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
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
""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
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 t
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 th
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 Im saying is either true or it
isnt, who I am has nothing to do with anything. Why cant people debate
just
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 neede
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 w
, 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 bette
f 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:
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
t? 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 faul
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
>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
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 a
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 qu
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"&qu
, 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 to
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 O
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 firs
> 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 wher
""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
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?
ailto:[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 wit
en 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 netwo
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 saturat
nt 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: R
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 spe
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
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 numb
[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
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
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
[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
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 C
] [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 i
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
> >
> > [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 a
ple".
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 (you
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 worthw
> 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 too
ikram
-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
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 n
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
>
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 o
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
e web dependent with services we were offering.
Thanks,
Mark
-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, agai
> 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 i
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$$ here... Wh
> From: MADMAN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:37 PM
> To: Mark E. Hayes
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151]
>
>
>
>
> Mark E. Hayes wrote:
>
>>NOT being a wise-a$$ here... When is it appropria
n 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 m
gt; > -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 t
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 a
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 o
hat, 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:
> &g
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
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 practi
> 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,
in 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:
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 t
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
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 st
;
>
>
>
> - 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.
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 n
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 bor
003 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
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 sta
ree 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: numb
ob, 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 t
2, 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 :)
>
>
>
>
>
Sent by: Subject: Re: RE: number
of CCIE [7:70151]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
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
73 matches
Mail list logo
