Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Regarding what Carroll Kong wrote - I guess we have to wonder what Cisco's ultimate goals are. If they decreased the lab time and altered the exam to be more 'streamlined' and 'easier', why would they immediately step backwards? In my experience taking the lab, I must say the 1-day lab is not necessarily easier than the 2-day. It may be more streamlined but it is not easier. The difficulty is still there. I passed on my 5th attempt and met the 2-day format a couple of times during my journey. My first lab exam with some now obsolete content (appletalk, etc.) in the picture seems easier to me now in comparison to what I saw the last time. Either way, I'm a proud high number CCIE. Frank Garcia, CCIE #11013 Unemployed, looking for work as a Real Estate Agent Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71507t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
But that's really neither here nor there. At the end of the day, more bootcamps = easier test. Why there are more bootcamps around today is unimportant for purposes of this discussion. It doesn't matter why - so why ask why. All that matters is are there more bootcamps. Now again, I would reiterate that I don't have a problem with bootcamps per se. I see them as basically inevitable. But on the other hand, it does mean that Cisco must make the exam even more difficult to compensate for the effects of the bootcamps. Right, I think I mentioned that in my earlier post (that ultimately it doesn't matter what caused the cycle, just that the net result is an easier exam). Of course how to make it difficult, in a fair fashion is yet another animal. Personally I think the best way to solve this problem is to force people to recertify by taking the current lab exam again. No more of this BS where guys can just take a written exam to recertify. You want to continue calling yourself a CCIE? Then you should have no problem in passing the lab again. Otherwise, we'll convert your status to 'retired CCIE' or CCIE emeritus or something like. Yeah but that would clearly decrease the number of CCIEs, which can be viewed as a good or bad thing. Cisco does want more CCIEs to some degree, yet it can hurt them if there is no longer a true upper echelon of certification anymore. Ironically if they make a new tree, such as the REAL CCIE, it only turns the current CCIES into a pile of ugly ducklings and validates all the nay-sayers of the CCIEs. :) Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it is a total negative. But I dispute the fervent contention of some that it's a total positive. I think it is very difficult to adjust any complex system to get a total 'positive' when they are upgraded. -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71098t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When to use BGP Was: number of CCIE [7:70151]
At 09:34 AM 6/23/2003 -0500, MADMAN wrote: Zsombor Papp wrote: At 08:26 PM 6/20/2003 +, MADMAN wrote: Mark E. Hayes wrote: NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee 100% uptime for one of our clients. Plus the enterprise was becoming more web dependent with services we were offering. Thanks, Mark Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in the same POP then no. What would you do if they had been terminating at a single ISP in the same POP? Or did you mean same router? Most likely simple default routes. You mean default static routes? From a pure theoretical point of view, that seems a bit dangerous to me (to have two default static route pointing to two different routers). If one of the ISP routers is not directly connected to the customer's router (because for example there is an Ethernet switch in the middle), then the customer's router won't notice even if the ISP router is powered down. Even if the two routers are directly connected, it is possible (even though with current IOS versions it is not very likely) that the interface stays up even though routing dies on the ISP router. In short, I think there is a chance of you blackholing half of your traffic. Comments? :) Thanks, Zsombor Though as Howard alluded to there are some exceptions where you may use BGP but not to recieve full routing but more likely to control network announcements. You could exchange same router/POP as far as routing is concerned. Dave Thanks, Zsombor Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MADMAN Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] n The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon on the second day at which time the liberty was taken to destroy what you had built and you then had a couple of hours to put it back together. Dave Nor is my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews from different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it one day or two day). For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style than the two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct comparison now. The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed but with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. I suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes couldn't figure out on a web page. I agree that the physical element was dumb. But the troubleshooting section was absolutely critical, see below. The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed element from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a dynamic truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break your working network while you perform the exam. But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing networks. Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
If it comes down to money. Why not increase the rate? I've remember when the price for exam was only a G. When they decided to raise the price, peeps start to mumbleed and grumbleed how the test was getting so expensive, but that didn't stop peeps from taking the test. Raise it again if they want to value there flagship cert. Everyone would agree w/me that the value of the cert has a lot more value than the value put in to obtained the cert. - Original Message - From: Carroll Kong To: Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 4:17 PM Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] Hmmm that might work. However, while you say someone good with concepts will do well, that is what I always thought earlier, until a good amount of members on this list and in the real world insisted that good knowledge of theory won't get you anywhere on the CCIE exam, only hardened practice. Granted, you probably need a good mixture of both, and I feel strong theory is worth a heck of a lot more than just mindless practice. (and I mean really understanding it, not just saying oh yeah it.. um.. makes packets move). I guess we have to wonder what Cisco's ultimate goals are. If they decreased the lab time and altered the exam to be more 'streamlined' and 'easier', why would they immediately step backwards? I think your ideas are very good in increasing the difficulty of the exam, but this is just going to be a big expensive variation war, somewhat like hackers vs developers and hackers vs virus scanner software companies. If Cisco wanted more CCIEs out in the field, why would they want to engage in this expensive battle anyway? If they truly wanted to increase the value, why take the steps they have taken now such as decreasing the lab time and making it more streamlined? That's a decent first step. But I would go further. I would actually mix up the equipment. Let me explain. The final objection I have heard is that it will make test grading harder. For example, one person might get the ISDN rack and fail whereas he might have passed if he had gotten the switching rack, or something like that, and therefore a certain element of dumb luck enters into the fray. First of all, that already happens now - if you happen to get test questions on subjects that you know very well, you are far more likely to pass than if you get test questions on subjects that you know poorly. Second of all, hey, welcome to the real world, where no 2 networks are alike. Again, if your grounding in concepts is good, you should be able to handle the variety. Third, need I say it, such objections could be properly addressed through my old idea of relative scoring (but I digress) Anyway, the point is, now I think it is time for Cisco to seriously consider using different racks. I see little reason besides inertia and nostalgia for all test racks to always be exactly the same. -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71152t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: When to use BGP Was: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in the same POP then no. What would you do if they had been terminating at a single ISP in the same POP? Or did you mean same router? Most likely simple default routes. You mean default static routes? From a pure theoretical point of view, that seems a bit dangerous to me (to have two default static route pointing to two different routers). If one of the ISP routers is not directly connected to the customer's router (because for example there is an Ethernet switch in the middle), then the customer's router won't notice even if the ISP router is powered down. Even if the two routers are directly connected, it is possible (even though with current IOS versions it is not very likely) that the interface stays up even though routing dies on the ISP router. In short, I think there is a chance of you blackholing half of your traffic. Comments? :) Thanks, Zsombor Unless your co-located with your ISP your probably not connected to an ethernet switch! Though even if serially connected, with static routes you would not know if the LAN connection on the ISP router went down effectively causing the same blackholing you refer to. Like most things there is a cost/benefit analysis. WAN links are more prone to outages than the LAN, pointing your default to the ISP WAN is simple and commonly used config. For cusomters that are more sensitive to outages may opt for dual homing to 2 ISP's using ful routing and have their WAN connections via a SHNS or SHARP configuration. Redundancy and simplicity are not bedfellows and the more your willing to spend the more redundancy can be had. Dave Though as Howard alluded to there are some exceptions where you may use BGP but not to recieve full routing but more likely to control network announcements. You could exchange same router/POP as far as routing is concerned. Dave -- 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=7i=71163t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Duy Nguyen wrote: If it comes down to money. Why not increase the rate? I've remember when the price for exam was only a G. When they decided to raise the price, peeps start to mumbleed and grumbleed how the test was getting so expensive, but that didn't stop peeps from taking the test. Raise it again if they want to value there flagship cert. Everyone would agree w/me that the value of the cert has a lot more value than the value put in to obtained the cert. Well... First, let me address your last sentence. I don't think the value is anywhere near as clearcut as you're implying. The value proposition is only clear if you pass in your first few attempts. But I know guys who have tried the test 10 times or more, all out of their own pocket. When you include travel costs, costs in personal time, and all the ancillary stuff, then the value proposition becomes very dicey. For example, I know a guy who has sunk more than $20 grand of his own money on testing (including travel costs, costs to get and maintain a home lab, interest, etc.), still hasn't passed, and if and when he ever does, I don't think he'll ever come close to ever making his money back. He's still trying because after you've sunk all that money, you really have no choice but to keep going (it's not like if he stops now he'll get his money back - what's spent is spent), but he knows and has admitted that this was a financial bloodbath for him. However, the crux of your argument is definitely true. Cisco has ample room to raise the costs of the test. A lot of candidates don't pay anyway because they're backed by their companies, so what do they care about the price? Cisco could tell all that found money and do all the things I and others have been proposing for awhile now. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71197t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: When to use BGP Was: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Thanks, I appreciate your comments. Zsombor At 01:36 PM 6/23/2003 -0500, MADMAN wrote: Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in the same POP then no. What would you do if they had been terminating at a single ISP in the same POP? Or did you mean same router? Most likely simple default routes. You mean default static routes? From a pure theoretical point of view, that seems a bit dangerous to me (to have two default static route pointing to two different routers). If one of the ISP routers is not directly connected to the customer's router (because for example there is an Ethernet switch in the middle), then the customer's router won't notice even if the ISP router is powered down. Even if the two routers are directly connected, it is possible (even though with current IOS versions it is not very likely) that the interface stays up even though routing dies on the ISP router. In short, I think there is a chance of you blackholing half of your traffic. Comments? :) Thanks, Zsombor Unless your co-located with your ISP your probably not connected to an ethernet switch! Though even if serially connected, with static routes you would not know if the LAN connection on the ISP router went down effectively causing the same blackholing you refer to. Like most things there is a cost/benefit analysis. WAN links are more prone to outages than the LAN, pointing your default to the ISP WAN is simple and commonly used config. For cusomters that are more sensitive to outages may opt for dual homing to 2 ISP's using ful routing and have their WAN connections via a SHNS or SHARP configuration. Redundancy and simplicity are not bedfellows and the more your willing to spend the more redundancy can be had. Dave Though as Howard alluded to there are some exceptions where you may use BGP but not to recieve full routing but more likely to control network announcements. You could exchange same router/POP as far as routing is concerned. Dave -- 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=7i=71201t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Duy Nguyen wrote: Would it be a good idea to make the CCIE Lab adaptive? 1st, everyone will try a screener test of overall technologies. Once you have finished, they will give you a lab book that they believe are more challenging to you. How many lab books do they have, maybe a hundred? So, in that case bootcamps would have a hard time knowing everything Cisco have up their sleeves. That's a decent first step. But I would go further. I would actually mix up the equipment. Let me explain. Another thing I've been thinking about for awhile is to have racks that are actually different. Why exactly does each test rack have to have exactly the same hardware - the same routers with the same interfaces, the same switches, the same everything? Why can't racks be different, except for the fact that such a thing is logistically easier for Cisco to run? For example, one rack could be all Catalyst switches. Another rack could have all routers with ISDN. Another rack could have all routers connected via ATM. I believe if you had a variety of racks, you could offer a test that was much more realistic. All the production networks in the real world are all different, so why should all the test networks be the same? Some real-world networks consist of mostly switches, some are dial-centric, some are ATM-oriented, some are like this, some are like that, and after all, since the test supposedly prepares you for the real world, doesn't that mean that it should also include some of the smorgasboard variety that you will see in the real world? Furthermore, one of the larger 'corrupting' factors I see these days is guys trying to build home-labs that exactly replicate the test rack. I'm not faulting the test candidates who do such a thing, because I understand why candidates would want to maximize their chances of passing. But I think the true purpose of the CCIE is to demonstrate acuity with technologies and concepts, not to run around trying to get a perfect facsimile of the test hardware. Again, the purpose of the CCIE, supposedly, is to prepare people to take on real-world networking. Let's say your boss gives you a network to run - say 100 Cat6500's - are you going to then need to have your own lab of 100 Cat 6500's before you can do anything useful? I hope not.The point is that if you have a good grounding of networking concepts, you should be able to flexibly adapt to any topology and any combination of networking hardware that's thrown at you. No network engineer will obviously be able to own test hardware that can actually replicate every single network in the world. Imagine taking a job at Worldcom - unless you're Bill Gates -you're not going to build your own test network that will replicate Worldcom. So why should this behavior be encouraged within the CCIE program? Let me reiterate, I'm not faulting individual test-takers for trying to get that test rack facsimile, I am faulting Cisco for encouraging this kind of behavior. It's simply yet another way that the test is not realistic. This sort of thing would be greatly reduced if you simply had lots of different test racks, which would imply that it would be daunting to actually try to get all the gear to properly replicate every single possible rack you might get (with all the different interfaces and whatnot), which would mean that the focus would shift from trying to get perfect copies of the test hardware to developing a deep understanding of the underlying technologies and concepts so that you can properly handle any topology and any hardware that is thrown at you, and that's really where the focus should have always been. The biggest objection I'm sure to hear are logistical arguments that I alluded to before. For example, some people will argue that it would be impossible to have lots of different kinds of racks in all the CCIE lab locations in the world. To that, I would say that, as a test candidate, since all the cabling is already done for you and you got all the figures and network diagrams, why exactly do the candidates even have to be in the same room as the racks at all? Put all the different racks in San Jose and all the locations can just connect to San Jose remotely through remote terminal servers. Anybody who's taken the lab lately (after they moved from 2 days to 1 and got rid of the cabling portion) can attest to the fact that as a candidate, you probably don't even look at your actual rack - that you really couldn't care less if the rack is right next to you. All you care about is what is the address of the console server and what pieces of gear are connected to each console connection. Where exactly the hardware is, who cares? Another objection is that such a thing would make the creation of tests harder, because you'd have different racks with obviously different connectivity which would imply that Cisco would need to spend more work in creating test questions. Yeah, so what? Cisco needs
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Hmmm that might work. However, while you say someone good with concepts will do well, that is what I always thought earlier, until a good amount of members on this list and in the real world insisted that good knowledge of theory won't get you anywhere on the CCIE exam, only hardened practice. Granted, you probably need a good mixture of both, and I feel strong theory is worth a heck of a lot more than just mindless practice. (and I mean really understanding it, not just saying oh yeah it.. um.. makes packets move). I guess we have to wonder what Cisco's ultimate goals are. If they decreased the lab time and altered the exam to be more 'streamlined' and 'easier', why would they immediately step backwards? I think your ideas are very good in increasing the difficulty of the exam, but this is just going to be a big expensive variation war, somewhat like hackers vs developers and hackers vs virus scanner software companies. If Cisco wanted more CCIEs out in the field, why would they want to engage in this expensive battle anyway? If they truly wanted to increase the value, why take the steps they have taken now such as decreasing the lab time and making it more streamlined? That's a decent first step. But I would go further. I would actually mix up the equipment. Let me explain. The final objection I have heard is that it will make test grading harder. For example, one person might get the ISDN rack and fail whereas he might have passed if he had gotten the switching rack, or something like that, and therefore a certain element of dumb luck enters into the fray. First of all, that already happens now - if you happen to get test questions on subjects that you know very well, you are far more likely to pass than if you get test questions on subjects that you know poorly. Second of all, hey, welcome to the real world, where no 2 networks are alike. Again, if your grounding in concepts is good, you should be able to handle the variety. Third, need I say it, such objections could be properly addressed through my old idea of relative scoring (but I digress) Anyway, the point is, now I think it is time for Cisco to seriously consider using different racks. I see little reason besides inertia and nostalgia for all test racks to always be exactly the same. -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71099t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: When to run BGP (was RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
I was multi-homed. Sprint and Qwest. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 4:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: When to run BGP (was RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] At 4:24 PM + 6/20/03, Mark E. Hayes wrote: NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee 100% uptime for one of our clients. Plus the enterprise was becoming more web dependent with services we were offering. Thanks, Mark First, be sure you aren't equating running BGP with taking a full routing table. There are many situations where running BGP doesn't take a big router, because the particular application only needs a few routes. Second, the simple answer is multihoming. Most frequently, this means that you are multihoming to different providers. There can be, however, very valid reasons to use BGP when you are connected to multiple POPs of the same provider, and want to control load distribution over the set of POPs. There are a few special cases where you might run BGP when you only have a single provider connection, such as announcing routes to a 2547 VPN, and neither static nor IGP routing is appropriate between the CE and PE. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71049t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Would it be a good idea to make the CCIE Lab adaptive? 1st, everyone will try a screener test of overall technologies. Once you have finished, they will give you a lab book that they believe are more challenging to you. How many lab books do they have, maybe a hundred? So, in that case bootcamps would have a hard time knowing everything Cisco have up their sleeves. Personally I think the best way to solve this problem is to force people to recertify by taking the current lab exam again. No more of this BS where guys can just take a written exam to recertify. You want to continue calling yourself a CCIE? Then you should have no problem in passing the lab again. Otherwise, we'll convert your status to 'retired CCIE' or CCIE This would be pretty harsh for all CCIE's that have to retake the test again just to be recertified. How about give them a half-day of troubleshooting? Bootcamps can teach you to memorize configurations, but its pretty hard to memorize how to troubleshoot different type of breaks. Instinct is key here. Again, same idea as I previously stated on top. Take a screener test of overall technologies. After that, they'll give you a problem and tell you, the clock aready started. You just wasted 2 minutes staring at me. - Original Message - From: n rf To: Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:09 PM Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Carroll Kong wrote: be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this is not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is becoming more popular and people have recently tapped into this market. The drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a LOT to do with bringing down this barrier to entry. Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that it's conclusive. Think of it logically - why would people be willing to consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if they don't work? Either all these people are all stupidly throwing their money away, or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test easier. PT Barnum said that while you can fool all the people some of the time and some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all the time. If bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would be common knowledge by now. Well, it is not so much if it was no value or not. It is more so is it worth the time and effort for people to develop bootcamps as a market. Back in the 2 day lab, sure, but not as big, since there were so few candidates. Now that we got the 1 day lab and more candidates you can sell more. I am saying it is possible that the rise of the bootcamps came from the clearly larger candidate pool since more candidates were allowed to take it. But that's really neither here nor there. At the end of the day, more bootcamps = easier test. Why there are more bootcamps around today is unimportant for purposes of this discussion. It doesn't matter why - so why ask why. All that matters is are there more bootcamps. Now again, I would reiterate that I don't have a problem with bootcamps per se. I see them as basically inevitable. But on the other hand, it does mean that Cisco must make the exam even more difficult to compensate for the effects of the bootcamps. I think learning new technology is kind of a mixed bag though. While yes, I do not see myself putting up BGP confederations and what not, you do get the ancient crowd who doesn't know what a VLAN is or isn't too interested in it since they have been deploying networks for 5 years, so they go with a monolithic flat network with daisy chained switches. Nevermind the subtle other issues that can come up with it, including ridiculously large broadcast domains which allow one rogue box to annihilate the entire network. So, where do you draw the line? In any event, I do not see the new technology issue to be a big deal. People have to get up to speed with the latest knobs of the new tech in any event, which goes back to the learning capacity. And like I said before, quite a few low numbered CCIEs have not touched a router for configuration or troubleshooting in years. Personally I think the best way to solve this problem is to force people to recertify by taking the current lab exam again. No more of this BS where guys can just take a written exam to recertify. You want to continue calling yourself a CCIE? Then you should have no problem in passing the lab again. Otherwise, we'll convert your status to 'retired CCIE' or CCIE emeritus or something like. key operating word there is 'rare'. For various reasons, I believe anything that could be done by IP multicasting could probably be done far easier either through a broadcast network (for example, right now through my
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Carroll Kong wrote: Hey, I don't want to take either of them again if I don't have to. But if I was forced to make a choice, I'd prefer to take the singlet over the doublet. It's like being punched in the face once vs. being punched twice. Well I cannot say anything specific against it since I was never in that situation. However, I guess you are right, anything to delay or prolong that nasty feeilng. ;) I'm afraid I have to disagree about the speed aspect of the test. The fact of the matter is that the speed component of the test is greatly overrated, whether we're talking about the 1 or the 2-day versions. Take the 1-day version of the test. The fact is, if you're not essentially done with everything by 1 or 2 PM, you're probably DOA. I remember in both of my successful 1-day tests, I sat around for about 2-3 hours at the end with nothing to do - I checked all my work, reread the test questions over and over again, and was quite frankly bored. The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Nor is my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. Actually, you are right. I was essentially done, with a fair chunk of time remaining as well, I just triple checked everything and tried to iron out some nuggets. ;) If you could compare it to driving a car, the last few hours was a much smoother ride, with less thinking going on. But, everyone does make mistakes occasionally, so that kind of stuff will somewhat cost you. I think some of the older CCIEs I worked with were probably not as fast in typing or were able to optimize as well in their thought processes. :( Why do I get a feeling I should throw you into the middle CCIE list (which I consider to be the better chunk to be honest!). :) In all seriousness though, I suppose the individual skillset and mindset matters a lot. Bad people were able to squeak by in both 2 day and 1 day exams. (Yes, I have met quite a few CCIES which had me scratching my head... you are a CCIE?) This is not to insult a lot of the lower number CCIE. Just that a VERY large percentage of them have taken up more managerial jobs, and have not kept up at all with the latest technologies. Their learning / thought processes seem so slow it is so hard for them to adopt new things since they are used to managerial work now. Some of them were saying how hard deploying IPSEC VPNs is (I think they are very easy) ... and what is GRE?. (come on! this was in their 2 day lab I am sure, no?). Basically anyone who has taken the time to even contribute to this list, I put on the good list. A lot of the other CCIEs I know of insist it's a waste of time. With that kind of mindset, you can see that they aren't interested in learning all there is to know (even to a fair degree) just enough to get by and win the bids with their lower numbers. What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. Well, take it from me, the Security train was not 100% straightforward, the lab itself had BUGS I had to report to the proctor, in which he vehemently denied there was (but I proved it to him there was later on, without that, I would have failed), some parts were vague and contradictoryI guess the Security one had less polish but definitely doable. However, for the most part, yes, it was pretty straight forward bugs and kinks aside. The layered effect, while necessary was pretty brutal. Fail or do not understand something earlier, you will fail the entire exam, even if you know the other 90% of it. I suppose though it is a reasonable request/requirement to acquire the daunting certification. :) But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the present format is that you end up with guys who are really
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Yes the two T-1's were from Sprint and Qwest. -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:37 PM To: Mark E. Hayes Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] Mark E. Hayes wrote: NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee 100% uptime for one of our clients. Plus the enterprise was becoming more web dependent with services we were offering. Thanks, Mark Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in the same POP then no. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MADMAN Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] n The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon on the second day at which time the liberty was taken to destroy what you had built and you then had a couple of hours to put it back together. Dave Nor is my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews from different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it one day or two day). For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style than the two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct comparison now. The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed but with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. I suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes couldn't figure out on a web page. I agree that the physical element was dumb. But the troubleshooting section was absolutely critical, see below. The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed element from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a dynamic truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break your working network while you perform the exam. But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing networks. Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also means it might be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this is not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is becoming more popular and people have recently tapped into this market. The drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a LOT to do with bringing down this barrier to entry. Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that it's conclusive. Think of it logically - why would people be willing to consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if they don't work? Either all these people are all stupidly throwing their money away, or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test easier. PT Barnum said that while you can fool all the people some of the time and some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all the time. If bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would be common knowledge by now. Regretably, it is difficult to say whether or not it is the slippery slope we are going up if we really believe a one day exam is instantly easier than a two day
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Then I would say what you did is appropiate. I assume these T1's terminate on differant routers and your running EBGP between them. I hope the Qwest link is stable :) Dave Mark E. Hayes wrote: Yes the two T-1's were from Sprint and Qwest. -Original Message- From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:37 PM To: Mark E. Hayes Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] Mark E. Hayes wrote: NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee 100% uptime for one of our clients. Plus the enterprise was becoming more web dependent with services we were offering. Thanks, Mark Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in the same POP then no. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MADMAN Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] n The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon on the second day at which time the liberty was taken to destroy what you had built and you then had a couple of hours to put it back together. Dave Nor is my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews from different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it one day or two day). For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style than the two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct comparison now. The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed but with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. I suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes couldn't figure out on a web page. I agree that the physical element was dumb. But the troubleshooting section was absolutely critical, see below. The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed element from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a dynamic truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break your working network while you perform the exam. But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing networks. Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also means it might be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this is not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is becoming more popular and people have recently tapped into this market. The drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a LOT to do with bringing down this barrier to entry. Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that it's conclusive. Think of it logically - why would people be willing to consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if they don't work? Either all these people are all stupidly throwing their money away, or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test easier. PT Barnum said that while you can fool all the people some of the time and some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all the time. If bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would be common knowledge
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee 100% uptime for one of our clients. Plus the enterprise was becoming more web dependent with services we were offering. Thanks, Mark Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in the same POP then no. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MADMAN Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] n The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon on the second day at which time the liberty was taken to destroy what you had built and you then had a couple of hours to put it back together. Dave Nor is my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews from different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it one day or two day). For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style than the two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct comparison now. The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed but with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. I suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes couldn't figure out on a web page. I agree that the physical element was dumb. But the troubleshooting section was absolutely critical, see below. The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed element from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a dynamic truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break your working network while you perform the exam. But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing networks. Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also means it might be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this is not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is becoming more popular and people have recently tapped into this market. The drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a LOT to do with bringing down this barrier to entry. Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that it's conclusive. Think of it logically - why would people be willing to consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if they don't work? Either all these people are all stupidly throwing their money away, or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test easier. PT Barnum said that while you can fool all the people some of the time and some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all the time. If bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would be common knowledge by now. Regretably, it is difficult to say whether or not it is the slippery slope we are going up if we really believe a one day exam is instantly easier than a two day and that is the reason why there are more CCIEs per month, or if it is because the failure rate is the same, and the expected value of passing CCIEs goes up due to the higher volume of candidates per month. Whether
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
At 08:26 PM 6/20/2003 +, MADMAN wrote: Mark E. Hayes wrote: NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee 100% uptime for one of our clients. Plus the enterprise was becoming more web dependent with services we were offering. Thanks, Mark Were the two T1's terminating at two differant ISP's? If so BGP would be appropriate. If you have 2 T1's terminating at a single ISP in the same POP then no. What would you do if they had been terminating at a single ISP in the same POP? Or did you mean same router? Thanks, Zsombor Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of MADMAN Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] n The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon on the second day at which time the liberty was taken to destroy what you had built and you then had a couple of hours to put it back together. Dave Nor is my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews from different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it one day or two day). For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style than the two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct comparison now. The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed but with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. I suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes couldn't figure out on a web page. I agree that the physical element was dumb. But the troubleshooting section was absolutely critical, see below. The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed element from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a dynamic truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break your working network while you perform the exam. But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing networks. Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also means it might be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this is not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is becoming more popular and people have recently tapped into this market. The drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a LOT to do with bringing down this barrier to entry. Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that it's conclusive. Think of it logically - why would people be willing to consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if they don't work? Either all these people are all stupidly throwing their money away, or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test easier. PT Barnum said that while you can fool all the people some of the time and some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all the time. If bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would be common knowledge by now. Regretably, it is difficult to say whether or not it is the slippery slope we are going up
When to run BGP (was RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
At 4:24 PM + 6/20/03, Mark E. Hayes wrote: NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropriate to run BGP? I set it up at the last job I had because I felt it was the best way to get redundancy for web services. I had two T-1's, ASN, and had to guarantee 100% uptime for one of our clients. Plus the enterprise was becoming more web dependent with services we were offering. Thanks, Mark First, be sure you aren't equating running BGP with taking a full routing table. There are many situations where running BGP doesn't take a big router, because the particular application only needs a few routes. Second, the simple answer is multihoming. Most frequently, this means that you are multihoming to different providers. There can be, however, very valid reasons to use BGP when you are connected to multiple POPs of the same provider, and want to control load distribution over the set of POPs. There are a few special cases where you might run BGP when you only have a single provider connection, such as announcing routes to a 2547 VPN, and neither static nor IGP routing is appropriate between the CE and PE. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71029t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
MADMAN wrote: n The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Hmm, when I took the lab you were done configuring at noon on the second day at which time the liberty was taken to destroy what you had built and you then had a couple of hours to put it back together. You know what I mean. At each stage of the game, you should have been done with significant time to spare. In the case of the 2 day lab, I was done on the first day by about 1-2, and on the morning of day 2, I was done at around 1030 or so, and done with the afternoon on day 2 by around 2. The point is that the CCIE is really not the speed-freak demon test that it's sometimes made out to be. People who pass rarely report being pressed for time, generally only the people who fail do. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=71040t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Carroll Kong wrote: be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this is not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is becoming more popular and people have recently tapped into this market. The drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a LOT to do with bringing down this barrier to entry. Well, the market for bootcamps is pretty darn good proof that it's conclusive. Think of it logically - why would people be willing to consistently cough up thousands of dollars for bootcamps if they don't work? Either all these people are all stupidly throwing their money away, or you have to concede that bootcamps are making the test easier. PT Barnum said that while you can fool all the people some of the time and some people all the time, you can't fool all the people all the time. If bootcamps really had no value, it is likely that this would be common knowledge by now. Well, it is not so much if it was no value or not. It is more so is it worth the time and effort for people to develop bootcamps as a market. Back in the 2 day lab, sure, but not as big, since there were so few candidates. Now that we got the 1 day lab and more candidates you can sell more. I am saying it is possible that the rise of the bootcamps came from the clearly larger candidate pool since more candidates were allowed to take it. But that's really neither here nor there. At the end of the day, more bootcamps = easier test. Why there are more bootcamps around today is unimportant for purposes of this discussion. It doesn't matter why - so why ask why. All that matters is are there more bootcamps. Now again, I would reiterate that I don't have a problem with bootcamps per se. I see them as basically inevitable. But on the other hand, it does mean that Cisco must make the exam even more difficult to compensate for the effects of the bootcamps. I think learning new technology is kind of a mixed bag though. While yes, I do not see myself putting up BGP confederations and what not, you do get the ancient crowd who doesn't know what a VLAN is or isn't too interested in it since they have been deploying networks for 5 years, so they go with a monolithic flat network with daisy chained switches. Nevermind the subtle other issues that can come up with it, including ridiculously large broadcast domains which allow one rogue box to annihilate the entire network. So, where do you draw the line? In any event, I do not see the new technology issue to be a big deal. People have to get up to speed with the latest knobs of the new tech in any event, which goes back to the learning capacity. And like I said before, quite a few low numbered CCIEs have not touched a router for configuration or troubleshooting in years. Personally I think the best way to solve this problem is to force people to recertify by taking the current lab exam again. No more of this BS where guys can just take a written exam to recertify. You want to continue calling yourself a CCIE? Then you should have no problem in passing the lab again. Otherwise, we'll convert your status to 'retired CCIE' or CCIE emeritus or something like. key operating word there is 'rare'. For various reasons, I believe anything that could be done by IP multicasting could probably be done far easier either through a broadcast network (for example, right now through my digital cableTV service at home I get hundreds of TV channels - and quite frankly most of them suck - and with compression algorithms improving all the time, I may be getting thousands of channels in the near future) or through an application-level proxy/cache/CDN arrangement. But the point is that even the most fervent IP multicasting supporter has to concede that the technology hasn't exactly taken the world by storm. Yeah, the only one I can think of is possibly the financial realm and any attempt to distribute lots of channels (had an old VDSL project for a startup that required this). Therefore the argument that the newer CCIE test supposedly has more relevant technologies really doesn't hold water. In the case of BGP, most enterprises don't need it, in the case of route-reflection most enterprises don't know it and care about it, and in the case of IP multicasting, most enterprises don't know it, don't need it and don't care about it. Or, let me put it to you another way. The newest version of the CCIE no longer has IPX or tokenring. Yet I think I'm on safe ground when I say there are far more enterprises out there running tokenring and IPX than are running IP multicasting or BGP route reflection. Therefore, of the older or newer CCIE, which one is REALLY more relevant to present-day enterprise networks? Well, still might be a mixed bag there too. Like software, once something has been
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
OK... My dear friend, NRF, over here is fired up and ready to go on anyone, who responds on this thread. :) Nothing personal, but you did mentioned, or rather gave a lot of stress on maintaining crime-less life (I am not able to understand the reason for the same, did I mentioned that I was advocating criminals, or are higher number CCIEs are? not sure) then, you mentioned that knowing English is necessary or prudent for finding a job in US. Well (though I know English reasonably well, but) I will like to ask you one thing, do one has IT jobs in US only?, I am located in India, so does that means that there is a complete lack of Networking or IT jobs in India..? Coming back to the main thread, (though people do deviate from the main threads and wander around, and my response was totally focused on Peter's response), I am not a CCIE, yet, but whenever I get this number for me, be it 12000 or 2, I will not trade it for any lower number. It will be MY number, and I will not like to part with it. And, while we are discussing the importance or value of the CCIE program, why was it the case that we had to start this number trading exercise? Just my Rs. 0.02. Vikram -Original Message- From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 11:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Vikram JeetSingh wrote: Hi All, I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some time. Quite a number of people have reverted back on this, but this one, (from Peter) is just kind of PERFECT. Priscilla also wrote on one of other threads, that for having a worthwhile career you just don't need good networking skills, but also good networking of people. And I am sure it works. I have seen quite some useful mails from NRF, but this one is a losing battle (NRF: don't mind friend, nothing personal) and what Peter has stated is perfectly right (of course as per me) So a CCIE number, does matter, but more so, since all the chances are that the lower number ones would be having more experience and better networking of people. And the higher numbered ones would be, in all chances, relatively new and also still into the stage of building their networking of people. Just my 2 cents :) I have never said that people-networking wasn't important. In fact, I have engaged in many newsgroup-post-wars where I have stated precisely that. Go reference some of my many posts on this newsgroup or on alt.certification.cisco on this very subject. However to talk about this subject is really to raise an issue that, for purposes of this discussion, is neither here nor there. The issue at hand is has the value of the CCIE declined over time, and the preponderance of the evidence seems to be that the answer is 'yes', given the fact that everybody, including myself, would like to trade their CCIE number for a lower one. Nor is the gambit that this has to do with the connection between a lower number and more experience have much, if anything, to do with it. I would ask even the lower-number and highly experienced CCIE's would they be neutral to trading their number for a higher one. I'm not asking them to think about trading their experience, just their number. If the CCIE hasn't declined, then they shouldn't care what number they are. But of course we all realize that they DO care, and care deeply. Raising other issues that have to do with employment is not really relevant in this thread. After all, if we wanted to go down that road, then why don't we raise ALL the issues that affect employment? I would say that certain other things are even more important than the people-networking in terms of finding work. For example, a criminal background. I don't care if you're the most brilliant engineer in the world, you're CCIE #1026, and you're on a first name basis with John Chambers - if you're a convicted serial-killer, you're going to have difficulty in finding work. Let's face it - no company is ever going to hire Charles Manson. We could talk about personal lifestyle choices. If you're a coke fiend, finding a job might not be easy for you. If you can't speak the language of the country in which you're trying to find a job, you will have great difficulty no matter how wonderful your other credentials you are. For example, surely you would agree that if you want to get a job as a network guy in the USA, this might be difficult if you can't speak English. But should we really be talking about those kinds of things? I don't think so, for they are not relevant to the discussion. The auspices of this discussion are necessarily narrow - basically what has happened to the value of the CCIE. This is not a general discussion about how to find a job, for which the first tenets should be don't commit crimes, don't make harmful lifestyle choices, and learn the language of the country that you're in, and then (and only then) can we talk about things like
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
nrf said: Let's face it - no company is ever going to hire Charles Manson. Didn't Routergod.com ;-) n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Vikram JeetSingh wrote: Hi All, I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some time. Quite a number of people have reverted back on this, but this one, (from Peter) is just kind of PERFECT. Priscilla also wrote on one of other threads, that for having a worthwhile career you just don't need good networking skills, but also good networking of people. And I am sure it works. I have seen quite some useful mails from NRF, but this one is a losing battle (NRF: don't mind friend, nothing personal) and what Peter has stated is perfectly right (of course as per me) So a CCIE number, does matter, but more so, since all the chances are that the lower number ones would be having more experience and better networking of people. And the higher numbered ones would be, in all chances, relatively new and also still into the stage of building their networking of people. Just my 2 cents :) I have never said that people-networking wasn't important. In fact, I have engaged in many newsgroup-post-wars where I have stated precisely that. Go reference some of my many posts on this newsgroup or on alt.certification.cisco on this very subject. However to talk about this subject is really to raise an issue that, for purposes of this discussion, is neither here nor there. The issue at hand is has the value of the CCIE declined over time, and the preponderance of the evidence seems to be that the answer is 'yes', given the fact that everybody, including myself, would like to trade their CCIE number for a lower one. Nor is the gambit that this has to do with the connection between a lower number and more experience have much, if anything, to do with it. I would ask even the lower-number and highly experienced CCIE's would they be neutral to trading their number for a higher one. I'm not asking them to think about trading their experience, just their number. If the CCIE hasn't declined, then they shouldn't care what number they are. But of course we all realize that they DO care, and care deeply. Raising other issues that have to do with employment is not really relevant in this thread. After all, if we wanted to go down that road, then why don't we raise ALL the issues that affect employment? I would say that certain other things are even more important than the people-networking in terms of finding work. For example, a criminal background. I don't care if you're the most brilliant engineer in the world, you're CCIE #1026, and you're on a first name basis with John Chambers - if you're a convicted serial-killer, you're going to have difficulty in finding work. Let's face it - no company is ever going to hire Charles Manson. We could talk about personal lifestyle choices. If you're a coke fiend, finding a job might not be easy for you. If you can't speak the language of the country in which you're trying to find a job, you will have great difficulty no matter how wonderful your other credentials you are. For example, surely you would agree that if you want to get a job as a network guy in the USA, this might be difficult if you can't speak English. But should we really be talking about those kinds of things? I don't think so, for they are not relevant to the discussion. The auspices of this discussion are necessarily narrow - basically what has happened to the value of the CCIE. This is not a general discussion about how to find a job, for which the first tenets should be don't commit crimes, don't make harmful lifestyle choices, and learn the language of the country that you're in, and then (and only then) can we talk about things like who-you-know and what your CCIE number is. Surely you would agree that such a complete discussion that talked about all these issues would be unnecessarily bloated and top-heavy. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70853t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Vikram JeetSingh wrote: OK... My dear friend, NRF, over here is fired up and ready to go on anyone, who responds on this thread. :) Nothing personal, but you did mentioned, or rather gave a lot of stress on maintaining crime-less life (I am not able to understand the reason for the same, did I mentioned that I was advocating criminals, or are higher number CCIEs are? not sure) then, you mentioned that knowing English is necessary or prudent for finding a job in US. Well (though I know English reasonably well, but) I will like to ask you one thing, do one has IT jobs in US only?, I am located in India, so does that means that there is a complete lack of Networking or IT jobs in India..? First of all, I didn't say that. I said that you need to speak the language of whatever country you have to be in if you want to maximize your chances of getting a job there.It should surprise absolutely no-one to discover tha the ability to actually communicate with the people around you is important. This really falls under the category of duh. But at the risk of opening up a huge and dangerous can of worms, about the notion of jobs in India, well, you tell me. I don't want to get into a nationalistic debate here, but where did the Internet (as the Arpanet) start - in Indian universities, or in American universities? I have great respect for Indian engineers and I've worked with many highly competent Indian network engineers who've immigrated here to the US, but honestly, how many Americans move to India for networking jobs? Surely you would agree that there are more Indians that come to the US to find work as network engineers than vice versa. If there truly are more IT jobs in India than in the US, then it should follow that more Americans should be moving to India to get those jobs than Indians coming to the US. This is precisely why poor Mexicans come to the US to find jobs but poor Americans don't go to Mexico to find jobs. Now don't get me wrong, I give credit where credit is due - India has made great strides in the last few decades for no doubt the IIT system is a stellar educational system, and cities like Bangalore have become world-class IT centers. But the fact is, there still tends to be more opportunity for network engineers in the US than in India. The gap is not as large as it used to be, for India is improving rapidly, but there's still a gap. The proof of that is simple - many Indians, including many of the best IIT graduates, come to the US to find work, but hardly ever vice versa. For example, I've worked with several IIT graduates who were born and raised in India and have moved to Silicon Valley. They came here because they felt there were better economic opportunities here. And even in this recession, they are still here even though they are obviously free to go back to India at anytime. Yet yow many Americans (born and raised in the US) go to, say, MIT, and then decide to move to India to advance themselves economically? While there are some, there aren't as many as there are Indians who come here. That should tell you something. Coming back to the main thread, (though people do deviate from the main threads and wander around, and my response was totally focused on Peter's response), I am not a CCIE, yet, but whenever I get this number for me, be it 12000 or 2, I will not trade it for any lower number. It will be MY number, and I will not like to part with it. And, while we are discussing the importance or value of the CCIE program, why was it the case that we had to start this number trading exercise? If you read the whole thread starting from the very beginning , you will see that basically this whole thread has to do with the decline of the CCIE. My 'killer-proof' of this is that many, and dare I say, most people, if they are being honest with themselves, will admit that they would like to have a lower CCIE number for themselves if possible. Therefore I don't really need to present any numerical evidence of this decline because most people already realize this decline in their own heart. However, you and Peter van Oene wanted to digress into a general discussion about how to get a job. While I'm happy to oblige, I would say that such a discussion is not really germane to the central topic - what has happened to the CCIE program. I agree with both you and Peter that the CCIE is really only a minor factor in terms of getting a job - a far more important factor are the people you know, and probably even more important than that is not being a criminal, not engaging in destructive personal lifestyle choices, and actually being able to speak the language of the country you hope to work in. But none of these factors has anything to do with whether the CCIE has declined or not, and that's why I want to get back to the central discussion. If you want to hold another discussion about how to get a job, again, I'm happy to
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Carroll Kong wrote: Those three have pretty much echoed my themes. Hansang, in fact, has admitted that he accelerated his ccie studies so that he would take (and pass) the 2-day exam because he didn't want to run the risk of being known as an asterisk-ccie (meaning the one-day ccie). I know someone who took both the two day and one day. He felt the one day was harder. He might have been an exception, I do not know any other two dayers who took a one day. You just met another one. Hello, pleased to meet you, you can call me the notorious nrf. He was RS first, then he just got a Security one to get the double. Of all the CCIEs I do know, none of them ever wanted to really take it again (except one other CCIE I know... he wants to see if he still got the touch!) Hey, I don't want to take either of them again if I don't have to. But if I was forced to make a choice, I'd prefer to take the singlet over the doublet. It's like being punched in the face once vs. being punched twice. While I agree to some degree about how the old style might have been harder to some degree, I feel it is more of a preference. I think depending on the kind of problem solver you are, one will appear easier than the other and vice versa. I only took the one day, and all I have to say is it is a real speed torture exam. One slip up, and it's pretty much over. You have a SLIGHT margin of the error and that is only if you are very fast, both in the mind and on the keyboard. This is not to say if you are slower you are necessarily any less qualified, just, some people do not type as fast or take longer to formulate a very solid plan anyway. Those people suffer greatly from this new format. I'm afraid I have to disagree about the speed aspect of the test. The fact of the matter is that the speed component of the test is greatly overrated, whether we're talking about the 1 or the 2-day versions. Take the 1-day version of the test. The fact is, if you're not essentially done with everything by 1 or 2 PM, you're probably DOA. I remember in both of my successful 1-day tests, I sat around for about 2-3 hours at the end with nothing to do - I checked all my work, reread the test questions over and over again, and was quite frankly bored. The same was true of my 2-day test, again, I had done everything on both days by mid-afternoon and I just sat around with nothing to do but check my work over and over again. Nor is my experience unique - I think that most CCIE's would agree that if you're not done with several hours to spare, you're probably not going to pass. I would venture that very few people that have passed the test have actually required all the of the testtime that was allotted to them. What seems to kill people is that they don't read the questions carefully or they simply don't know the material and then they consequently make mistakes, and then in their haste, they start working too fast thereby making more mistakes, etc. But again, if you know the material and you're careful about reading the questions, the test is really quite straightforward. This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews from different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it one day or two day). For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style than the two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct comparison now. The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed but with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. I suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes couldn't figure out on a web page. I agree that the physical element was dumb. But the troubleshooting section was absolutely critical, see below. The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed element from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a dynamic truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break your working network while you perform the exam. But not realistic. Let's face it - as a network engineer, how many times are you really building networks from scratch vs. how many times are you troubleshooting already-built networks? The fact is, building networks from scratch is really only a minor part of the overall job, most of the time you are maintaining built networks. A far more useful test would be one that was PURE troubleshooting. For example, you get the whole morning to familiarize yourself with the network, and in the afternoon, all kinds of funky problems get injected into your network. One serious problem with the present format is that you end up with guys who are really good at configuring stuff but not very good at troubleshooting existing networks. Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also means it might be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage.
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Hi All, I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some time. Quite a number of people have reverted back on this, but this one, (from Peter) is just kind of PERFECT. Priscilla also wrote on one of other threads, that for having a worthwhile career you just don't need good networking skills, but also good networking of people. And I am sure it works. I have seen quite some useful mails from NRF, but this one is a losing battle (NRF: don't mind friend, nothing personal) and what Peter has stated is perfectly right (of course as per me) So a CCIE number, does matter, but more so, since all the chances are that the lower number ones would be having more experience and better networking of people. And the higher numbered ones would be, in all chances, relatively new and also still into the stage of building their networking of people. Just my 2 cents :) Vikram -Original Message- From: Peter van Oene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 3:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] [JN] Yeah, but does the college happy HR dude (your idol) who says bachelors required on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support tech) pay attention to that? As far as he's concerned all BSs are BSs, and they are all superior to non-graduates. Remember that we are talking about IT jobs, not top mamanegent or top financial analyst positions. First of all, let me clear up that HR is not my idol. I too do not like many of the things that HR does. The difference is that I accept that HR has hiring power and I see little point in raging against the machine on this point. Why? What's the point? You can whine all you want and they're still going to have hiring power. It's far more efficient to simply accept that HR has hiring power and learn to follow their rules. I don't mean to get into the battle of which CCIE number is better than which as I don't really have an opinion. However, one thing I do pick up on is the reliance here upon getting through HR screens. I don't recall ever getting a job through conventional means myself and I don't imagine that many somewhat established folks who do better than average work do either. Most of the hiring I've ever participated in was referral based as well. To me, this debate really only applies to those folks who do not have contacts in a given area and who are not prone to more aggressive employment acquisition strategies. This bunch of folks tends to flood resumes out to Monster and hope they get a call. However, I would see this category of folks as pretty junior, in which case I wouldn't expect to see them applying for the top tier jobs in the industry. These folks need to get a job, get established, and then leverage their contact base to move on to bigger and better things, or leverage their track record to move up internally. So, the way I see it, either you are pretty new to the industry and need some help getting through screener bots, or you are not and should find far better mileage leveraging your contact base in the industry. If you are good at what you do, likely the folks you worked with noticed this as did the vendors who worked with you as did your customers. Somewhere in that mix there has to be a hotter lead than www.findmeajobfor100k.com. If you are new, having a CCIE number of any type likely helps a bunch and I can't see anyone caring how high or low it is unless you are trying to get some uber job. If you are, you'll likely lose to someone else who came recommended and the how many guys passed the lab before you won't be of much significance. (did I just get into the debate I said I wanted to avoid? :) Anyway, I guess I'm not sure who the group of people are who are highly talented, yet have no contacts in the industry but still expect to pull down top calibre jobs. I'm also not sure who the top calibre job employers are that would chose not to hire you based upon how high your CCIE number was vs how well you fit the job and interviewed, but I'm assuming this CCIE number value cut deals more with first cut resume screening. Pete Second of all, do you not think that if HR sees a degree from Harvard in a resume, he's going to give more weight to that resume than to a guy from Podunk Community College? Of course he would. Everybody would. Sure, he's not going to say that anybody who wants to get a job must have Crimson blood, but when it comes to making the first cut, you know what he's going to do. [NRF] First of all, what admissions fiasco? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please [JN] The admissions process is a fiasco, but that is another issue. Are you implying that all the certified people are getting perfect scores because of braindumps and bootcamps? No I am not, but you do
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Vikram JeetSingh wrote: Hi All, I was stopping myself for writing on this thread for quite some time. Quite a number of people have reverted back on this, but this one, (from Peter) is just kind of PERFECT. Priscilla also wrote on one of other threads, that for having a worthwhile career you just don't need good networking skills, but also good networking of people. And I am sure it works. I have seen quite some useful mails from NRF, but this one is a losing battle (NRF: don't mind friend, nothing personal) and what Peter has stated is perfectly right (of course as per me) So a CCIE number, does matter, but more so, since all the chances are that the lower number ones would be having more experience and better networking of people. And the higher numbered ones would be, in all chances, relatively new and also still into the stage of building their networking of people. Just my 2 cents :) I have never said that people-networking wasn't important. In fact, I have engaged in many newsgroup-post-wars where I have stated precisely that. Go reference some of my many posts on this newsgroup or on alt.certification.cisco on this very subject. However to talk about this subject is really to raise an issue that, for purposes of this discussion, is neither here nor there. The issue at hand is has the value of the CCIE declined over time, and the preponderance of the evidence seems to be that the answer is 'yes', given the fact that everybody, including myself, would like to trade their CCIE number for a lower one. Nor is the gambit that this has to do with the connection between a lower number and more experience have much, if anything, to do with it. I would ask even the lower-number and highly experienced CCIE's would they be neutral to trading their number for a higher one. I'm not asking them to think about trading their experience, just their number. If the CCIE hasn't declined, then they shouldn't care what number they are. But of course we all realize that they DO care, and care deeply. Raising other issues that have to do with employment is not really relevant in this thread. After all, if we wanted to go down that road, then why don't we raise ALL the issues that affect employment? I would say that certain other things are even more important than the people-networking in terms of finding work. For example, a criminal background. I don't care if you're the most brilliant engineer in the world, you're CCIE #1026, and you're on a first name basis with John Chambers - if you're a convicted serial-killer, you're going to have difficulty in finding work. Let's face it - no company is ever going to hire Charles Manson. We could talk about personal lifestyle choices. If you're a coke fiend, finding a job might not be easy for you. If you can't speak the language of the country in which you're trying to find a job, you will have great difficulty no matter how wonderful your other credentials you are. For example, surely you would agree that if you want to get a job as a network guy in the USA, this might be difficult if you can't speak English. But should we really be talking about those kinds of things? I don't think so, for they are not relevant to the discussion. The auspices of this discussion are necessarily narrow - basically what has happened to the value of the CCIE. This is not a general discussion about how to find a job, for which the first tenets should be don't commit crimes, don't make harmful lifestyle choices, and learn the language of the country that you're in, and then (and only then) can we talk about things like who-you-know and what your CCIE number is. Surely you would agree that such a complete discussion that talked about all these issues would be unnecessarily bloated and top-heavy. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70799t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Those three have pretty much echoed my themes. Hansang, in fact, has admitted that he accelerated his ccie studies so that he would take (and pass) the 2-day exam because he didn't want to run the risk of being known as an asterisk-ccie (meaning the one-day ccie). I know someone who took both the two day and one day. He felt the one day was harder. He might have been an exception, I do not know any other two dayers who took a one day. He was RS first, then he just got a Security one to get the double. Of all the CCIEs I do know, none of them ever wanted to really take it again (except one other CCIE I know... he wants to see if he still got the touch!) While I agree to some degree about how the old style might have been harder to some degree, I feel it is more of a preference. I think depending on the kind of problem solver you are, one will appear easier than the other and vice versa. I only took the one day, and all I have to say is it is a real speed torture exam. One slip up, and it's pretty much over. You have a SLIGHT margin of the error and that is only if you are very fast, both in the mind and on the keyboard. This is not to say if you are slower you are necessarily any less qualified, just, some people do not type as fast or take longer to formulate a very solid plan anyway. Those people suffer greatly from this new format. This is also probably why I got some seriously mixed reviews from different CCIEs in terms of the difficulty of the exams (be it one day or two day). For the record, the one day exam was more suited to my style than the two day sounded like. Oh well, I will never have a direct comparison now. The same was said about the two day as well in terms of speed but with some ancillary tricks such as the physical element, etc. I suppose that is good to know, but hey, nothing 5 minutes couldn't figure out on a web page. The troubleshooting element was definitely a sorely missed element from the two day lab, but trust me, with the one day it is a dynamic truobleshooting element built in. It is VERY easy to break your working network while you perform the exam. Unfortunately, because it is more speed driven and because the content, while jam packed, is probably 'less', it also means it might be more prone to some form of bootcamp brain dumpage. But this is not really conclusive. It might just be that, the CCIE is becoming more popular and people have recently tapped into this market. The drop in Cisco gear pricing on the used market probably had a LOT to do with bringing down this barrier to entry. Regretably, it is difficult to say whether or not it is the slippery slope we are going up if we really believe a one day exam is instantly easier than a two day and that is the reason why there are more CCIEs per month, or if it is because the failure rate is the same, and the expected value of passing CCIEs goes up due to the higher volume of candidates per month. Whether or not it is easy or not, I cannot say. I encourage any CCIEs of the two day to take a one day and see how it is. I only know of one who did it, and he felt it was worse than the two day lab. But, like I said, different types of people, different types of problem solvers. Might be easier for some. One thing is true though. By law of numbers, even if the percentage rate of failure IS the same, since the NET number of CCIES passing is higher, by supply and demand the value of the CCIE is dropping. (someone else mentioned this as well). If the percentage of failure is even lower... then the value just drops exponentially. :) As for having a lower CCIE number, I do not care, I do not know. Most of the really older CCIE numbers I know tend to be mediocre with the new technology and are sick of knob turning anyway (although some are still verry good). The medium numbers seem to be the best. ;) The ones on the highest numbers end seem to be a mixed bag. And while someone said the higher number ones have less experience that should not be true in theory since the CCIE was designed for people who already worked in the networking field for years. However, I will agree in practice, that does seem to happen often (higher numbers, less experience). I think as with all things in life, take the individual on a case to case basis. You are going to find good and bad apples in every basket. The CCIE is still a very good certification, I do not think anyone is denying that. But I do not think it is clear if it is blatantly easier now. -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70806t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: [NRF] Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to certain well-known elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's degree is born the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman Sachs will send recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And this is well understood - this is why parents want their kids to attend the best school they can. [JN] Yeah, but does the college happy HR dude (your idol) who says bachelors required on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support tech) pay attention to that? As far as he's concerned all BSs are BSs, and they are all superior to non-graduates. Remember that we are talking about IT jobs, not top mamanegent or top financial analyst positions. First of all, let me clear up that HR is not my idol. I too do not like many of the things that HR does. The difference is that I accept that HR has hiring power and I see little point in raging against the machine on this point. Why? What's the point? You can whine all you want and they're still going to have hiring power. It's far more efficient to simply accept that HR has hiring power and learn to follow their rules. Second of all, do you not think that if HR sees a degree from Harvard in a resume, he's going to give more weight to that resume than to a guy from Podunk Community College? Of course he would. Everybody would. Sure, he's not going to say that anybody who wants to get a job must have Crimson blood, but when it comes to making the first cut, you know what he's going to do. [NRF] First of all, what admissions fiasco? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please [JN] The admissions process is a fiasco, but that is another issue. Are you implying that all the certified people are getting perfect scores because of braindumps and bootcamps? No I am not, but you do concede that those things make certs easier? And because of the fixed-score nature of certs, that there is no relative-scoring mechanism that can compensate for this. To wit - if everybody who applied to Harvard presents a 1600 SAT, that doesn't mean that everybody gets admitted - the admissions decision now moves to other criteria because at the end of the day there are more applicants to Harvard than there are slots. But if everybody who attempts the CCIE is properly bootcamp-ed, then everybody can, in theory, pass. [NRF] that all of a sudden because of the abundance of information, everybody is now a star athlete or class president, or all those other factors that help [JN] Ah, I see, we wish for a hierarchial classification of tech in the same manner a college partitions its student body: i.e. a class president or class athlete, as in star router dude test# 652-STAR, a position in cert society achieved by fulfilling a number of criteria. Perhaps one such criterion is popularity among router dudes, most elegant telnet typist, and IOS orator. [JN] all in (stale) humor--:) The idea is that relative-scoring, which is a tactic used by every single reputable college (not counting community colleges and other open-admissions policies which everybody knows are not real colleges), serves as a proper counterbalance against the very phenomena that you seem to point out. Relative scoring should also be used in the ccie process to eliminate the problems with bootcamps. [NRF] And then you talk about what people do when they're in college. If students are using the Internet to cheat, then that's really a problem with cheating in general and not with information abundance. That's why schools are implementing policies to check for the very kind of cheating that you have stated - school administrators themselves are keeping tabs on websites where you can download papers and other such 'tools'. [JN] Is that so? So we shouldn't see a problem in braindumps, now, should we? Those who don't wish to cheat, don't cheat. Is that a fair assessment? So, should those who don't cheat get the chance to be evaluated fairly? I didn't say that, but what I am saying is that I doubt that cheating is any more widespread in the college ranks as it is in the cert ranks. [NRF] Yet the same thing applies just as equally to the certification process. [JN] I never said anything differently. [NRF] You talk about guys hacking test answers or getting ready-made term papers. Yet there have been several cases in Asia where CCIE proctors have been caught selling actual test questions on the black market. Right now, there are certain websites in China that will sell you these questions (I am obviously not going to name any of these websites here). And you talk about some people hiring term-paper franchises, yet people have engaged in the practice of hiring guys
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
[JN] Yeah, but does the college happy HR dude (your idol) who says bachelors required on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support tech) pay attention to that? As far as he's concerned all BSs are BSs, and they are all superior to non-graduates. Remember that we are talking about IT jobs, not top mamanegent or top financial analyst positions. First of all, let me clear up that HR is not my idol. I too do not like many of the things that HR does. The difference is that I accept that HR has hiring power and I see little point in raging against the machine on this point. Why? What's the point? You can whine all you want and they're still going to have hiring power. It's far more efficient to simply accept that HR has hiring power and learn to follow their rules. I don't mean to get into the battle of which CCIE number is better than which as I don't really have an opinion. However, one thing I do pick up on is the reliance here upon getting through HR screens. I don't recall ever getting a job through conventional means myself and I don't imagine that many somewhat established folks who do better than average work do either. Most of the hiring I've ever participated in was referral based as well. To me, this debate really only applies to those folks who do not have contacts in a given area and who are not prone to more aggressive employment acquisition strategies. This bunch of folks tends to flood resumes out to Monster and hope they get a call. However, I would see this category of folks as pretty junior, in which case I wouldn't expect to see them applying for the top tier jobs in the industry. These folks need to get a job, get established, and then leverage their contact base to move on to bigger and better things, or leverage their track record to move up internally. So, the way I see it, either you are pretty new to the industry and need some help getting through screener bots, or you are not and should find far better mileage leveraging your contact base in the industry. If you are good at what you do, likely the folks you worked with noticed this as did the vendors who worked with you as did your customers. Somewhere in that mix there has to be a hotter lead than www.findmeajobfor100k.com. If you are new, having a CCIE number of any type likely helps a bunch and I can't see anyone caring how high or low it is unless you are trying to get some uber job. If you are, you'll likely lose to someone else who came recommended and the how many guys passed the lab before you won't be of much significance. (did I just get into the debate I said I wanted to avoid? :) Anyway, I guess I'm not sure who the group of people are who are highly talented, yet have no contacts in the industry but still expect to pull down top calibre jobs. I'm also not sure who the top calibre job employers are that would chose not to hire you based upon how high your CCIE number was vs how well you fit the job and interviewed, but I'm assuming this CCIE number value cut deals more with first cut resume screening. Pete Second of all, do you not think that if HR sees a degree from Harvard in a resume, he's going to give more weight to that resume than to a guy from Podunk Community College? Of course he would. Everybody would. Sure, he's not going to say that anybody who wants to get a job must have Crimson blood, but when it comes to making the first cut, you know what he's going to do. [NRF] First of all, what admissions fiasco? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please [JN] The admissions process is a fiasco, but that is another issue. Are you implying that all the certified people are getting perfect scores because of braindumps and bootcamps? No I am not, but you do concede that those things make certs easier? And because of the fixed-score nature of certs, that there is no relative-scoring mechanism that can compensate for this. To wit - if everybody who applied to Harvard presents a 1600 SAT, that doesn't mean that everybody gets admitted - the admissions decision now moves to other criteria because at the end of the day there are more applicants to Harvard than there are slots. But if everybody who attempts the CCIE is properly bootcamp-ed, then everybody can, in theory, pass. [NRF] that all of a sudden because of the abundance of information, everybody is now a star athlete or class president, or all those other factors that help [JN] Ah, I see, we wish for a hierarchial classification of tech in the same manner a college partitions its student body: i.e. a class president or class athlete, as in star router dude test# 652-STAR, a position in cert society achieved by fulfilling a number of criteria. Perhaps one such criterion is popularity among
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Folks, The CCIE certification has really depreciated in value. There was a time when I proudly used to adorn my designation with my CCIE number. Not any more. Its value to impress is diminishing every day. Anyways, that was expected. Aziz -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: June 10, 2003 1:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Mark E. Hayes wrote: I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading in numbers goes- It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I am only a CCNA now and working on my NP. I feel the reason for the headhunters and HR types to value a lower number is due to pure ignorance. Like that matters. You know how it is. It doesn't matter whether you think they're being stupid or not. If they have the jobs and you want a job, then you have to play by their rules, simple as that. Whether you agree with those rules is beside the point. Think about it, when the rent comes due, you either have the money to pay or you don't. You really think your landlord wants to hear you whine that you're broke because you can't get a job because HR is stupid? That's my point exactly. I don't think they're being ignorant or stupid at all - but even if they were, that doesn't change much. At the end of the day you end up in the same place that I am - you admit to yourself that a lower number is better, it's just that we get to the same place for different reasons. My reason is that the lower number does tend to convey higher quality. Your reason is that while you think this is untrue, a lot of people who have hiring power believe it, so you prefer the lower number for yourself simply to satisfy those people. But so what? We still end up in the same place. Most of them can't find their own ass with both hands and a GPS receiver. So? The reality is that they still have power over you, because they have the power to determine who gets a job and who doesn't. You can whine and moan about it all you want, and they will still have power over you. You don't like it? Too bad. It is what it is. Again, I would ask you to be pragmatic. At the end of the day, you want something (a job) that they have the power to grant, and therefore you need to jump through their hoops, no matter how stupid you might think they are. That's life. This comment though insulting, is aimed at the hiring side of IT. This is not aimed at the rest of their functions. I personally feel corp America should move to Argentina and Ecuador and hang out with the rest of the surviving Nazis. 'Course then we'd have a Fourth Reich to contend with and anybody who tried to make a decent living with anything less than a Bachelor's Degree would be castrated or asked to take a shower. Heh! Well, tell us how you REALLY feel. Look, at the end of the day, there are things that corporate America dictates that they want out of their job candidates. Ranting and raving about it isn't going to change anything. They have the jobs so they set the rules. If you REALLY REALLY don't like the hiring practices of corporate America, then fine, start your own company and then you can dictate whatever terms you want out of the people you hire. I don't see anybody stopping you.. It's utter BS to believe a lower numbered CCIE is any better than a higher numbered CCIE. A lab is a lab is a lab of course. Right Wilbur? As far as I know (famous last words but I am not pussing out), there are no BootCamps for the lab portion. The test portion yes, the lab no. Ahem. Ahem. Are you serious?? Did you just seriously say that? Man, I had to check my news client several times to make sure I heard you right. Uh, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but groupstudy itself was essentially started by one of the bigger lab bootcamp vendors around - CCbootcamp. I don't even think that groupstudy would have gotten off the ground without ccbootcamp. It's now sponsored by not only ccbootcamp, but also by HelloComputers, cyscoexperts, and IPexperts who all make a lot of money off their lab bootcamps. Trust me, all these companies enjoy thriving business off their lab bootcamp sales. And second of all, a lab is not a lab is not a lab. The fact is, there have been constant fluctuations in the overall rigor of the lab. Labs are not created equal. I remember back in the old days when people would 'game' the lab by deliberately travelling to what they thought were easier test locations where the proctors and the test gear (back in the old days, each location had different racks) were reputedly easier. For example, I seem to recall people saying that if you didn't know SNA well, then don't even think of attempting the lab in RTP because that's where all the stud-SNA CCIE proctors were. This forced Cisco to standardize racks in each location and to rein in certain rogue proctors. There have been
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: hehehe!!! Well done. I enjoyed that retort. I have to admit that I did not know there were lab bootcamps. All of the bootcamps I have seen are for the written test. How much does a CCIE lab bootcamp run? I earned my MCSE and CCNA fair and square, even though, I did attend bootcamps out of curiosity. It was a great experience. If I could attend a lab bootcamp I probably would. Yeah, see? Now that you know about them, you want to go, and why do you want to go? Obviously because they're going to give you an advantage (clearly it's foolish to spend money on a bootcamp if it doesn't give you any advantage). Therefore you must admit that bootcamps must make it easier for people to pass the test (again, if this was not the case, why would anybody go to them?). So now we're finally clearing up some of the points I've been saying all along - that there are things that exist today, like bootcamps, that make the test easier than it was in the past, when there were no bootcamps. Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with bootcamps per se, but it does mean that Cisco needs to compensate for them by making the test harder. As far as starting my own business, I am glad to say I am in the throes of doing that now. At least the boss will be fair. Excellent. I see one person is putting their money where his mouth is. There is a perpetual line of guys who complain about how the corporate world works, yet those people who REALLY don't like it should simply start their own company. The vociferously stated opinions of my first post, low class though they may be, were used to make a point, much like the smugness in your tongue-in-cheek comments about how the real world is. I am well aware of how the real world is. I've been unemployed for 7 months and have been told on several occasions I am shoe-in for a job, until I'm asked if I have a U.S. DoD clearance. And no, I'm not whining. Talk about your cannabilistic world there (IT DoD). Your views tend to knock certs a little bit. That's fine, to each their own. May be you prefer academia instead. A whole 'nuther post there. I've worked with some real winners who've had a master's. One guy even asked me how to spell Chinese. I asked him if remedial spelling was on the Master's track. Now if you want to talk about how the real world is it goes like this. Company A could give a rat's arse whether or not I live or die, as long as they get what they want... A lot of work for little pay or as little as they have to cough up. Doesn't matter if I have a PhD or just finished third grade. I accepted that fact along time ago. College does no more to prepare people for the real world than certs do. Yet time after time a Bach's Deg is used to weed out the undesirables that chose to work instead of wasting life's precious time taking 128 credit hours for about 20 hours worth of relevant content. Whole another issue, which Mr. Nalbandian would happily like to talk about. Heck, he wants to talk about it so much that he's been accusing me of secretly talking about it using codewords. If you want to have this discussion, I am happy to oblige, but let's do it privately (I think I just made everybody smile when I said that). Yes, I do go to college for the relevant 20 hours. And yes, I am guilty of ranting again. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70535t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: [NRF] In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the CCIE lately. Not the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This is a [JN] Your overall approach has a pattern to it, and your response ironically reenforces the notion. The number of CCIE thread merely complements the entire line of reasoning that you have thus far been feeding the topic of credentials in general. Below is again a case in point. [NRF] And now to your specific points. All education does not suffer from an abundance of information, for one specific reason. Education uses relative scoring, something that I've advocated for awhile. You want to get into college, especially an elite one? You can't just present a summation of qualifications. You win admission by beating out the other guy. If the other guy raises his game, then you have to raise you game too. Top colleges therefore retains their elite status precisely because they are always admitting the very best students, whatever best happens to mean at that particular time. If all students all of a sudden have access to more information, it doesn't matter, because the those colleges will still skim from the top, whatever the top happens to be. Therefore they will always do a good job of identifying whoever the top students happen to be. Relative scoring ensures that this happens. [JN] Admissions to a college is merely a step along the cheat ladder for many, and there are many supplemental colleges and universities that hand out the bachelors for those who fail the first admissions hurdle. Therefore, the overall picture is as dismal as that of the cert: i.e. Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to certain well-known elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's degree is born the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman Sachs will send recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And this is well understood - this is why parents want their kids to attend the best school they can. Bachelors holders in various fields oversupply the market and cause for unemployment of their peers. For example, there is no national engineer graduate limit to contend with. More, if the student has completed his education and testing with enough abundance of information, then his GPA and other such qualifications are also privy to such informational corruption. After the admission fiasco, you will once again have the typical student cram relentlessly during his college tenure, tempting him/her to once again reap the old Internet harvest of information. I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. First of all, what admissions fiasco? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please show me this statistic where it shows this is happening. Are you saying that all of a sudden because of the abundance of information, everybody is now a star athlete or class president, or all those other factors that help you gain admission? There can only be one star quarterback, there can only be one class president, there can only be one head cheerleader. Are you saying that because of the information explosion, everybody's now getting a perfect 4.0 high school GPA? Again, I don't see that happening, and if it is, then it's really the fault of high-school grade inflation, not with the abundance of information per se. And then you talk about what people do when they're in college. If students are using the Internet to cheat, then that's really a problem with cheating in general and not with information abundance. That's why schools are implementing policies to check for the very kind of cheating that you have stated - school administrators themselves are keeping tabs on websites where you can download papers and other such 'tools'. He will have his myriad choice of cheating, whether that is by way of hacked test answers, ready made term papers on any given subject on the net, or by way of paid for term paper writing franchises. This is an irrelevancy that is repeatedly used by your argumentation. Yet the same thing applies just as equally to the certification process. You talk about guys hacking test answers or getting ready-made term papers. Yet there have been several cases in Asia where CCIE proctors have been caught selling actual test questions on the black market. Right now, there are certain websites in China that will sell you these questions (I am obviously not going to name any of these websites here). And you talk about some people hiring term-paper franchises, yet people have engaged in the practice of hiring guys to take their CCIE test for them. The point is that cheating cuts both ways. Every single cheating method that you have mentioned in the academic
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
[NRF] Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to certain well-known elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's degree is born the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman Sachs will send recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And this is well understood - this is why parents want their kids to attend the best school they can. [JN] Yeah, but does the college happy HR dude (your idol) who says bachelors required on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support tech) pay attention to that? As far as he's concerned all BSs are BSs, and they are all superior to non-graduates. Remember that we are talking about IT jobs, not top mamanegent or top financial analyst positions. [NRF] First of all, what admissions fiasco? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please [JN] The admissions process is a fiasco, but that is another issue. Are you implying that all the certified people are getting perfect scores because of braindumps and bootcamps? [NRF] that all of a sudden because of the abundance of information, everybody is now a star athlete or class president, or all those other factors that help [JN] Ah, I see, we wish for a hierarchial classification of tech in the same manner a college partitions its student body: i.e. a class president or class athlete, as in star router dude test# 652-STAR, a position in cert society achieved by fulfilling a number of criteria. Perhaps one such criterion is popularity among router dudes, most elegant telnet typist, and IOS orator. [JN] all in (stale) humor--:) [NRF] And then you talk about what people do when they're in college. If students are using the Internet to cheat, then that's really a problem with cheating in general and not with information abundance. That's why schools are implementing policies to check for the very kind of cheating that you have stated - school administrators themselves are keeping tabs on websites where you can download papers and other such 'tools'. [JN] Is that so? So we shouldn't see a problem in braindumps, now, should we? Those who don't wish to cheat, don't cheat. Is that a fair assessment? So, should those who don't cheat get the chance to be evaluated fairly? [NRF] Yet the same thing applies just as equally to the certification process. [JN] I never said anything differently. [NRF] You talk about guys hacking test answers or getting ready-made term papers. Yet there have been several cases in Asia where CCIE proctors have been caught selling actual test questions on the black market. Right now, there are certain websites in China that will sell you these questions (I am obviously not going to name any of these websites here). And you talk about some people hiring term-paper franchises, yet people have engaged in the practice of hiring guys to take their CCIE test for them. [JN] Same in colleges. Fraud is part of this fast paced life. Hey, the more degree happy HR dudes start knocking certs, the more corrupt the degree will be, and the more integrity the cert programs will have. Yup, it's all about supply and demand. [NRF] The point is that cheating cuts both ways. Every single cheating method that you have mentioned in the academic world has its equivalent method in the cert world. I don't see that academic cheating is any more serious than certification cheating. So it's a wash. [JN] I agree completely. Amazing, but true! [JN] OK, chap, I was wrong about you---:) (besides the fact that people are sick of this thread. Actually, it sounds like they're have a good laugh--:)) I said it earlier: Any such generalization and benchmarking will be counterproductive and damaging to the process of choosing employees, particularly for our field. It is unfair, and it is stupid. [NRF] Yet strangely enough, this is precisely what corporate America does. So basically you're saying that they're wrong and you're right? If so, then [JN] Yup, that is what I am saying, but they are also changing their ways. I've been looking at job requirements posted on the net, and the degree required is now increasingly replaced with the more complete bachelors degree or equivalent experience and education. So, my side is winning the battle a bit! --:) [NRF] And many others who are far more experienced in taking the lab interestingly enough agree with me. [JN] Produce them. [NRF] OK. John Kaberna. Hansang Bae. Kwame Gordon. To name a few. [NRF] Who do you got? [JN] What do they say? Chuck, for one, answered in detail. I remember his description of the lab test when he first took it. I can vouch for the fact that certs have not gotten easier in and of themselves. [NRF] Then ask yourself why is it that lab bootcamps are such a thriving business? Either it's because they make it easier to pass the exam or all the
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
I like the bootcamps because I am forced to sit down and do the work. I could use a personal trainer but then I'd have to drop the chocolate ice cream too. Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Mark E. Hayes wrote: hehehe!!! Well done. I enjoyed that retort. I have to admit that I did not know there were lab bootcamps. All of the bootcamps I have seen are for the written test. How much does a CCIE lab bootcamp run? I earned my MCSE and CCNA fair and square, even though, I did attend bootcamps out of curiosity. It was a great experience. If I could attend a lab bootcamp I probably would. Yeah, see? Now that you know about them, you want to go, and why do you want to go? Obviously because they're going to give you an advantage (clearly it's foolish to spend money on a bootcamp if it doesn't give you any advantage). Therefore you must admit that bootcamps must make it easier for people to pass the test (again, if this was not the case, why would anybody go to them?). So now we're finally clearing up some of the points I've been saying all along - that there are things that exist today, like bootcamps, that make the test easier than it was in the past, when there were no bootcamps. Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with bootcamps per se, but it does mean that Cisco needs to compensate for them by making the test harder. As far as starting my own business, I am glad to say I am in the throes of doing that now. At least the boss will be fair. Excellent. I see one person is putting their money where his mouth is. There is a perpetual line of guys who complain about how the corporate world works, yet those people who REALLY don't like it should simply start their own company. The vociferously stated opinions of my first post, low class though they may be, were used to make a point, much like the smugness in your tongue-in-cheek comments about how the real world is. I am well aware of how the real world is. I've been unemployed for 7 months and have been told on several occasions I am shoe-in for a job, until I'm asked if I have a U.S. DoD clearance. And no, I'm not whining. Talk about your cannabilistic world there (IT DoD). Your views tend to knock certs a little bit. That's fine, to each their own. May be you prefer academia instead. A whole 'nuther post there. I've worked with some real winners who've had a master's. One guy even asked me how to spell Chinese. I asked him if remedial spelling was on the Master's track. Now if you want to talk about how the real world is it goes like this. Company A could give a rat's arse whether or not I live or die, as long as they get what they want... A lot of work for little pay or as little as they have to cough up. Doesn't matter if I have a PhD or just finished third grade. I accepted that fact along time ago. College does no more to prepare people for the real world than certs do. Yet time after time a Bach's Deg is used to weed out the undesirables that chose to work instead of wasting life's precious time taking 128 credit hours for about 20 hours worth of relevant content. Whole another issue, which Mr. Nalbandian would happily like to talk about. Heck, he wants to talk about it so much that he's been accusing me of secretly talking about it using codewords. If you want to have this discussion, I am happy to oblige, but let's do it privately (I think I just made everybody smile when I said that). Yes, I do go to college for the relevant 20 hours. And yes, I am guilty of ranting again. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70556t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark E. Hayes wrote: I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading in numbers goes- It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I am only a CCNA now and working on my NP. I feel the reason for the headhunters and HR types to value a lower number is due to pure ignorance. Like that matters. You know how it is. It doesn't matter whether you think they're being stupid or not. If they have the jobs and you want a job, then you have to play by their rules, simple as that. Whether you agree with those rules is beside the point. Think about it, when the rent comes due, you either have the money to pay or you don't. You really think your landlord wants to hear you whine that you're broke because you can't get a job because HR is stupid? That's my point exactly. I don't think they're being ignorant or stupid at all - but even if they were, that doesn't change much. At the end of the day you end up in the same place that I am - you admit to yourself that a lower number is better, it's just that we get to the same place for different reasons. My reason is that the lower number does tend to convey higher quality. Your reason is that while you think this is untrue, a lot of people who have hiring power believe it, so you prefer the lower number for yourself simply to satisfy those people. But so what? We still end up in the same place. Most of them can't find their own ass with both hands and a GPS receiver. So? The reality is that they still have power over you, because they have the power to determine who gets a job and who doesn't. You can whine and moan about it all you want, and they will still have power over you. You don't like it? Too bad. It is what it is. Again, I would ask you to be pragmatic. At the end of the day, you want something (a job) that they have the power to grant, and therefore you need to jump through their hoops, no matter how stupid you might think they are. That's life. This comment though insulting, is aimed at the hiring side of IT. This is not aimed at the rest of their functions. I personally feel corp America should move to Argentina and Ecuador and hang out with the rest of the surviving Nazis. 'Course then we'd have a Fourth Reich to contend with and anybody who tried to make a decent living with anything less than a Bachelor's Degree would be castrated or asked to take a shower. Heh! Well, tell us how you REALLY feel. Look, at the end of the day, there are things that corporate America dictates that they want out of their job candidates. Ranting and raving about it isn't going to change anything. They have the jobs so they set the rules. If you REALLY REALLY don't like the hiring practices of corporate America, then fine, start your own company and then you can dictate whatever terms you want out of the people you hire. I don't see anybody stopping you.. It's utter BS to believe a lower numbered CCIE is any better than a higher numbered CCIE. A lab is a lab is a lab of course. Right Wilbur? As far as I know (famous last words but I am not pussing out), there are no BootCamps for the lab portion. The test portion yes, the lab no. Ahem. Ahem. Are you serious?? Did you just seriously say that? Man, I had to check my news client several times to make sure I heard you right. Uh, I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but groupstudy itself was essentially started by one of the bigger lab bootcamp vendors around - CCbootcamp. I don't even think that groupstudy would have gotten off the ground without ccbootcamp. It's now sponsored by not only ccbootcamp, but also by HelloComputers, cyscoexperts, and IPexperts who all make a lot of money off their lab bootcamps. Trust me, all these companies enjoy thriving business off their lab bootcamp sales. And second of all, a lab is not a lab is not a lab. The fact is, there have been constant fluctuations in the overall rigor of the lab. Labs are not created equal. I remember back in the old days when people would 'game' the lab by deliberately travelling to what they thought were easier test locations where the proctors and the test gear (back in the old days, each location had different racks) were reputedly easier. For example, I seem to recall people saying that if you didn't know SNA well, then don't even think of attempting the lab in RTP because that's where all the stud-SNA CCIE proctors were. This forced Cisco to standardize racks in each location and to rein in certain rogue proctors. There have been numerous, shall we say, security violations in certain of the test locations in Asia, with some proctors being caught, shall we say, engaging in illicit behavior. And besides, even today there are unavoidable fluctuations. For example, just by luck of the draw you might happen to get a version of the test that deals with easy subjects, but you could just as easily have been handed a version that deals with
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
[NRF] In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the CCIE lately. Not the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This is a [JN] Your overall approach has a pattern to it, and your response ironically reenforces the notion. The number of CCIE thread merely complements the entire line of reasoning that you have thus far been feeding the topic of credentials in general. Below is again a case in point. [NRF] And now to your specific points. All education does not suffer from an abundance of information, for one specific reason. Education uses relative scoring, something that I've advocated for awhile. You want to get into college, especially an elite one? You can't just present a summation of qualifications. You win admission by beating out the other guy. If the other guy raises his game, then you have to raise you game too. Top colleges therefore retains their elite status precisely because they are always admitting the very best students, whatever best happens to mean at that particular time. If all students all of a sudden have access to more information, it doesn't matter, because the those colleges will still skim from the top, whatever the top happens to be. Therefore they will always do a good job of identifying whoever the top students happen to be. Relative scoring ensures that this happens. [JN] Admissions to a college is merely a step along the cheat ladder for many, and there are many supplemental colleges and universities that hand out the bachelors for those who fail the first admissions hurdle. Therefore, the overall picture is as dismal as that of the cert: i.e. Bachelors holders in various fields oversupply the market and cause for unemployment of their peers. For example, there is no national engineer graduate limit to contend with. More, if the student has completed his education and testing with enough abundance of information, then his GPA and other such qualifications are also privy to such informational corruption. After the admission fiasco, you will once again have the typical student cram relentlessly during his college tenure, tempting him/her to once again reap the old Internet harvest of information. He will have his myriad choice of cheating, whether that is by way of hacked test answers, ready made term papers on any given subject on the net, or by way of paid for term paper writing franchises. This is an irrelevancy that is repeatedly used by your argumentation. I said it earlier: Any such generalization and benchmarking will be counterproductive and damaging to the process of choosing employees, particularly for our field. It is unfair, and it is stupid. [NRF] And many others who are far more experienced in taking the lab interestingly enough agree with me. [JN] Produce them. I can vouch for the fact that certs have not gotten easier in and of themselves. I can also vouch for the fact that a college degree can be obtained with much more ease than before, but that is my personal experience and bias talking. Remember, I am also a graduate in addition to holding certifications, although in completely unrelated fields. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70477t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Any thoughts on these people (headhunters and HR People) out there? I have some thoughts on them, but I don't think my language would be appreciated Jamie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark W. Odette II Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR People- Out of CCIE 1025-, how many of them do you think are still actively with the program, still working in the industry, still are at the top of their game (i.e., could go back in and take the OLD LAB again), and are the Crhme of the crop that they have so valued them as??!?!?! There are reasons of human physiology and psychology that proves that the old saying is true... If you don't keep practicing a skill or knowledge through repetition, you simply will loose your edge. My hat is off to CCIE #1058 if he can still complete the OLD LAB blind folded and run circles around CCIE #10,269 in regards to the complex multi-protocol setup of DECNet, IPX, SNA, IP (w/ BGP, OSPF, EIGRP), and AppleTalk for a 8-10+ router network that was the result of 2 or more multi-hundred-thousand-node companies merging. But I must insert my own pessimism that I seriously doubt this is the case. This could be for any number of reasons, but I'm sure the number one reason is that it was too time-consuming and expensive to maintain such prestige. Not to mention, they probably got laid off for one reason or another in the past 3-5 years. Headhunters and Recruiters are more arrogant than those CCIE's that have been minted in the past 24 months. And they've been that way for at least the last decade. An engineer with Blah-blah-blah certifications is nothing but a potential for them making a huge commission for hooking up that engineer with the employer. And because of this arrogance, they have these BS ideals that CCIE# 6328 is truly expert, and CCIE #10524 doesn't deserve the respect of knowing much more than how to power on a piece of Cisco equipment. To put in your analogy format, that's like saying the M.D. that got his PHD 20 years ago, but got bored with continually going back to those medical conferences and continued education on advances in medical science is more preferential than the Doctor that has been practicing medicine for only the past 3 years. I bet is that the older Doc is going to continue performing tried and true procedures that have a greater risk of failure or permanent damage of some sort (could be scars, amputated limb, etc.) than the younger Doc that is current with procedures that result in more favorable outcomes for the same medical situations. NRF- You've said yourself in the past that Cisco has changed the CCIE program for financial reasons, be it for increased revenue or wiser financial efficiency in maintaining the equipment, facilities, etc. What about simple relevance? True, not as many routing protocol technologies are being tested on... but they make up for that by testing on new technologies such as Voice, Security, etc. So, because Cisco tests on new technologies, that makes it acceptable for the market and all those Headhunters, Recruiters, and HR folks to deem the CCIE not as valuable as it once was?!? They obviously have a jaded/ill-informed point of reference in comparing the old with the new. Out of curiosity, just exactly what are the names of all these brain-dump groups/sites that make the CCIE LAB a cake-walk?!? If they are so common knowledge, I have a hard time believing that Cisco would allow them to continue operating. I'm sure Mr. Chambers is intelligent enough to look ahead and realize he would be preempting the demise of his own company if his company perpetuated the cycle of braindump-prepared CCIEs will equal less positive reputation for support and value of the products themselves. Or in more simplistic terms, surely he's smart enough to foresee the cause-and-effect scenario of allowing hundreds of CCIE's to be minted per month. If the economy is so dismal for a majority (read 70%+) of the country, especially the IT industry, just exactly how are all these New CCIE's affording to pay for braindump memberships, Bootcamps, rack rentals and/or personal lab purchases to prepare for the O-so-easy CCIE LAB?!?! I guess my point is, I must be continuing to perpetuate myself in this little naove bubble that makes me have a hard time believing/accepting the CCIE program is being overran in record time with wannabe CCIE's that just simply bought their certification rather than earning it. Give us some facts that can give merit to the free market's delusion that Computer Networking isn't worth the nickel it used to be. And yes, I believe the free market is under delusional control. Most of which has been perpetuated by the Dot.Bomb era (which has been nothing but pessimistic influence of the US Media [and yes, I know part of it was a result
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Mark W. Odette II wrote: Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR People- Out of CCIE 1025-, how many of them do you think are still actively with the program, still working in the industry, still are at the top of their game (i.e., could go back in and take the OLD LAB again), and are the Crhme of the crop that they have so valued them as??!?!?! There are reasons of human physiology and psychology that proves that the old saying is true... If you don't keep practicing a skill or knowledge through repetition, you simply will loose your edge. My hat is off to CCIE #1058 if he can still complete the OLD LAB blind folded and run circles around CCIE #10,269 in regards to the complex multi-protocol setup of DECNet, IPX, SNA, IP (w/ BGP, OSPF, EIGRP), and AppleTalk for a 8-10+ router network that was the result of 2 or more multi-hundred-thousand-node companies merging. But I must insert my own pessimism that I seriously doubt this is the case. This could be for any number of reasons, but I'm sure the number one reason is that it was too time-consuming and expensive to maintain such prestige. Not to mention, they probably got laid off for one reason or another in the past 3-5 years. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The value of the CCIE program was never really its immediate technology relevance per-se, but rather its rigor. Let me explain. Let's face it - in how many network jobs out there do you really configure a network from scratch? Honestly, how many? Only a small minority. And of that small minority, how many of those jobs would force you to set up said network under severe time pressure? Practically no network job is really like that. The vast majority of networking jobs involves maintaining an already-configured network. You most likely will not have to build a network, and you're almost certainly not going to have to do so in less than 8 hours. Furthermore, of those networks that you build, how many times are you actually going to be given excruciating details about how to do it. Is your boss really going to say have R1 peer with R2 and R3 with EIGRP, but not R4, and then set up a GRE tunnel over here and redistribute this, that and the other thing, and over here you can use a floating static, but nowhere else, etc. etc. etc.? Almost certainly not. Your boss is probably going to say that he wants you to provide networking services to these particular devices, and it's up to you to decide how to do that. If he was going to give you excruciating, nitpicking details about precisely how to set up the network, then why doesn't he just set it up himself? He'll probably spend more time explaining to you exactly what he wants than if he just did it himself. Therefore the point is that the CCIE has always been an artificial construct. Practically no real-world networking job is going to be like the lab. Historically, the value of the lab has not been because it's real-world (because it's not and I think everybody agrees that it's not) but because it's rigorous and because it involves networking problem-solving. THAT is the value of the lab. But that leads to my thesis - what has happened to the rigor of the lab. Forget about true real-world relevance, because that, to be perfectly honest, was never the source of the value of the test in the first place - never has been, and probably never will be. The value of the test is that it served as a proxy for a person's network problem-solving skills. So the real question now becomes whether it measures these skills as good as it did before. I would say no, and my proof is, again, everybody wants to trade for a lower number and nobody wants to trade for a higher one. Headhunters and Recruiters are more arrogant than those CCIE's that have been minted in the past 24 months. And they've been that way for at least the last decade. An engineer with Blah-blah-blah certifications is nothing but a potential for them making a huge commission for hooking up that engineer with the employer. And because of this arrogance, they have these BS ideals that CCIE# 6328 is truly expert, and CCIE #10524 doesn't deserve the respect of knowing much more than how to power on a piece of Cisco equipment. To put in your analogy format, that's like saying the M.D. that got his PHD 20 years ago, but got bored with continually going back to those medical conferences and continued education on advances in medical science is more preferential than the Doctor that has been practicing medicine for only the past 3 years. I bet is that the older Doc is going to continue performing tried and true procedures that have a greater risk of failure or permanent damage of some sort (could be scars, amputated limb, etc.) than the younger Doc that is current with procedures that result in more favorable outcomes for the same medical situations. So ask yourself why is it that all CCIE's
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
The Road Goes Ever On wrote: some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source. pray do not take offense, as none is intended. n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :- First of all, I didn't. LamyAlexander did. He asked a question, and I answered it. I believe that if you ask an honest question, you should get an honest answer.If you don't want to hear the answer, then make sure that nobody asks the question. Guys (not talking to you, Chuck, but to everybody else here), if you don't like this thread, don't get ticked off at me. I didn't start this thread. Take it up with LamyAlexander. Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. most of us on this list would take any number we could get! ;- Come on, Chuck. Don't try to run away from the question. Would you like a lower number if offered to you? Be honest, now. Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. so there are some idiot recruiters who are lockstepping with what thweir idiot employer / clients are asking for. I can recall when CCNA became all the rage, and there were some employers / recruiters who were turning down people with CCNP's. Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. As a job seeker, it behooves someone to focus on identifying the kind of people they want to work with and for, and those who should be avoided. I'm not saying that there aren't some stupid recruiters. But, first of all, (a theme that I've echoed again and again), why is it only one-way? If recruiters were stupid across the board, then some would be preferring low numbers, and some would be preferrig high numbers. But that's not happening. I've never seen anybody give preference to high numbers, only to low numbers. So it's one-way stupidity. Why is that? Second, it's not just recruiters, but HR people and others who are in charge of hiring. Maybe they're all stupid. But that's beside the point. The fact is, those people determine whether one gets hired or not. If they decide to use a requirement that you think is stupid, ranting and raving about it isn't going to change anything. If you need to put food on the table, you're going to need to jump through the hoops that the people who have jobs to give are asking you to jump through. Whether you think those hoops are stupid or not is not important. Sometimes you have to undergo things that you think are stupid. That's life. I think it's stupid that I have to stop at red lights at 3 in the morning when there's nobody around, but if I get pulled over, I can rant and rave to the cop about how stupid the situation is all I want, and I'm still going to get ticketted. Third, and most importantly, I don't know that it's just about recruiters. Again, I hate to sound like a broken record, but once you pass your lab, and Cisco offered to trade your number for a low one, would you take it? Honestly, now. Of course you would. I know I would. I don't know anybody who isn't being honest with himself that wouldn't. So it's not just recruiters who see what's going on. That's the point - the behavior of recruiters is only a symptom of the real issue. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Babylon By The Bay wrote: This whole thread has a whole LOL effect to it does it not? This seems to pop up every 6/8 weeks or so on GS... I mean anyone who has been in the business for any amount of time will be able to see through bullshit factor be (he/she) CCIE or not. Thats really what is at the heart of this thread is it not? Is CCIE really king of the hill or not? I say out loud - NOT! Absolutely true. I'm with you 110%. I think the CCIE has gotten far more hype than it deserves. I have said things to this effect time and time again, and famously so. For example, Jack Nalbandian is now apparently accusing me of using this whole thread as a 'flying-buttress' interconnect to my other posts about the value of certification vs. college (a bizarre accusation I must say - if I feel like talking about the value of college vs. certs, believe me, I'm going to talk about it). But I think you see on this thread that a lot of people apparently have a lot invested in the notion that the CCIE is the bee's knees and they simply will not suffer anybody who questions its value even just a little bit. Hey, the value of certification is declining. What! That's blasphemy - how dare you say such a thing!!! An individual who has just achieved CCIE is going to be hot or should I say peaked in their skill sets -Cisco wise. But does that translate into real world experience or not? Not really. There is a CCIE training website that lists an individual who achieved CCIE with ONLY 6 months training. (I'm not naming names but there's one for NFR.) OK, I have a simple solution to the perception of CCIE and experience question quasi CCIE after # so and so is not really a CCIE at the same level as CCIE# blah blah. Here's a couple of off the wall interview questions that will throw the uninitiated into doldrums - CCIE or NOT! How many CCIE's can explain why Sam Halabi is NOT a CCIE and why they worship him so How many CCIE's know who Tony Li is and upon who's door that he nailed his resignation letter upon??? I know the answers to all your questions. I also know some of the details of why Tony Li either left or got pushed out of(depending on whose version of the story you're hearing) another vendor which we'll just call 'J'. For those who keep belittling the CCIE or that Cisco should create a super CCIE - there already is - it's called a Cisco Fellow... And how many CCIE's have ever heard of them? Again, it all gets down to something I've been saying for awhile and that you agree with - that the CCIE is really only just a beginning. It's certainly not infallible. Headhunters are nothing more than used car sales people...IMHO... Used car salespeople that can sometimes get you jobs, however. Hey, maybe you and I are living large, but we all know that there are quite a few network people who are just scraping by and they gotta take work wherever they can find it. If a smarmy headhunter says jump, they ask how high and how many times? Enough said... - Original Message - From: The Road Goes Ever On To: Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source. pray do not take offense, as none is intended. n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :- Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. most of us on this list would take any number we could get! ;- Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. so there are some idiot recruiters who are lockstepping with what thweir idiot employer / clients are asking for. I can recall when CCNA became all the rage, and there were some employers / recruiters who were turning down people with CCNP's. Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
At 09:34 PM 6/8/2003 +, garrett allen wrote: the intent of this list is to discuss preparation cisco exams, not opportunities in the various job markets. if your comments don't relate to the study blueprint in some meaninful way, please keep them to yourself. nice thread :-) for those whining about it, you can skip the messages you know. ccie is a good challenge. got after it if you want. maybe it will help you get a job, maybe it won't. jncie is pretty neat too :) my ie will expire in a couple months and I could really care less. but please, feel free to continue debate subjective topics as you see fit. for what its worth, in my opinion, nrf has well earned the right to debate whatever he wants on this list. pete thanks. - Original Message - From: n rf Date: Sunday, June 8, 2003 4:14 pm Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] garrett allen wrote: yawn. Bored? I don't want to be overly confrontational, but if you really thought this thread was so boring that you're yawning, then why did you bother to make a rebuttal to me in the first place? The fact that you did obviously means that you don't think it's THAT boring. Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70401t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Agreed on all points. Out of curiosity, did anyone ever admit to wanting to trade a higher number ie with a lower number? I don't think I ever saw anyone come right out and say yes or no. I'm pretty much in lurk mode on this list, and so my opinions and such can be taken for what they are worth, and I think that while this list is a discussion area for certification prep I see a lot of material that looks suspiciously like I ran across this at work, help me. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just pointing out that once the what is the passing score for xyz, what books are best and what do I need to study, not to mention the odd I have all the answers, e-mail me posts get set aside, there are considerably more items that qualify as off topic than on. nrf provides numerous opportunities for interesting discussions that go beyond the how many bits in a byte conversations. He seems to agitate some people (some more than others) which in my book usually means he's hit on something. I realize that by daring to criticize the ccie program in any way offends some who have staked a good portion of blood, sweat and tears on obtaining, or working on obtaining, their certification, but that doesn't make some of his points any less valid. Anyway, that's my $.02, as always if you're not interested in what I have to say, ignore me or delete this message, please don't send me a 10 page response telling me how I'm responsible for keeping the thread alive :) Peter van Oene cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com 06/09/2003 09:22 AM Please respond to Peter van Oene At 09:34 PM 6/8/2003 +, garrett allen wrote: the intent of this list is to discuss preparation cisco exams, not opportunities in the various job markets. if your comments don't relate to the study blueprint in some meaninful way, please keep them to yourself. nice thread :-) for those whining about it, you can skip the messages you know. ccie is a good challenge. got after it if you want. maybe it will help you get a job, maybe it won't. jncie is pretty neat too :) my ie will expire in a couple months and I could really care less. but please, feel free to continue debate subjective topics as you see fit. for what its worth, in my opinion, nrf has well earned the right to debate whatever he wants on this list. pete thanks. - Original Message - From: n rf Date: Sunday, June 8, 2003 4:14 pm Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] garrett allen wrote: yawn. Bored? I don't want to be overly confrontational, but if you really thought this thread was so boring that you're yawning, then why did you bother to make a rebuttal to me in the first place? The fact that you did obviously means that you don't think it's THAT boring. Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70411t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/9/03 11:53:24 AM Agreed on all points. Out of curiosity, did anyone ever admit to wanting to trade a higher number ie with a lower number? I don't think I ever saw anyone come right out and say yes or no. I'm pretty much in lurk mode on this list, and so my opinions and such can be taken for what they are worth, and I think that while this list is a discussion area for certification prep I see a lot of material that looks suspiciously like I ran across this at work, help me. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just pointing out that once the what is the passing score for xyz, what books are best and what do I need to study, not to mention the odd I have all the answers, e-mail me posts get set aside, there are considerably more items that qualify as off topic than on. A couple of years ago we all decided (well, Paul decided) that the professional list would no longer be a certification-only list, while the associates list is supposed to remain certification-related. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss just about any networking topic on the professional list. nrf provides numerous opportunities for interesting discussions that go beyond the how many bits in a byte conversations. He seems to agitate some people (some more than others) which in my book usually means he's hit on something. I realize that by daring to criticize the ccie program in any way offends some who have staked a good portion of blood, sweat and tears on obtaining, or working on obtaining, their certification, but that doesn't make some of his points any less valid. nrf is a source of agitation for some for a couple of different reasons. First, he chooses to remain fairly anonymous and pretty vague about his own certification history. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone tried to get him to admit whether he was a CCIE or not. He makes an excellent point regarding this. If we dispute what he is saying, we should argue the point, not the person. Second, he is brutally honest and oftentimes people take this the wrong way. I don't want to speak for him but he seems to call things like he sees them and he is obviously experienced enough in the industry to give his opinion quite a bit of weight. I've never seen him be anything but fair and honest, but this may seem brash to some. Regards, John Anyway, that's my $.02, as always if you're not interested in what I have to say, ignore me or delete this message, please don't send me a 10 page response telling me how I'm responsible for keeping the thread alive :) Peter van Oene cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com 06/09/2003 09:22 AM Please respond to Peter van Oene At 09:34 PM 6/8/2003 +, garrett allen wrote: the intent of this list is to discuss preparation cisco exams, not opportunities in the various job markets. if your comments don't relate to the study blueprint in some meaninful way, please keep them to yourself. nice thread :-) for those whining about it, you can skip the messages you know. ccie is a good challenge. got after it if you want. maybe it will help you get a job, maybe it won't. jncie is pretty neat too :) my ie will expire in a couple months and I could really care less. but please, feel free to continue debate subjective topics as you see fit. for what its worth, in my opinion, nrf has well earned the right to debate whatever he wants on this list. pete Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70420t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Road Goes Ever On wrote: snip for brevety One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that up? have passing rates gone up or down? over what time period? with what technologies being tested? Again, I have the simple thought question - being perfectly honest, would you want to trade your number for a lower one or not? The prosecution rests. Call me a pollyanna if you will, but I consider such a thing as a kind of misrepresentation, and as such, I would not choose to be a party to it. Which is easy enough for me to say because this is a straw argument, one that cannot be honestly answered, because the fact is, no one is ever going to make that offer to you, me, or anyone else. snip for brevity Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70422t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
The Road Goes Ever On 6/9/03 3:14:32 PM n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Road Goes Ever On wrote: snip for brevety One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that up? have passing rates gone up or down? over what time period? with what technologies being tested? Again, I have the simple thought question - being perfectly honest, would you want to trade your number for a lower one or not? The prosecution rests. Call me a pollyanna if you will, but I consider such a thing as a kind of misrepresentation, and as such, I would not choose to be a party to it. Which is easy enough for me to say because this is a straw argument, one that cannot be honestly answered, because the fact is, no one is ever going to make that offer to you, me, or anyone else. I think nrf is using this as a hypothetical examle to reinforce his point. He's not implying that it would be reasonable or likely. I feel that it does a good job of illustrating the point. Many people--not all, and maybe not even a majority--give more weight in their own minds to CCIEs with lower numbers. I will admit to doing this myself sometimes, and right or wrong it demonstrates a bias that many share. This bias appears to be more and more prevalent among HR people and nrf is simply pointing this out while attempting to show that many of us, if we're honest, have the same bias. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70426t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
I don't disagree with a single word :) John Neiberger cc: Sent by:Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] [EMAIL PROTECTED] m 06/09/2003 04:03 PM Please respond to John Neiberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/9/03 11:53:24 AM Agreed on all points. Out of curiosity, did anyone ever admit to wanting to trade a higher number ie with a lower number? I don't think I ever saw anyone come right out and say yes or no. I'm pretty much in lurk mode on this list, and so my opinions and such can be taken for what they are worth, and I think that while this list is a discussion area for certification prep I see a lot of material that looks suspiciously like I ran across this at work, help me. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just pointing out that once the what is the passing score for xyz, what books are best and what do I need to study, not to mention the odd I have all the answers, e-mail me posts get set aside, there are considerably more items that qualify as off topic than on. A couple of years ago we all decided (well, Paul decided) that the professional list would no longer be a certification-only list, while the associates list is supposed to remain certification-related. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss just about any networking topic on the professional list. nrf provides numerous opportunities for interesting discussions that go beyond the how many bits in a byte conversations. He seems to agitate some people (some more than others) which in my book usually means he's hit on something. I realize that by daring to criticize the ccie program in any way offends some who have staked a good portion of blood, sweat and tears on obtaining, or working on obtaining, their certification, but that doesn't make some of his points any less valid. nrf is a source of agitation for some for a couple of different reasons. First, he chooses to remain fairly anonymous and pretty vague about his own certification history. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone tried to get him to admit whether he was a CCIE or not. He makes an excellent point regarding this. If we dispute what he is saying, we should argue the point, not the person. Second, he is brutally honest and oftentimes people take this the wrong way. I don't want to speak for him but he seems to call things like he sees them and he is obviously experienced enough in the industry to give his opinion quite a bit of weight. I've never seen him be anything but fair and honest, but this may seem brash to some. Regards, John Anyway, that's my $.02, as always if you're not interested in what I have to say, ignore me or delete this message, please don't send me a 10 page response telling me how I'm responsible for keeping the thread alive :) Peter van Oene cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] [EMAIL PROTECTED] .com 06/09/2003 09:22 AM Please respond to Peter van Oene At 09:34 PM 6/8/2003 +, garrett allen wrote: the intent of this list is to discuss preparation cisco exams, not opportunities in the various job markets. if your comments don't relate to the study blueprint in some meaninful way, please keep them to yourself. nice thread :-) for those whining about it, you can skip the messages you know. ccie is a good challenge. got after it if you want. maybe it will help you get a job, maybe it won't. jncie is pretty neat too :) my ie will expire in a couple months and I could really care less. but please, feel free to continue debate subjective topics as you see fit. for what its worth, in my opinion, nrf has well earned the right to debate whatever he wants on this list. pete Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70428t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading in numbers goes- It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I am only a CCNA now and working on my NP. I feel the reason for the headhunters and HR types to value a lower number is due to pure ignorance. Most of them can't find their own ass with both hands and a GPS receiver. This comment though insulting, is aimed at the hiring side of IT. This is not aimed at the rest of their functions. I personally feel corp America should move to Argentina and Ecuador and hang out with the rest of the surviving Nazis. 'Course then we'd have a Fourth Reich to contend with and anybody who tried to make a decent living with anything less than a Bachelor's Degree would be castrated or asked to take a shower. It's utter BS to believe a lower numbered CCIE is any better than a higher numbered CCIE. A lab is a lab is a lab of course. Right Wilbur? As far as I know (famous last words but I am not pussing out), there are no BootCamps for the lab portion. The test portion yes, the lab no. The CCIE should still be regarded as the penultimate certification for networking. Not for System Engineers but for Network Engineers. A little shot at RedHat there. I can't believe the way corp America has turned it's back on IT as a rule. I really love the way salaries have gone tits up. A couple more years and you'll have to have a Phd and five major certs to lick the urinal cakes in the men's room at a decent paying company. I am jaded if you couldn't tell, by the companies making ridiculous demands of time, money, and effort by requesting people have one cert or another and then offering them nothing in return by means of remuneration. And then, if it is the case, ranking people by their cert number ought to be grounds for forcing them to be pivot heads in a circle jerk. CCNA #9,999,996 and proud of it!!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jamie Johnson Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Any thoughts on these people (headhunters and HR People) out there? I have some thoughts on them, but I don't think my language would be appreciated Jamie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark W. Odette II Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR People- Out of CCIE 1025-, how many of them do you think are still actively with the program, still working in the industry, still are at the top of their game (i.e., could go back in and take the OLD LAB again), and are the Crhme of the crop that they have so valued them as??!?!?! There are reasons of human physiology and psychology that proves that the old saying is true... If you don't keep practicing a skill or knowledge through repetition, you simply will loose your edge. My hat is off to CCIE #1058 if he can still complete the OLD LAB blind folded and run circles around CCIE #10,269 in regards to the complex multi-protocol setup of DECNet, IPX, SNA, IP (w/ BGP, OSPF, EIGRP), and AppleTalk for a 8-10+ router network that was the result of 2 or more multi-hundred-thousand-node companies merging. But I must insert my own pessimism that I seriously doubt this is the case. This could be for any number of reasons, but I'm sure the number one reason is that it was too time-consuming and expensive to maintain such prestige. Not to mention, they probably got laid off for one reason or another in the past 3-5 years. Headhunters and Recruiters are more arrogant than those CCIE's that have been minted in the past 24 months. And they've been that way for at least the last decade. An engineer with Blah-blah-blah certifications is nothing but a potential for them making a huge commission for hooking up that engineer with the employer. And because of this arrogance, they have these BS ideals that CCIE# 6328 is truly expert, and CCIE #10524 doesn't deserve the respect of knowing much more than how to power on a piece of Cisco equipment. To put in your analogy format, that's like saying the M.D. that got his PHD 20 years ago, but got bored with continually going back to those medical conferences and continued education on advances in medical science is more preferential than the Doctor that has been practicing medicine for only the past 3 years. I bet is that the older Doc is going to continue performing tried and true procedures that have a greater risk of failure or permanent damage of some sort (could be scars, amputated limb, etc.) than the younger Doc that is current with procedures that result in more favorable outcomes for the same medical situations. NRF- You've said yourself in the past that Cisco has changed the CCIE program for financial reasons, be it for increased revenue or wiser financial efficiency
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Ok, just so you'll(NRF) be happy. I, for one, would NOT want to trade my Higher Number CCIE designation for a lower number designation. Call me stupid, ignorant, clueless, whatever... but I simply do not see the value in having a lower number. To me, they are all the same- every last number issued (and yes, I'm being brutally honest with you and myself, as I don't know of any other way:-]). It's the person maintaining the certification that has to answer to the rest of the CCIE clan when they don't maintain the expertise. And just so you know, all those recruiters, HR folk, and the such get their ideas/beliefs about the value/credibility of ANY certification from hear-say, colleagues that don't necessarily have the true low-down on the subject themselves, advertising and individuals that perpetuate a statement such as Certification X is not worth the paper it's written on because more often than not the individual holding said Certification probably doesn't have the skill to back it up. I have met my fair share of individuals that did not have the skills that their certifications indicated they had, and I have also met my fair share of individuals that were top notch, but I don't have the mentality of already deciding that well, 'they' all say the MCSE is just a paper-cert and isn't worth a dime, so I wasted my time getting mine nor do I behave the same for my CCNP certification. I DO believe though that with the market and economy the way it is, that even though there are 100,000 souls that have acquired the MCSE designation and approx. 40,000 (not an exact number- I couldn't find it on Cisco's site) souls have acquired the CCNP designation, that there simply are not that many individuals still pursuing IT careers. So, I'm not too entirely concerned with competition. I think the real issue at hand for hire-ability is simply a question of how cheap the next HR/Recruiter wants to hire the IT engineer for. But of course, hasn't that always been the case!?!?! :-) Bottom line (for me at least) is that I am comfortable with my certifications, as I earned them fair and square (read no cheat-sheets, brain dumps, etc.), and I'll feel the same way for the CCIE when I obtain it. If the HR/Recruiter Dolt wants to get picky with my Numbers, I'll simply insist upon the hiring manager providing a technical interview to verify my skills. If I don't even get the benefit of the request because the HR/Recruiter Dolt tossed my Resume/Application in the trash based solely on this lack of lower numbers BS, then that company wasn't worth working for anyway. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to trying to obtain my High-Number CCIE designation (which will take at least another year). -Oh, yeah, and one more thing, I seem to have a keen knack for troubleshooting, so I think I'm gonna fit right in with the likes of those lower number CCIEs that may or may not feel like I am as good as them because I only had a 1-day LAB. They simply have an insecurity issue to deal with, so they can just get over it. We have networks to maintain. -Original Message- From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Mark W. Odette II wrote: Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR People- Out of CCIE 1025-, how many of them do you think are still actively with the program, still working in the industry, still are at the top of their game (i.e., could go back in and take the OLD LAB again), and are the Crhme of the crop that they have so valued them as??!?!?! There are reasons of human physiology and psychology that proves that the old saying is true... If you don't keep practicing a skill or knowledge through repetition, you simply will loose your edge. My hat is off to CCIE #1058 if he can still complete the OLD LAB blind folded and run circles around CCIE #10,269 in regards to the complex multi-protocol setup of DECNet, IPX, SNA, IP (w/ BGP, OSPF, EIGRP), and AppleTalk for a 8-10+ router network that was the result of 2 or more multi-hundred-thousand-node companies merging. But I must insert my own pessimism that I seriously doubt this is the case. This could be for any number of reasons, but I'm sure the number one reason is that it was too time-consuming and expensive to maintain such prestige. Not to mention, they probably got laid off for one reason or another in the past 3-5 years. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The value of the CCIE program was never really its immediate technology relevance per-se, but rather its rigor. Let me explain. Let's face it - in how many network jobs out there do you really configure a network from scratch? Honestly, how many? Only a small minority. And of that small minority, how many of those jobs would force you to set up said network under severe time pressure? Practically no network job is really like
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
John, Perhaps your bias is based on the intrinsic value of longevity, of experience, associated with the lower number. You tell me. Another poster, Craig Columbus [EMAIL PROTECTED], pointed out market forces, to which I find no objection, however speculative it is. There is the trend of saturation of market with technicians, but the same argument, if it must, can be made against those holding the good old bachelors of engineering: e.g. those working their own ice cream stands throughout the country - if they are not yet exported to Singapore (speaking from the USA perspective). Again, NRF's stress is that of the inherent fallacy of the certification process itself, of the lack of value of the certification due to the lack of credibility associated with it due to, according to him, abundant over-supply of test related information. I respectfully disagree with that one-dimensional assessment, and the main objection that I make is that ALL educational programs suffer from such abundance of digitally/Internet based information. That is a weak argument in itself to justify promoting a myth that destroys the reputation of sometimes rigorous (if accomplished honestly) certification tracks. The only hole in the CCIE certification that could be found, due to the lack of such Internet based information supply argument pertaining to the lab, is that of numbers. One individual says there are too many for the market, so you now have devaluation, but at least this individual does not attempt to degrade the educational and testing process of certification itself. The other individuals says higher number CCIEs are inferior due to the easier lab, to which some experienced in taking the lab exam object vehemently. You be the judge. I think nrf is using this as a hypothetical examle to reinforce his point. He's not implying that it would be reasonable or likely. I feel that it does a good job of illustrating the point. Many people--not all, and maybe not even a majority--give more weight in their own minds to CCIEs with lower numbers. I will admit to doing this myself sometimes, and right or wrong it demonstrates a bias that many share. This bias appears to be more and more prevalent among HR people and nrf is simply pointing this out while attempting to show that many of us, if we're honest, have the same bias. John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70433t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Holy cow!!! I go away for a few days and find this thread!!! I would assume if you have a lower CCIE number you have more experience. As time goes the CCIE will get easier just as the technology in some areas is more homogonized. That is, years ago the CCIE lab exam may have tested token ring, atm lane, and ethernet. From what I understand the older technologies have been removed from the lab exam and given room on the written. Which, I presume, is to hold down the number of CCIE's. It's a fine line for Cisco. I presume the goal of every computer related technology company is to make it so easy even the secretary can setup the server, switch, router and internet connection. Think of Windows2000...is it the MCSE or is it that windows is, relatively speaking, easy. (What did the trade rags say a few years ago about Linux not making it...no gui!) Corporations would rather pay a few lunk heads $45,000 and millions in licensing fees than pay few good geeks six figure salaries to run something they can't fathom. (Duh, how hard could this be...it's on my laptop...da same one I use to cook the books to defraud Wall Street and the IRS...which my lawyer says if we ever get caught I will never do jail time and I can hide the money in off shore banks and say I am broke.) They could sell a ton of equipment since companies would not have the labor overhead to go with it. Eventually the field will get overcrowded. In the sixties aeronautical engineers were the rage as airlines were booming and NASA was answering to JFK's call to put a man on the moon. Those days are over, as are the days of the nuclear engineer when nuclear power plants were the way to go. I am persuing the damn thing so I'm not left out in the cold. I have seen job postings for IT management positions which state, don't bother if you haven't at least passed the written portion of the CCIE. As far as my experiences go with interviews... They think it's nice I got the certs but they don't care...except for the Value Added Resellers who want to resell me to the mom and pop's who are still running NetWare 3.12. Most look at what I have done in a production environment. Hope this was lengthy enough!!! Mitch - Original Message - From: The Road Goes Ever On To: Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:32 PM Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Road Goes Ever On wrote: snip for brevety One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that up? have passing rates gone up or down? over what time period? with what technologies being tested? Again, I have the simple thought question - being perfectly honest, would you want to trade your number for a lower one or not? The prosecution rests. Call me a pollyanna if you will, but I consider such a thing as a kind of misrepresentation, and as such, I would not choose to be a party to it. Which is easy enough for me to say because this is a straw argument, one that cannot be honestly answered, because the fact is, no one is ever going to make that offer to you, me, or anyone else. snip for brevity Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70434t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: John, Perhaps your bias is based on the intrinsic value of longevity, of experience, associated with the lower number. You tell me. Another poster, Craig Columbus [EMAIL PROTECTED], pointed out market forces, to which I find no objection, however speculative it is. There is the trend of saturation of market with technicians, but the same argument, if it must, can be made against those holding the good old bachelors of engineering: e.g. those working their own ice cream stands throughout the country - if they are not yet exported to Singapore (speaking from the USA perspective). Again, NRF's stress is that of the inherent fallacy of the certification process itself, of the lack of value of the certification due to the lack of credibility associated with it due to, according to him, abundant over-supply of test related information. I respectfully disagree with that one-dimensional assessment, and the main objection that I make is that ALL educational programs suffer from such abundance of digitally/Internet based information. That is a weak argument in itself to justify promoting a myth that destroys the reputation of sometimes rigorous (if accomplished honestly) certification tracks. Uh, well there's an interesting take on things. Kind of a super-straw-man combined with an underhanded ad-hominem attack. Sort of like a two-for-one special. You purport to explain my underlying, stealth thesis and then you proceed to explain why my stealth thesis is flawed. First of all, I don't do stealth theses. If I wanted to attack certification in general in this thread, believe me, I would have done so, and done so explicitly. Why don't you leave the explanations of my own arguments to me? Who better to explain my own arguments but me? In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the CCIE lately. Not the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This is a localized attack. Not only do you keep trying to drag me into a whole different argument (about certs in general), but you claim that I'm the one who's actually bringing that issue out with X-files-ish subterfuge. Au contraire, mon frere. Please don't deconstruct my arguments in this thread into allegories, metaphors, smoke signals, and interpretive dance, but rather when have I actually stated in clear and present terms, that in this thread, I've indicated that I want to talk about certs in general? Please point out those words that I have said where I indicate that. Can't do it, can you? Exactly. And now to your specific points. All education does not suffer from an abundance of information, for one specific reason. Education uses relative scoring, something that I've advocated for awhile. You want to get into college, especially an elite one? You can't just present a summation of qualifications. You win admission by beating out the other guy. If the other guy raises his game, then you have to raise you game too. Top colleges therefore retains their elite status precisely because they are always admitting the very best students, whatever best happens to mean at that particular time. If all students all of a sudden have access to more information, it doesn't matter, because the those colleges will still skim from the top, whatever the top happens to be. Therefore they will always do a good job of identifying whoever the top students happen to be. Relative scoring ensures that this happens. I'll put it to you another way. In every sport, only one team can win the championship. If all of a sudden, all the players in the NFL discover a new way to lift weights that makes them super-strong and superfast, it doesn't threaten the integrity of the game because that means that all the players will play better, but there's still only 1 championship given out. The NFL doesn't have a set bar and whichever team happens to reach that bar is given a title ring. No, only one title is given out a year. It's inherently relative. The only hole in the CCIE certification that could be found, due to the lack of such Internet based information supply argument pertaining to the lab, is that of numbers. One individual says there are too many for the market, so you now have devaluation, but at least this individual does not attempt to degrade the educational and testing process of certification itself. The other individuals says higher number CCIEs are inferior due to the easier lab, to which some experienced in taking the lab exam object vehemently. And many others who are far more experienced in taking the lab interestingly enough agree with me. You be the judge. I think nrf is using this as a hypothetical examle to reinforce his point. He's not implying that it would be reasonable or likely. I feel that it does a good job of illustrating the point. Many people--not all, and maybe not even a majority--give
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
John Neiberger wrote: The Road Goes Ever On 6/9/03 3:14:32 PM n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The Road Goes Ever On wrote: snip for brevety One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that up? have passing rates gone up or down? over what time period? with what technologies being tested? Again, I have the simple thought question - being perfectly honest, would you want to trade your number for a lower one or not? The prosecution rests. Call me a pollyanna if you will, but I consider such a thing as a kind of misrepresentation, and as such, I would not choose to be a party to it. Which is easy enough for me to say because this is a straw argument, one that cannot be honestly answered, because the fact is, no one is ever going to make that offer to you, me, or anyone else. I think nrf is using this as a hypothetical examle to reinforce his point. He's not implying that it would be reasonable or likely. I feel that it does a good job of illustrating the point. Many people--not all, and maybe not even a majority--give more weight in their own minds to CCIEs with lower numbers. I will admit to doing this myself sometimes, and right or wrong it demonstrates a bias that many share. This bias appears to be more and more prevalent among HR people and nrf is simply pointing this out while attempting to show that many of us, if we're honest, have the same bias. Excellent. So I'm not Cassandra after all. (For those who didn't catch the reference, you may want to read up on Greek mythology) John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70437t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
This whole thread has a whole LOL effect to it does it not? This seems to pop up every 6/8 weeks or so on GS... I mean anyone who has been in the business for any amount of time will be able to see through bullshit factor be (he/she) CCIE or not. Thats really what is at the heart of this thread is it not? Is CCIE really king of the hill or not? I say out loud - NOT! An individual who has just achieved CCIE is going to be hot or should I say peaked in their skill sets -Cisco wise. But does that translate into real world experience or not? Not really. There is a CCIE training website that lists an individual who achieved CCIE with ONLY 6 months training. (I'm not naming names but there's one for NFR.) OK, I have a simple solution to the perception of CCIE and experience question quasi CCIE after # so and so is not really a CCIE at the same level as CCIE# blah blah. Here's a couple of off the wall interview questions that will throw the uninitiated into doldrums - CCIE or NOT! How many CCIE's can explain why Sam Halabi is NOT a CCIE and why they worship him so How many CCIE's know who Tony Li is and upon who's door that he nailed his resignation letter upon??? For those who keep belittling the CCIE or that Cisco should create a super CCIE - there already is - it's called a Cisco Fellow... Headhunters are nothing more than used car sales people...IMHO... Enough said... - Original Message - From: The Road Goes Ever On To: Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source. pray do not take offense, as none is intended. n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :- Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. most of us on this list would take any number we could get! ;- Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. so there are some idiot recruiters who are lockstepping with what thweir idiot employer / clients are asking for. I can recall when CCNA became all the rage, and there were some employers / recruiters who were turning down people with CCNP's. Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. As a job seeker, it behooves someone to focus on identifying the kind of people they want to work with and for, and those who should be avoided. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do that. in general I respect your observations. I agree with this particular comment. I believe your own particular status is irrelevant. I believe the source is typical human nature. Just because someone has achieved something does not necessarily mean their observation or opinion is more valid than those of someone who has not. But human nature being what it is, many people tend to take the advice of someone with the numbers or letters after tha name as better than that of someone who does not. And when did I ever compare networking to a software company? Seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. About me 'devaluing' networking - how could I really doing that? Are you saying it's my fault that networking is devalued? Seriously. I am only 1 person. How could 1 person acting alone devalue networking in any measurable way? If I really
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote: yawn. Bored? I don't want to be overly confrontational, but if you really thought this thread was so boring that you're yawning, then why did you bother to make a rebuttal to me in the first place? The fact that you did obviously means that you don't think it's THAT boring. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70356t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
the intent of this list is to discuss preparation cisco exams, not opportunities in the various job markets. if your comments don't relate to the study blueprint in some meaninful way, please keep them to yourself. thanks. - Original Message - From: n rf Date: Sunday, June 8, 2003 4:14 pm Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] garrett allen wrote: yawn. Bored? I don't want to be overly confrontational, but if you really thought this thread was so boring that you're yawning, then why did you bother to make a rebuttal to me in the first place? The fact that you did obviously means that you don't think it's THAT boring. Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70360t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote: the intent of this list is to discuss preparation cisco exams, not opportunities in the various job markets. if your comments don't relate to the study blueprint in some meaninful way, please keep them to yourself. First of all, keep in mind that I didn't start this thread, Lamy Alexandre did. But I don't see you getting on his case, why not? You don't like the thread, take it up with the person who actually started it. Second of all, I've never seen you say anything about all the other threads that also have nothing to do with preparation with cisco exams. For example, right now I see some guy talking about 'religious wars', and I see another guy asking whether people are getting naughty emails from the group. It's not obvious to me that these posts have anything to do with Cisco certification, yet I don't see you telling those guys to keep their posts to themselves, why not? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70366t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
The Road Goes Ever On wrote: n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn't accelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the average quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. I respectfully disagree. True, there are more cheaters out there, and more practice labs, and the like. OTOH, Cisco is turning over the tests more often, and the test I saw a couple of mopnths ago was every bit as difficult as the one I saw a couple of years ago. You just said it right there, though, Chuck. More cheaters and more practice labs. That makes the process ultimately easier. I would add other factors, like changing the test from 2 days to 1, but I think you catch my drift. The exam still seems to thrive on silliness ( build a six router network with every known routing protocol, and force any and all peering to occur through at least two redistribution points, while forbidding static routes, routes to null 0, and default networks, and by the way, all your /22's must be reachable in all of your classful protocol routers which are all /29's or /28's, and try to get anything to work with the bizarre combinations of physical interfaces and subinterfaces that we give you ) But IMHO the test is no easier today than it was three years ago, anyway. In fact, I think the case can be made that the test is more, not less relevant than it was for those with numbers in the 4000-6000 series, where there was still substantial emphasis on obsolete vendor proprietary protocols I think the test itself is probably of comparable difficulty. But I'm talking about the entire test 'environment' which ultimately makes things easier. Bootcamps, practice labs, and all that. Let me put it to you this way. Let's say that I set a competition where everybody who runs 100 meters in 10 seconds or less gets a prize. My first batch of runners runs without the benefit of nutritional or chemical supplements. My second batch of runners have available to them anabolic steroids, androstenedione (think Mark McGwire), creatine, blood-doping, and every other supplement in the world. Sure, the test itself (can you run 100 m in 10 seconds) is of equivalent difficulty, but surely you would agree that things are easier for the second group of runners? Practice labs and braindumps would be the chemical supplements of the CCIE world. Now, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with bootcamps necessarily. But it does mean that Cisco needs to constantly raise the bar in order to keep the overall testing environment the same. For example, I should probably adjust the test difficult so that the second group has to run faster than the first group in order to win the prize, simply because the second group is chemically enhanced. just another opinion, worth hat you paid for it ;- Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not created equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually, numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
garrett allen wrote: you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower number cpa better than a higher numbered one? You got me wrong. I didn't say that lower is better at all times. Read my entire post again. I said that more rigorous equates to prestige. This is why I included my example of what would happen if Cisco decided to change the CCIE exam to become extremely rigorous - then eventually people would prize high-number CCIE's who passed the more rigorous version. The fact is, prestige follows rigor. If something is more rigorous, then it becomes rigorous and vice versa. This is why graduating from MIT is more prestigious than graduating from Podunk Community College. But the fact is, the CCIE on the whole has probably gotten more rigorous (i.e. chopping the test from 2 days to 1, eliminating the dedicated troubleshooting section, more bootcamps/braindumps, more cheating, etc. etc.) which is why it has become less prestigious. actually, probably the inverse is true as the more recent the certification the more recent the material covered. this is balanced against with age comes opportunities and experiences. Unfortunately, the free market disagrees with you. The fact is, a growing number of recruiters, headhunters, and HR people are starting to give preference to lower-number CCIE's. Go check out the groupstudy.jobs forum. Yet I have never heard of any recruiter giving preference to higher-number CCIE. It's always one-way, and that's my point. threads like this are like discussing the maximum number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. i vote we kill the thread before it spawn. later. - Original Message - From: n rf Date: Thursday, June 5, 2003 5:16 pm Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn'taccelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the averagequality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number,would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not createdequal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually,numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you alluded to several factors. While it is still rather controversial exactly how the switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is widely conceded that it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these braindumps all over the Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. The CCIE has certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out how to 'game' - for example, for example, some people who live near test sites just attempt the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is the consensusthat the CCIE program has simply not kept up with the growing amount of study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all know there's an entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to pass the lab, and while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Man, I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer. Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you think the value of CCIE title has drop. I think is fair to say, after you finished it than you will know what it take. Please take the CCIE lab exam before you make any common on this subject. Of course the # mean a lot but the learning process was even more important. In fact, one consultant company just hires two new CCIE recently with 140K salaries per year. They both study at the same school that I went. This studygroup is a very valuable resource to us and everybody is working really hard to his or her dream. I will suggest that if you are scare about the increasing number of CCIE, please leave and seeking another valuable certification for yourself. Just my 2-cent. - Original Message - From: n rf To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn't accelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the average quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not created equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually, numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you alluded to several factors. While it is still rather controversial exactly how the switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is widely conceded that it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these braindumps all over the Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. The CCIE has certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out how to 'game' - for example, for example, some people who live near test sites just attempt the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is the consensus that the CCIE program has simply not kept up with the growing amount of study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all know there's an entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to pass the lab, and while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does mean that Cisco needs to keep pace to maintain test rigor. To offer a parallel situation, when the MCSE bootcamps started to proliferate, the value of the MCSE plummeted because Microsoft did not properly maintain the rigor of the cert. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70239t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Fernando Saldana del C wrote: Dear n fr, Which CCIE number are you ? What does it matter what my CCIE number is? How does that affect the validity of my statements? Either what I’m saying is either true or it isn’t, who I am has nothing to do with anything. Why can’t people debate just on the merits of the argument? Are you trying to devalue more the networking jobs? As if I really had that kind of power over the market. I am just one person. If networking jobs are being devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it be so. The free market is composed of numerous economic entities. It would be the height of arrogance to think that I, as one person, could by myself manipulate the entire market merely with my words. If I really had that kind of power of persuasion, then I have a stellar career as a politician or a motivational speaker ahead of me, and I certainly wouldn’t be wasting my time here. I think what people are really afraid of is that I am not ‘acting alone’ – that what I’m saying is actually a growing consensus within the market. Think about it – who really cares if I alone think one way if everybody else thinks the opposite? If such were the case, then my concerns could be easily dismissed. The real problem is that I am not alone – that I am saying what the free market (which is comprised of numerous economic entites) is saying, which is that high-number CCIE’s are on the whole treated with more skepticism than low-number CCIE’s. Please be realistic you cannot compare a Software company with a Networking company. I am being entirely realistic. The fact is, in the history of IT certification, every single one ultimately declines in value. Happened with the CNE, happened with the MCSE, and is happening now with the CCIE. I looks like you are saying that the world will return to the stone age and communicate by messengers that will run log distance to take the information to the main site. Uh, interesting non-sequitur. When did I ever say anything like that? What I said is that on the whole, the CCIE program has gotten easier with time due to the proliferatio of bootcamps, braindumps, and other such supporting infrastructure. Therefore, anybody who has passed the CCIE lately has undergone a less rigorous test than those who passed the exam in the old days. Try to respect the networking field and rise its level. And how does anything I've said imply a lack of respect? Thank you Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70301t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do that. And when did I ever compare networking to a software company? Seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. About me 'devaluing' networking - how could I really doing that? Are you saying it's my fault that networking is devalued? Seriously. I am only 1 person. How could 1 person acting alone devalue networking in any measurable way? If I really had the power to manipulate entire markets like that, I'd be a multimillionaire and I certainly wouldn't be hanging out here on this ng. I think the real fear that people have is that I am not alone - that I really am telling the truth. If networking has been devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it should be devalued, and what is the free market but many individual entities all acting in their own self-interest? Therefore if networking has been devalued, it is because many people have decided that it be so. Not just me alone. About the cpa argument - I would argue that whenever the cpa test happened to be more difficult, then it would be more prestigious. Whenever anything is more difficult, it becomes more prestigious. Is that particularly shocking? Why is a degree from MIT more prestigious than a degree from Podunk Community College? Simple - graduating from MIT is harder than graduating from PCC. I even stated that if the CCIE all of a sudden got very very difficult starting today, then anybody who passed starting today would earn more prestige. Simply put - prestige follows rigor. And Chuck, you said it yourself - True, there are more cheaters out there, and more practice labs, and the like... - and those kinds of things are exactly what I'm talking about. Bottom line - the CCIE is not as hard to attain today as it was in the past, whether because of cheating or more practice materials, or whatever. You also said that the test is just as difficult today as it was in the past. But it's not just the test that I'm talking about, but rather the entire CCIE procedure that I'm talking about. The tests themselves may be of equivalent difficulty, but if there are more bootcamps and whatnot today, then ultimately that means that the CCIE procedure of today is easier. Sure test A and test B might be equal in difficulty, but if people are more bootcamp-ed to take test B, then ultimately passing test B is easier. Again, I don't think bootcamps are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that if you want to maintain the same level of difficulty, you have to compensate for the bootcamps by making test B even harder than test A. Otherwise, you end up with a situation where people who passed test A were good, but people who passed test B may not be quite as good, but had the benefit of bootcamps. Or let me put it to you another way. Surely you would agree that companies like Princeton Review and Kaplan make the SAT's easier. The SAT's fight back by using relative scoring - where your scores are calculated not absolutely, but relative to your peers, according to percentiles. (Incidentally, I think relative scoring is something the CCIE program could use, but I digress). But if ETS (the administrators of the SAT) were to use absolute scoring, then surely you would agree that a score of 1500
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes here. It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE number as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being better. Lower means that one obtained the certification earlier. Presumably, since the number was obtained, the individual has been working. This can mean that the lower-numbered candidate can present a solid track record of CCIE-level work experience to an employer, while the higher-numbered candidate simply may not have the experience. I've never regarded certification, in any field, as more than an entry point. Let's put it this way -- when I had to have open-heart surgery, I could have chosen among several board-certified surgeons. The most important factors, however, were how many procedures they had done, and, even more importantly, how frequently they do them. Surgical statistics show, without question, that part-time cardiac surgeons and their teams do not have the good results of someone that does such procedures constantly. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70307t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
I was finally going to weigh into this, but Howard has said pretty much what I was going to say (excluding the part about having had heart surgery!). Thanks. Jamie Johnson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes here. It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE number as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being better. Lower means that one obtained the certification earlier. Presumably, since the number was obtained, the individual has been working. This can mean that the lower-numbered candidate can present a solid track record of CCIE-level work experience to an employer, while the higher-numbered candidate simply may not have the experience. I've never regarded certification, in any field, as more than an entry point. Let's put it this way -- when I had to have open-heart surgery, I could have chosen among several board-certified surgeons. The most important factors, however, were how many procedures they had done, and, even more importantly, how frequently they do them. Surgical statistics show, without question, that part-time cardiac surgeons and their teams do not have the good results of someone that does such procedures constantly. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70318t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
gotten ridiculously more expensive! As far as those questioning what YOUR CCIE number is... it's only human nature to verify one's point of authority on the subject/person at hand... especially when you single-handedly give off the persona of having such a pessimistic/negative point of view to the whole subject AND continue to blatantly say that the LAB isn't anywhere near as hard as it once was... for which the only way you could make such a statement with validity is that you HAVE engaged in the OLD and NEW LAB, and have passed. Bottom line is, when you make certain statements, you open the board up to assumptions and questions that you simply can't expect anybody to ignore- you expect everyone to simply go on FAITH that you know what you're talking about. And those elusive statements like maybe I am and maybe I am not, etc., etc. don't help your cause any. Perhaps your career SHOULD be in Politics and such, rather than in networking. One thing for sure, you are obviously one of those graduates from the prestigious colleges you refer to so often, and you either majored in social science/debate, or you minored in it. - But hey, that's just my opinion. -Mark -Original Message- From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do that. And when did I ever compare networking to a software company? Seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. About me 'devaluing' networking - how could I really doing that? Are you saying it's my fault that networking is devalued? Seriously. I am only 1 person. How could 1 person acting alone devalue networking in any measurable way? If I really had the power to manipulate entire markets like that, I'd be a multimillionaire and I certainly wouldn't be hanging out here on this ng. I think the real fear that people have is that I am not alone - that I really am telling the truth. If networking has been devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it should be devalued, and what is the free market but many individual entities all acting in their own self-interest? Therefore if networking has been devalued, it is because many people have decided that it be so. Not just me alone. About the cpa argument - I would argue that whenever the cpa test happened to be more difficult, then it would be more prestigious. Whenever anything is more difficult, it becomes more prestigious. Is that particularly shocking? Why is a degree from MIT more prestigious than a degree from Podunk Community College? Simple - graduating from MIT is harder than graduating from PCC. I even stated that if the CCIE all of a sudden got very very difficult starting today, then anybody who passed starting today would earn more prestige. Simply put - prestige follows rigor. And Chuck, you said it yourself - True, there are more cheaters out there, and more practice labs, and the like... - and those kinds of things are exactly what I'm talking about. Bottom line - the CCIE is not as hard to attain today as it was in the past, whether because of cheating or more practice materials, or whatever. You also said that the test is just as difficult today
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious source. pray do not take offense, as none is intended. n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :- Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. most of us on this list would take any number we could get! ;- Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. so there are some idiot recruiters who are lockstepping with what thweir idiot employer / clients are asking for. I can recall when CCNA became all the rage, and there were some employers / recruiters who were turning down people with CCNP's. Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. As a job seeker, it behooves someone to focus on identifying the kind of people they want to work with and for, and those who should be avoided. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do that. in general I respect your observations. I agree with this particular comment. I believe your own particular status is irrelevant. I believe the source is typical human nature. Just because someone has achieved something does not necessarily mean their observation or opinion is more valid than those of someone who has not. But human nature being what it is, many people tend to take the advice of someone with the numbers or letters after tha name as better than that of someone who does not. And when did I ever compare networking to a software company? Seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. About me 'devaluing' networking - how could I really doing that? Are you saying it's my fault that networking is devalued? Seriously. I am only 1 person. How could 1 person acting alone devalue networking in any measurable way? If I really had the power to manipulate entire markets like that, I'd be a multimillionaire and I certainly wouldn't be hanging out here on this ng. I think the real fear that people have is that I am not alone - that I really am telling the truth. If networking has been devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it should be devalued, and what is the free market but many individual entities all acting in their own self-interest? Therefore if networking has been devalued, it is because many people have decided that it be so. Not just me alone. you're NOT that powerful? How disappointing :- the job market is what you make of it. Yes there are external factors. In the grand scheme of things, comparative advantage comes into play somewhere along the line. I suggest that netwroking is to the point where fewer companies require on site support staff. They can outsource, colocate, purchase manged services, and in the end this means fewer staff jobs, and the remaining staff jobs requiring more expertise. Not saying it will happen tomorrow, but I can see the trend as well. About the cpa argument - I would argue that whenever the cpa test happened to be more difficult, then it would be more prestigious. Whenever anything is more difficult, it becomes more prestigious. Is that particularly shocking? Why is a degree from MIT more prestigious than a degree from Podunk Community College? Simple - graduating from MIT is harder than graduating from PCC. I even stated that if the CCIE all of a sudden got very very difficult starting today, then anybody who passed starting today
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Man, I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer. I have, many times. For example, just check out the archives at groupstudy.jobs. Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you think the value of CCIE title has drop. Huh? I didn't ask anything. What are you talking about? I think is fair to say, after you finished it than you will know what it take. Believe me, I know what it takes. See below. Please take the CCIE lab exam before you make any common on this subject. You are assuming that I have never taken the lab. What if I told you I have. So now, according to your rules, I now have the right to say anything I want, right? Of course the # mean a lot but the learning process was even more important. In fact, one consultant company just hires two new CCIE recently with 140K salaries per year. They both study at the same school that I went. And by the same token check out all the CCIE's who haven't found a a job for a very long time. Don't believe me? Again, go to groupstudy.jobs. Or alt.certification.cisco. Or forums.cisco.com. Or any other place where CCIE's tend to congregate and you can read the stories of CCIE's desperate to find work. This studygroup is a very valuable resource to us and everybody is working really hard to his or her dream. I will suggest that if you are scare about the increasing number of CCIE, please leave and seeking another valuable certification for yourself. I'm not scared about anything. I would ask whether you're scared that perhaps your high-number CCIE may not be particularly valuable. But is that my fault? Did I cause the high-number to be less valuable? I'm just saying that it is less valuable, but I did not make that happen. You don't like what I'm saying, take it up with the entity that is responsible - take it up with Cisco itself. Ask Cisco why they changed the test from 2 days to 1. Ask Cisco why they let braindumps proliferate. Ask Cisco why they got rid of the troubleshooting section of the test. Ask Cisco why they just let people come back every month and take the test over and over again until they finally pass. All these things hurt the integrity of the program. But none of them are my fault - they're Cisco's fault. Look, the facts are clear. The CCIE has declined in quality. This is why you have some recruiters giving preference to low-number CCIE's. But nobody is giving preference to high-number CCIE's. Why is that? Ask yourself why is it only one-way? It is inescapably because of the drop in quality of the program. But now ask yourself whose fault is that? It's certainly not my fault - I'm not responsible for keeping the quality of the program high. It's Cisco's fault. Just my 2-cent. - Original Message - From: n rf To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn't accelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the average quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not created equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually, numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Dude, with all due respect, are you a recruiter for some college somwhere? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of n rf Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because I wanted you all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said what I had to say straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and obviously with a lot of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. Just ask yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you want to trade it for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, even if you don't want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be perfectly honest with yourself. Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower numbers. You're damn right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR people have stated that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you may have seen this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have never ever seen a recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number CCIE. Why is that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in coincidences - when there's smoke, there's probably fire. Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what exactly does that have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a low-number CCIE, that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either they're true or they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the ad-hominem attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits of the argument, rather than calling into question people's motives? Hell, if you want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just as easily say that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and so therefore all their arguments should be ignored because their motives are also questionable. But I don't do that. And when did I ever compare networking to a software company? Seems like a complete non-sequitur to me. About me 'devaluing' networking - how could I really doing that? Are you saying it's my fault that networking is devalued? Seriously. I am only 1 person. How could 1 person acting alone devalue networking in any measurable way? If I really had the power to manipulate entire markets like that, I'd be a multimillionaire and I certainly wouldn't be hanging out here on this ng. I think the real fear that people have is that I am not alone - that I really am telling the truth. If networking has been devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it should be devalued, and what is the free market but many individual entities all acting in their own self-interest? Therefore if networking has been devalued, it is because many people have decided that it be so. Not just me alone. About the cpa argument - I would argue that whenever the cpa test happened to be more difficult, then it would be more prestigious. Whenever anything is more difficult, it becomes more prestigious. Is that particularly shocking? Why is a degree from MIT more prestigious than a degree from Podunk Community College? Simple - graduating from MIT is harder than graduating from PCC. I even stated that if the CCIE all of a sudden got very very difficult starting today, then anybody who passed starting today would earn more prestige. Simply put - prestige follows rigor. And Chuck, you said it yourself - True, there are more cheaters out there, and more practice labs, and the like... - and those kinds of things are exactly what I'm talking about. Bottom line - the CCIE is not as hard to attain today as it was in the past, whether because of cheating or more practice materials, or whatever. You also said that the test is just as difficult today as it was in the past. But it's not just the test that I'm talking about, but rather the entire CCIE procedure that I'm talking about. The tests themselves may be of equivalent difficulty, but if there are more bootcamps and whatnot today, then ultimately that means that the CCIE procedure of today is easier. Sure test A and test B might be equal in difficulty, but if people are more bootcamp-ed to take test B, then ultimately passing test B is easier. Again, I don't think bootcamps are necessarily wrong, but it does mean that if you want to maintain the same level of difficulty, you have to compensate for the bootcamps by making test B even harder than test A. Otherwise, you end up with a situation where people who passed test A were good, but people who passed test B may not be quite as good, but had the benefit of bootcamps. Or let me put it to you another way. Surely you would agree that companies like Princeton Review and Kaplan make the SAT's easier. The SAT's fight back by using relative scoring - where your scores are calculated not absolutely, but relative
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Man, I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer. I have, many times. For example, just check out the archives at groupstudy.jobs. Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you think the value of CCIE title has drop. Huh? I didn't ask anything. What are you talking about? I think is fair to say, after you finished it than you will know what it take. Believe me, I know what it takes. See below. Please take the CCIE lab exam before you make any common on this subject. You are assuming that I have never taken the lab. What if I told you I have. So now, according to your rules, I now have the right to say anything I want, right? Of course the # mean a lot but the learning process was even more important. In fact, one consultant company just hires two new CCIE recently with 140K salaries per year. They both study at the same school that I went. And by the same token check out all the CCIE's who haven't found a a job for a very long time. Don't believe me? Again, go to groupstudy.jobs. Or alt.certification.cisco. Or forums.cisco.com. Or any other place where CCIE's tend to congregate and you can read the stories of CCIE's desperate to find work. This studygroup is a very valuable resource to us and everybody is working really hard to his or her dream. I will suggest that if you are scare about the increasing number of CCIE, please leave and seeking another valuable certification for yourself. I'm not scared about anything. I would ask whether you're scared that perhaps your high-number CCIE may not be particularly valuable. But is that my fault? Did I cause the high-number to be less valuable? I'm just saying that it is less valuable, but I did not make that happen. You don't like what I'm saying, take it up with the entity that is responsible - take it up with Cisco itself. Ask Cisco why they changed the test from 2 days to 1. Ask Cisco why they let braindumps proliferate. Ask Cisco why they got rid of the troubleshooting section of the test. Ask Cisco why they just let people come back every month and take the test over and over again until they finally pass. All these things hurt the integrity of the program. But none of them are my fault - they're Cisco's fault. Look, the facts are clear. The CCIE has declined in quality. This is why you have some recruiters giving preference to low-number CCIE's. But nobody is giving preference to high-number CCIE's. Why is that? Ask yourself why is it only one-way? It is inescapably because of the drop in quality of the program. But now ask yourself whose fault is that? It's certainly not my fault - I'm not responsible for keeping the quality of the program high. It's Cisco's fault. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70313t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
yawn. - Original Message - From: n rf Date: Saturday, June 7, 2003 12:09 pm Subject: Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] garrett allen wrote: you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower number cpa better than a higher numbered one? You got me wrong. I didn't say that lower is better at all times. Read my entire post again. I said that more rigorous equates to prestige. This is why I included my example of what would happen if Cisco decided to change the CCIE exam to become extremely rigorous - then eventually people would prize high-number CCIE's who passed the more rigorous version. The fact is, prestige follows rigor. If something is more rigorous, then it becomes rigorous and vice versa. This is why graduating from MIT is more prestigious than graduatingfrom Podunk Community College. But the fact is, the CCIE on the whole has probably gotten more rigorous (i.e. chopping the test from 2 days to 1, eliminating the dedicated troubleshooting section, more bootcamps/braindumps, more cheating, etc. etc.) which is why it has become less prestigious. actually, probably the inverse is true as the more recent the certification the more recent the material covered. this is balanced against with age comes opportunities and experiences. Unfortunately, the free market disagrees with you. The fact is, a growingnumber of recruiters, headhunters, and HR people are starting to give preference to lower-number CCIE's. Go check out the groupstudy.jobs forum. Yet I have never heard of any recruiter giving preference to higher-number CCIE. It's always one-way, and that's my point. threads like this are like discussing the maximum number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. i vote we kill the thread before it spawn. later. - Original Message - From: n rf Date: Thursday, June 5, 2003 5:16 pm Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn'taccelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the averagequality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number,would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not createdequal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually,numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you alluded to several factors. While it is still rather controversial exactly how the switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is widely conceded that it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these braindumps all over the Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. The CCIE has certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out how to 'game' - for example, for example, some people who live near test sites just attempt the lab every month over and over again. Finally
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: I commend people to remember the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes here. It utterly confounds me that people are focusing on the CCIE number as the discriminator for a hiring decision, lower being better. I'm just telling you what I've seen. I think anybody who's been looking for work lately knows that this is happening. Whether they agree with it or not is besides the point. It's happening. Lower means that one obtained the certification earlier. Presumably, since the number was obtained, the individual has been working. This can mean that the lower-numbered candidate can present a solid track record of CCIE-level work experience to an employer, while the higher-numbered candidate simply may not have the experience. Which is why I provided the thought exercise of people trading their number. I didn't talk about people trading their experience level - just their number. For example, I'm fairly sure that CCIE #1100 will never willingly trade his number for #11,000. But why not - his experience level will stay the same. It's because that everybody realizes that there is a, dare I say it, a stigma attached to higher numbers - particularly to those guys who passed after the test was changed from 2 days to 1. The fact is, everybody wants to have the lowest number they can get, all other things being equal, and the inescapable reason behind this is that the test has declined in overall quality with time. For example, like I said, the change from 2 days to 1 was probably not a good thing. So was the loss of the dedicated troubleshooting section which was the one truly realistic part of the old exam. The proliferation of super-specialized bootcamps that are geared not to making a person a better overall engineer but geared strictly to help people pass the test and nothing more. Things like that have all chipped away at the rigor of the program. Now, let me point out this. It's not the fault of the recent CCIE's that things are like this. They're not the ones who are causing this decline. And it's certainly not my fault - I didn't cause this decline, so why are people jumping down my throat? You don't like it? Take it up with the entity that's responsible. The entity responsible is Cisco itself. It is Cisco that changed the test from 2 days to 1. It is Cisco that removed the troubleshooting section. I've never regarded certification, in any field, as more than an entry point. Let's put it this way -- when I had to have open-heart surgery, I could have chosen among several board-certified surgeons. The most important factors, however, were how many procedures they had done, and, even more importantly, how frequently they do them. Surgical statistics show, without question, that part-time cardiac surgeons and their teams do not have the good results of someone that does such procedures constantly. Let me put it to you this way, Howard. There have been quite a few rather emotional responses in this thread. So, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people seem to regard this particular certification as certainly a lot more than an entry point. If the CCIE wasn't a big deal, then nobody would really care that I'm pointing out problems with it. Therefore obviously some people believe that the stakes are high. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70312t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Perfect! - Original Message - From: philip To: Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 1:05 PM Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] Man, I never see a job post specify that certain CCIE number is prefer. Why did you even bother to ask this question in the beginning, if you think the value of CCIE title has drop. I think is fair to say, after you finished it than you will know what it take. Please take the CCIE lab exam before you make any common on this subject. Of course the # mean a lot but the learning process was even more important. In fact, one consultant company just hires two new CCIE recently with 140K salaries per year. They both study at the same school that I went. This studygroup is a very valuable resource to us and everybody is working really hard to his or her dream. I will suggest that if you are scare about the increasing number of CCIE, please leave and seeking another valuable certification for yourself. Just my 2-cent. - Original Message - From: n rf To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 5:16 PM Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn't accelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the average quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not created equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually, numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you alluded to several factors. While it is still rather controversial exactly how the switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is widely conceded that it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these braindumps all over the Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. The CCIE has certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out how to 'game' - for example, for example, some people who live near test sites just attempt the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is the consensus that the CCIE program has simply not kept up with the growing amount of study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all know there's an entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to pass the lab, and while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does mean that Cisco needs to keep pace to maintain test rigor. To offer a parallel situation, when the MCSE bootcamps started to proliferate, the value of the MCSE plummeted because Microsoft did not properly maintain the rigor of the cert. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70314t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [CISCO] number of CCIE [7:70151]
I'm sure the lab becoming 1 day had something to do with it but they also added the security exam. I don't think the braindump of the written has anything to do with it, still gotta pass the lab before you get your #. On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 04:46:22AM +, Lamy Alexandre wrote: You find that the number of CCIE increases very quickly? Maybe that the value will be less. the last year, they was 8000,this year, 11 000 maybe also because the lab become 1 day, and there is many braindump of the written exam. -- Patrick Aland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Administrator Voice: 386.822.7217 Stetson University Fax: 386.822.7367 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70194t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn't accelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the average quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not created equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually, numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you alluded to several factors. While it is still rather controversial exactly how the switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is widely conceded that it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these braindumps all over the Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. The CCIE has certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out how to 'game' - for example, for example, some people who live near test sites just attempt the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is the consensus that the CCIE program has simply not kept up with the growing amount of study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all know there's an entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to pass the lab, and while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does mean that Cisco needs to keep pace to maintain test rigor. To offer a parallel situation, when the MCSE bootcamps started to proliferate, the value of the MCSE plummeted because Microsoft did not properly maintain the rigor of the cert. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70184t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
Dear n fr, Which CCIE number are you ? Are you trying to devalue more the networking jobs? Please be realistic you cannot compare a Software company with a Networking company. I looks like you are saying that the world will return to the stone age and communicate by messengers that will run log distance to take the information to the main site. Try to respect the networking field and rise its level. Thank you Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70224t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151]
you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower number cpa better than a higher numbered one? actually, probably the inverse is true as the more recent the certification the more recent the material covered. this is balanced against with age comes opportunities and experiences. threads like this are like discussing the maximum number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. i vote we kill the thread before it spawn. later. - Original Message - From: n rf Date: Thursday, June 5, 2003 5:16 pm Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn'taccelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the averagequality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number,would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not createdequal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually,numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you alluded to several factors. While it is still rather controversial exactly how the switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is widely conceded that it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these braindumps all over the Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. The CCIE has certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out how to 'game' - for example, for example, some people who live near test sites just attempt the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is the consensusthat the CCIE program has simply not kept up with the growing amount of study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all know there's an entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to pass the lab, and while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does mean that Cisco needs to keep pace to maintain test rigor. To offer a parallel situation, when the MCSE bootcamps started to proliferate, the value of the MCSE plummetedbecause Microsoft did not properly maintain the rigor of the cert. Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70228t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
n rf wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the population hasn't accelerated THAT dramatically. Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely gotten less rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this is going to greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, the average quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably lower than the average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. I respectfully disagree. True, there are more cheaters out there, and more practice labs, and the like. OTOH, Cisco is turning over the tests more often, and the test I saw a couple of mopnths ago was every bit as difficult as the one I saw a couple of years ago. The exam still seems to thrive on silliness ( build a six router network with every known routing protocol, and force any and all peering to occur through at least two redistribution points, while forbidding static routes, routes to null 0, and default networks, and by the way, all your /22's must be reachable in all of your classful protocol routers which are all /29's or /28's, and try to get anything to work with the bizarre combinations of physical interfaces and subinterfaces that we give you ) But IMHO the test is no easier today than it was three years ago, anyway. In fact, I think the case can be made that the test is more, not less relevant than it was for those with numbers in the 4000-6000 series, where there was still substantial emphasis on obsolete vendor proprietary protocols just another opinion, worth hat you paid for it ;- Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask yourself if you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a lower number, would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and you could trade that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token we also know that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for a higher one. The movement is therefore all one-way. If all CCIE's were really created equal then nobody would really care one way or another which number they had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's are not created equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more desirable and the higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does everybody want a lower number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was in the past, which is why lower numbers are preferred. Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting at #12,000 Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds of funky technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some other god-awful number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around that the new CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to pass. Eventually, numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody would want to trade in their number for one greater than #12000. Recruiters and HR people would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater than #12000. The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and desirability tends to follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and desirability. And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you alluded to several factors. While it is still rather controversial exactly how the switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is widely conceded that it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these braindumps all over the Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. The CCIE has certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out how to 'game' - for example, for example, some people who live near test sites just attempt the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is the consensus that the CCIE program has simply not kept up with the growing amount of study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all know there's an entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to pass the lab, and while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does mean that Cisco needs to keep pace to maintain test rigor. To offer a parallel situation, when the MCSE bootcamps started to proliferate, the value of the MCSE plummeted because Microsoft did not properly maintain the rigor of the cert. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70236t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
number of CCIE [7:70151]
You find that the number of CCIE increases very quickly? Maybe that the value will be less. the last year, they was 8000,this year, 11 000 maybe also because the lab become 1 day, and there is many braindump of the written exam. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70151t=70151 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
