From: Don Rogers (drogers@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Jan 02 2001 - 11:43:20 GMT-3
How about only allowing CCNPs to take the CCIE Lab Exam? Eliminate the CCIE
written exam. Require a CCNP instead. Would this reduce the backlog?
Would this increase the number passing the lab exam?
-----Original Message-----
From: tv [mailto:tvarriale@telocity.com]
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 1:28 PM
To: Jonathan Hays
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
>I have been told by several Cisco SEs (and I assume they were just
repeating the party
> line) that Cisco needs CCIEs (and other certified Cisco professionals) to
design and
> service Cisco equipment pure and simple.
Yes, they do. But, from my experience, they need those people to service
the accounts they don't want to. Cisco wants the 4 BPX CLEC account....they
don't want the 10 router frame network.......that's where the partners come
in.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Hays" <jhays@acropolis.com>
Cc: <cisco@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
> Chuck, I think your numbers are way off. Even if we forget the overhead
for lab
> equipment, electricity, etc. I believe that the staff and hours to support
the CCIE exam
> is substantial (there's more than just a lab proctor or two behind the
scenes - what
> about people who do training, write exams, etc.). Cisco SEs spend many
hours each week
> presenting free CCIE prep seminars to Cisco resellers. And so on.
>
> On a cost accounting basis, I wouldn't be surprised if Cisco is actually
losing money. I
> have been told by several Cisco SEs (and I assume they were just repeating
the party
> line) that Cisco needs CCIEs (and other certified Cisco professionals) to
design and
> service Cisco equipment pure and simple. They don't have near enough
employees to handle
> the huge demand. One even told me that Cisco would love to have thousands
and thousands
> of CCIEs out there but it simply is not possible to lower the standards.
>
> -Jonathan
>
> Chuck Larrieu wrote:
>
> > >> I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they
were
> > going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck)<<
> >
> > some cruel and unusual thoughts come to mind.
> >
> > 1) Set some arbitrary standard such that people who fail day one by more
> > than so many points have a 90 day wait for retest, rather than 30 days.
Or
> > you have to at least made it into day 2 to be able to retest within 30
days.
> > Some such thing
> >
> > 2) Limit the number of times one may attempt the lab in any 12 month
period.
> >
> > 3) Increase the price charged for each lab attempt. E.g. 1K for first
> > attempt, 2K for 2nd, 5K for third
> >
> > I say this half jokingly, but half seriously. I talk to a lot of people
who
> > take the lab, both those who have passed and those who have not.
> > The old rule of economics holds true - people act according to their
> > perceived best interest. If someone else is footing the bill, and there
is
> > no disincentive for failure, then people will act accordingly. They will
> > book themselves and make attempts even when they know they have no hope
of
> > passing. They will schedule attempt after attempt because there is no
reason
> > not to, especially if someone else pays, and especially if there is no
> > penalty for failure.
> >
> > To be frank, I don't see any incentive for Cisco to do anything to
change
> > things on the demand side. They might add more racks, or more lab
locations.
> > But do the numbers some time. Cisco is booking something like 25 - 30
people
> > a week in San Jose alone. That's 25-30 K per week in revenue, or at
least
> > 1.3 million a year. So they pay a couple of lab proctors 150K each. The
rest
> > is pure profit. ( yes, I know from an accounting standpoint there are
> > several other cost factors ) So the incentive from Cisco's standpoint is
do
> > figure out ways to add revenue, rather than limit testing attempts.
> >
> > I look for Cisco to announce a bit more capacity, either in terms of
adding
> > another location or adding more racks at existing locations. Or both.
There
> > is a ton of money to be made in the certification game, and as the
entity
> > that controls the rules and the market, Cisco certainly enjoys the
lion's
> > share of that revenue.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> > CiscoCCStuff@aol.com
> > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 9:04 AM
> > To: cisco@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
> >
> > I am a little behind on my mail, so please forgive me if this has been
> > answered.
> >
> > I called to schedule my lab on Dec 21. The next date available was June
> > 11-12 at RTP. SIX MONTH BACKLOG...WOW!!!
> >
> > I did not ask about other test centers, but would imagine similar
bookings.
> > I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were
> > going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck)
> >
> > Jon Burns
> > CCNP, CCDP, Lab Candidate
> > Now, I just need to get a job! ;-)
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:20 GMT-3