreds of hours of time within a few monmths can only be accomplished within a lab environment. When we're talking about production environments, the fact is, most of the time you're not touching any of the gear. Once it's up, it's up, and you only fiddle with it when you need to fix something or change some services. But at the same ti
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
> > Well, even in THIS case it is far more reasonable. Documented > > hours > > of hard testing/working on networking gear in a "lab" by > > Cisco. That > > I would go for. Because, like I said 3 years of router rubbing > > ... > > come on, I am sure you have had assignments which let you > > demolish > > that "knowledge" in a few months! Thing is, you have no idea > > if they > > are actively working on networking for the 3 years. For the > > flying > > case you are directly clocking them for... flying. It is not > > even > > necessarily a "production network" (as in, commercial flying... > > :) ). > > > > I mean come on, hundreds of hours can be conquered within a few > > months for aggressive students. That is reasonable. YEARS of > > router > > rubbing? No thanks. > > Actually, I must disagree. Hundreds of hours of time within a few monmths > can only be accomplished within a lab environment. When we're talking about > production environments, the fact is, most of the time you're not touching > any of the gear. Once it's up, it's up, and you only fiddle with it when > you need to fix something or change some services. But at the same time, > only real live networks will present real-world problems that are provide > you with the valuable experience. Lab networks never can. Maybe it will, maybe it will not. The case of the network engineer who keeps calling TAC for the most rudimentary issues... like password recovery... again. > Consider the case of the pilot's license. The difficult parts of flying are > taking off and landing, and (maybe), banking. Simply flying straight is not > particularly meaningful. You could simply fulfill your flying hours > requirement just by doing a take-off (difficult) and a land (difficult) > adjoined by hours of straight-ahead flying (easy). So just because you > spent most of your time 'carressing the cockpit' (I think I saw that as a > subject line for a pornmail I got), does that mean that the flying > requirement of a pilot's license should be tossed? I don't think so. Well, good troubleshooting skills may or may not come out of one's experience in any environment. If at least people had BASIC knowledge of networking it would be pretty nice. (the equivalent of landing/taking off). Do you know how many people I have run into who have setup /24s for point to point serial links and they were using EIGRP? Or how many people who just say "ohh... well I have been in the field for a few years, but I never got the hang of this subnetting thing. Can you explain it to me?" > > I do not really want to get into this debate. What if the > > lab-rat is > > not a full rat, but a very good, bright learner? (um... he's a > > mouse!) He might have a stronger aptitude for growth and > > learning > > than the stagnant router carresser. Obviously that is the > > worst case > > for both ends, I just do not think it is always so clear cut. > > What if the caresser is also a very good bright learner? The point is the > carresser has everything the labrat could have and something that the labrat > by definition can never have, namely production experience. Well, that is if we can define all production experience as something useful, in which case I am disputing from what I have seen. > > I dispute your idea that technical merit or great technical > > skill > > learning capacity == instant job. Ask a pile of people on this > > list. > > Some might not be... some I bet are very bright and skilled > > but > > jobless nonetheless. The problem... all the other issues we > > raised > > about finding jobs. (let's not bring that into this > > discussion). > > So, like I said earlier here, let us drop the idea that you can > > instantly get a job if you have great technical skills and > > technical > > skill learning capacity. We both know that is NOT always true. > > By the same token, since we're talking about the CCIE here, everybody knows > that the CCIE is no guarantee in getting a job either. You presume that all > this bright and skilled guy has to do to get a job is get his CCIE, and we > both know that that's false. It helps a lot to have the CCIE. Why hold someone back at all? The exam is just as difficult in either event (unless he learns something in his production network that would be applicable to the exam, which is highly doubtful). This entire debate hinges on whether or not "real production experience" is useful in general or not. I say it "could" be, but not always. The experience is what you get out of it so to speak. I find it akin to going to say college. You only get what you put into it. Let the test judge them alone, not their past "experience". > So I see you're accusing me of unduly frying the young-guns because I'm > preventing them from getting their CCIE and so they might get fried in the > market. When in fact, even if they did get their CCIE, they would probably > get fried anyway because they
RE: how about ccie salary in US? [7:71143]
Carroll Kong wrote: >> > However, in terms of sensible fairness, I do not see how having > years > of "production experience" is going to mean crap if you utilize > it > improperly or got little out of it. (think of the guy who > calls TAC > every other day, and now thinks that the config registers for > password recovery are the same for all routers). Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that production experience isn't worth very much. Sheesh, you just left yourself wide open to a HUGE attack, so huge that I'm surprised you can't see it. Namely - if experience is so darn worthless, then why does every single company in the world want it? Name me a single company that doesn't care about experience. Can't do it, can you? What you're telling me is that all the companies in the world are placing a premium on something that is essentially worthless. So basically you're saying that every company in the world is wrong and you're right, is that true? If so, hey, please, by all means, start your own company and because you apparently your hiring practices will be better than everybody else's, you'll be a billionaire soon. > > Why not test the individuals harder, instead of putting up this > "number of years" barrier? Might as well ask ourselves why we can't just "simply" win the lottery. We both know Cisco is not going to do anything that actually requires substantial effort on their part, so why waste belaboring the subject. You're comparing the perfect solution that will never happen to something practical and attainable. > > Well, perhaps it was a bad analogy then (the pilot bit). I am > okay > with forcing people to do meaningful experience of sorts. I > also > think a good lab scenario based off of someone's "real world > experience" (eh, just insert disaster scenarios into the lab, > not > that hard. :) ) and clocking time against that is a good > idea. > Having them sitting around doing "nothing", seems to be just > wasting > people's time and money. > > However, given that everyone is not going to have an even > experience > in any workplace, it seems to be a very uneven barrier. > Furthermore, > as I mentioned, in some cases, so little comes out of it at > times > that to even compare people by the number of years would be > ridiculous. And yet that is precisely what companies do, and I have to imagine that they have good reasons for doing so. You wanna get hired as the lead engineer at a tier-1 backbone provider? You have to have X years of experience to even get into the interview room. Could those X years of experience have been spent in a NOC playing solitaire? Yeah, I guess. But hey, those are the rules. We all know that if you don't have any experience, you will not be considered for that job even if you could handle it. Unfair? Maybe. But guess what - life is unfair. My proposal is no more unfair than life itself. > > Well, if anything, make the exam harder. Not going to happen if it means that Cisco will actually have to put effort into it. > The years of > experience > seems too hazy to me for quite a few reasons. > > 1) experience is not equal > 2) experience can turn into misinformation > > I just do not like this "easy" way out to build a quick > "filter" that > seems like it is not going to build stronger CCIES necessarily. And again, this is precisely the "easy" way that companies filter out candidates. Again, if you really think the whole world is dumb for doing this, then by all means start your own company and blow them all away. > > > > The only thing you did was delay them, and delay > potentially > > > qualified individuals. Are you even sure they will have > even a > > > SHRED > > > more experience after doing carressing for so long? Is that > > > shred > > > going to really help them when they "study" for the exam by > > > going to > > > bootcamps, reviewing braindumps, etc? > > > > A shred is better than nothing. And I am confident that many > of them will > > have more than a shred. > > Well, I can give you a list of people who will disappoint you. > :) > However, I never said a "router carresser" might not be very > bright. > A good number of them are like that; they too are held back > (but > this time by their employers). However, let us test them on > their > merits, not on how long they were carressing. Why not? That's precisely what employers do. > > Yeah but to employ such a method to filter people, and to > potentially > get very little results. Hey, if the results are good enough for all the employers in the world, they should be good enough for the CCIE program. > > What I am saying is not everyone's experience is a very good > one. > You get those who see one Cisco router crash once due to a bad > DIMM, > and he thinks Cisco sucks for routers. > > Experience can be flawed, or it could be overwhelmed by raw > knowledge. "From my experience, reinstalling the OS and > picking the >
