From: Chuck Larrieu (chuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Apr 07 2001 - 22:16:34 GMT-3
Just flew in from my Lab attempt, and boy are my arms tired! ( Bada boom )
The short story is I did not make it to day 2. The rest of this is a bit
long winded, and easily skipped.
First of all, I was quite pleased to find upon reading through my Day 1
scenario that there was nothing I couldn't do, given time. But time truly
was the killer for me.
Secondly, I was quite pleased when during my review of Day 1 results with
the proctor, he told me they were going to change the written instruction
on a particular section because of the solution I used. I'm actually quite
surprised it hasn't been done before. I was grudgingly given points,
although I was told my solution was definitely not what they had in mind.
However, in the end, it was a few simple omissions that cost me the points
I would have needed to squeak into Day 2.
Only one of the six of us who began together was invited to the second day.
Things I learned:
1) having the core topics down cold is CRUCIAL. No kidding!
2) Time is crucial, but not, I believe, in the way I have seen it discussed
here. I highly doubt that typing 80 words a minute versus my 20 WPM was the
difference. Not when I spent as much time as I did contemplating. You can't
think it. You have to know it.
By 2:00 p.m. I knew I didn't have a prayer of hitting all the requirements.
At that point I started counting points, putting myself in a defensive mode.
By quitting time, if I got full credit for everything I thought I deserved,
I would have had 31 points. As I found out in my review, I missed a few
simple things, and blew myself out of the water. This leads back to the
internalization of the core topics. You can't be thinking about how to
configure anything. You have to just bang them out, the same way you bang
out shaving or washing your hands or eating your lunch.
3) Methodology is crucial. You have to have a good methodology that is
internalized and is habitual. You can't be thinking "what's next?" I don't
believe it matters what your methodology is, so long as you are consistent
and quick. My own methodology failed me because I was constantly adjusting,
rather than banging it out.
4) I spent a good two hours last night in my hotel room debriefing myself. I
have six pages of notes regarding my day one experience. This will form the
basis of my study plan for my second attempt. I know that it is highly
unlikely I will have a scenario like the one I just worked on next time
through.
5) Good rapport with the proctor is helpful. I was able to get the
information I needed by carefully wording my questions and making sure that
my desired result was understood. The proctor is under a bit of stress
himself, with so many folks vying for his attention. He may think you are
asking something you are not. I made sure that if I was not getting an
answer that made sense that I clarified my request, so that the answer was
one that helped me understand. I will say also that the test I saw was
reasonably clear. The questions I had tended to be the result of outputs
from various show and debug commands, to clarify what the expectation was.
A few other comments:
I was far too aggressive in scheduling my lab date. Should have pushed it
out 60 days. Don't be in a hurry. Those without a lot of hands on need to
spend several months of several hours a day practicing. No two ways about
it.
There has been a lot of discussion about the patch panels used in the lab.
All I can say is that the panels are clearly labeled. IMHO you have nothing
to worry about. That said, I did have to revisit the rack twice, in order to
make a cabling change. This was purely the result of a chicken or egg
situation, and not due to any difficulty with the rack itself. People with
home labs know well the issue with hooking up routers back to back.
I sat next to a guy this morning ( a day 1 candidate ) who was getting up
every few minutes and going to the back of the rack to move cables around.
Completely unnecessary and driving the proctor nuts. There is no need for
any candidate to touch the back of the rack.
You can't let little stuff stop you. Those with extensive hands on
experience know that sometimes routers do funny things like boot into
rommon> or behave as if there is an extensive paste going on in the
configuration dialogue. I have a router here at home, for example, that once
in a while boots into rommon. A reload has always done the trick ( knock on
wood ) sometimes leaning on control-C will stop a misbehaving configuration
dialogue. No this is not NDA because I did not go to troubleshooting. I
experienced one of these things as I got into routers at the very start of
my lab. Stuff happens now and again. Rule number one is "don't panic"
With a six to seven month backlog, I have plenty of time to follow up on the
action plan I developed for myself as part of my debriefing session.
One more little thing. I was permitted to bring in a small clock, and a
picture of my wife. The clock to help me keep to my schedule. There is a
clock in the lab, but I prefer having something in my face. Whenever I was
discouraged I looked at my wife, who seemed to be saying "you'd better pass,
honey, because I've already spent your raise" ;->
Lastly, I had the pleasure of meeting several people who frequent this list.
It was quite a thrill, and a definite pleasure to put faces to the names.
The socializing helped me relax, or helped me deal with my disappointment,
depending on when we met. It was indeed a privilege, Jason, Drew, Dale, Rob,
David, not to mention my fellow test takers Todd and Wendy, and Rob, and
couple more whose names I am unable to remember. Proctors, too. I enjoyed
the opportunity to work with you.
Chuck
----------------------
I am Locutus, a CCIE Lab Proctor. Xx_Brain_dumps_xX are futile. Your life as
it has been is over ( if you hope to pass ) From this time forward, you will
study US! And I ain't kiddin', neither!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:42 GMT-3