From: Libone Mhalanga (libone@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Aug 03 2001 - 16:20:25 GMT-3
Anal is the word my brother ( I learnt this fantastic word from my
American colleagues ) ...I think they tend to be more anal this side of
the Atlantic ...that was my experience in Brussels where our proctor
took 3 hrs before he called in the 1st candidate and this was only on
the first day !! BTW I am a black African like you ...of Zulu extraction
also !!!
Good luck next time !! I am gunning for Sept for my 2nd attempt !!
-----Original Message-----
From: Ademola Osindero [mailto:ademolaosindero@yahoo.com]
Sent: 03 August 2001 18:10
To: Ken Snyder; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: CCIE Experience from the depths of below...
To everyone as well,
I took my lab on july 23/24 in johannesburg, I swear I
will never go back. I had been so stressed before
travelling down to there because of my travelling
arrangements. I managed to survive day1 and started my
day 2. I had hoped to cover everything on day 2 which
I tried except for very few things. While configuring,
the UPS on the frame relay switch kept going off and
on for almost 1hours 10minute but I cared less as I
kept configuring. Meanwhile, my other remaining lab
mate kept calling the proctol's attention. Well at
break time, the proctol told me to leave while he gave
my other lab mate 15 minutes extra. Yet we both had
the same problems.
While marking, I discovered most of my configs were
missing...who should I ask? My proctol simply told me
no marks for partial configs. I have written Cisco to
know if this is true.
Well, my other lab mate made it through, how? only
heaven can explain. My claim is simple. I am Black and
the proctol is purely white and so is my other lab
mate. I took my exam in that aparthied country. I AM
SCREAMING RACISM. THE PROCTOL NEVER BELIEVED HE COULD
SEE A BLACK IN THAT LAB. He told me most of my configs
were not complete yet I got back to Nigeria and
confirmed they were meant to be working well. He
asked all sorts of questions he shouldn't have asked a
CCNP yet I answerd perfectly well. I asked him the
same question there that how does he expect these
things to be configured, but he simply said this is
your first time. The proctol on day one was not like
this at all.
If the CCIE lab contnues this way then it's a ruse. It
is painful to be failed when you know what you are
doing.
Sorry Ken, hope they can hear us.
--- Ken Snyder <phizzog@home.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I feel entitled to let everyone know what
> happened in my 4 days of
> misery last week in Halifax. I started Day 1 last
> Tuesday. It was a fair
> test with many great tricks but I was very confident
> moving into Day2.
> Well I received my Day 2 lab and to my delight, I
> had covered many of
> the topics in great detail. So I started flying
> through Day 2. Well
> about an hour into my test, the proctor came up and
> took the lab from my
> desk, he gave me another lab and told me to start
> over. I guess the
> other fellow who made it to day 2 received the lab
> that was designed for
> my rack and I had his lab. The proctor mistakenly
> gave us the wrong
> exams. The other guy couldn't understand why his ATM
> wouldn't come up
> but my lab fit on my topology so I didn't notice it.
> So I get the new
> lab and begin to start over. Now many of the things
> I had from the
> previous lab over lapped and I spent an hour fixing
> things. Than I got
> to a section that required a configuration that I
> did have an option for
> on my router so after researching it in the
> documentation, I found that
> I had in fact the wrong IOS on my router. I had to
> hunt down the
> proctor. He knew right away that it was the wrong
> IOS so he gave me a
> Flash card and told me to fix it! I was fit to be
> tied at that point. So
> all in all I pled my case and the proctor met talked
> with this
> supervisor Lornne Braddock (who is very pleasant to
> deal with in these
> situations). They gave me three options: take the
> test again at a later
> date, take the test again the next day, or take the
> 1 day exam the next
> day. The problem I faced is that they would only
> waive the test fee. The
> next trip would be out of my own pocket so I had to
> take a chance and
> start over the next day. I was beyond exhausted and
> tired on the morning
> of Day 3. I started Day 1 (I mean 3) and it was a
> completely new lab
> with similar topics but new tricks (it was fair). I
> finished early as
> usual and checked all my config's. I was very
> confident again moving
> into Day 2 but very tired. I started Day 2. It was
> tough!! Many new
> topics and tricks that I've never seen. I used my
> usual strategy: kick
> out big point topics I'm familiar with, than gimmie
> points and then
> research problems. Well I found a problem with one
> router that I just
> couldn't figure out. I tried all different kinds of
> solutions. It was
> close to my problem from my other day 2 that had the
> wrong IOS so I
> started to think that I had the wrong code again.
> Well once I was
> convinced it was a code issue, the proctor came in
> to send me to lunch.
> I questioned him about it and he told me it was a
> common problem. I
> immediate assumed he was referring that it was a
> common problem with the
> wrong IOS like my previous day 2. So later when I
> missed by a few
> points, I pled my case that I felt there was a
> problem with the code on
> the router and it cost me an hour in the lab which
> prevented me from
> double checking my work. He told me at that point it
> wasn't a problem
> with the code. I was very upset so I went to leave
> but then I felt that
> this was my only chance to know for sure if it was a
> problem or not with
> the code so I requested the proctor to show me that
> it was not a code
> issue. He refused! I was the only person in the
> testing center that day.
> I was so angry at that point because now I could
> never know for sure if
> it was a problem or not. So I pled my case with the
> management staff.
> Every single person danced right around the issue
> until I spoke with
> Lorrne again today. Well he addressed the issue but
> I couldn't believe
> what his stance was on the policy of there lab. He
> straight out said
> that as a test taker I am not entitled to question
> the proctors decision
> even if I felt there was a problem with the
> equipment. My stance is that
> I was not a typical client at that point because of
> the previous events
> that lead up this. The proctor had already proved to
> me that he does
> make BIG mistakes and did load the wrong IOS on my
> router two days
> before so I felt that with this considered how could
> I trust his word
> that there was nothing wrong. All he had to do is
> show me that the code
> did work. I didn't expect him to show me how to
> configure it but rather
> just check and make sure. An automated computer
> proctor could have just
> told me no your are wrong go home. I was under the
> assumption that this
> was one of the roles of the proctor is that they are
> available incase
> there may be a technical problem with your
> equipment. They kept feeding
> me the line of crap that this is the same equipment
> used for months but
> every time I told them that I know for a fact based
> on experience that
> week they do change the IOS on the routers and that
> would effect my
> configuration and abilities to solve the issue.
> Cisco basically told me,
> too bad so sad. I guess I should have known better
> than to trust that
> proctor a second run through. Everyone has always
> told me to question
> the proctor if I felt I was right but LISTEN to me
> you have NO RIGHTS as
> a test taker in the CCIE program. You either kill
> your lab so they can't
> screw you or pass on the merits of the proctor. It
> doesn't matter if
> there is a problem with your equipment, they got
> your money and they
> don't have to prove ANYTHING! I can't believe this
> notion when you
> consider this is a lab exam with many variables that
> could go wrong so
> when they tell me oh its worked 100's of times
> before and I just
> witnessed two days earlier that problems do happen,
> how can I accept
> that response? Now where does it state that I'm not
> allowed to question
> a hardware problem. Look I understand that you can't
> start questioning
> the proctors grading for everything, I know they
> have a review process
> and the labs and answers are pretty well covered but
> if I feel there is
> a problem with the equipment shouldn't I be given
> the opportunity to
> have the proctor double check the equipment? Now
> it's hard for me to say
> that the program doesn't care about its test takers
> because they did
> resolve my first issue. I just can't get over that
> as a test taker in a
> lab with variables the proctor is about as useful as
> computer. This also
> brings to mind many new issues with the One Day lab.
> I can't imagine
> taking the lab and leaving and than paying to have
> them check your
> config's if you felt you were correct. How could you
> ever prove that
> there was a problem with the rack you were on and
> not the config's? I
> just see dark days for this program with these
> attitudes and stances. I
> thought that part of the experience was to go over
> the lab with the
> proctor so he can let you know your weak points and
> gives you the
> opportunity to know if they took points away on
> something your know was
> out of your control or you know that it was
> configured correctly but it
> just might not have been in the same syntax they
> were looking for. So
> now I'm faced with the dilemma of deciding whether
> to give it another
> shot. I know I'm a marked man now so who knows what
> lab they will throw
> at me. I'm ready for almost anything but based on
> the
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:44 GMT-3