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=7&i=70314&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
