From: Ademola Osindero (osindero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 07:25:58 GMT-3
Brian,
And it was this same software that I was introduced to in Johannesburg on
my day 2. I spent my whole marking session defending myself against this
very inconsistent software. Well, no qualms since Cisco said they will send
config files along with your result for you to verify. But what will result
if we all have our configs. Makes life more than easy for
braindumping,....I can easily rebuild my lab...gush NDA.
On one day, I still maintain no comment. But for the software, guess
someone should check that thing very well. For the proctors, I'd vote for
there instant removal - they can't help their human feelings (we are all
human). But if we don't have proctors, some vacant positions at Cisco would
never be expected. Gush, the whole thing is intermingled.
Anyone that takes the exam for professional development wouldn't be
grieved by the number of CCIEs churned out monthly.
I just hope the CCIE program maintain its intergrity.
2c
At 05:25 PM 10/1/2001 -0700, Brian Dennis wrote:
>Jim,
>The lab is already being graded by software. Ask a proctor for yourself.
>Cisco's in-house software is called eProctor. There is still some human
>review of the results but the vast majority of the labs are graded by
>software.
>
>I did a contract with Cisco in '98 as a Software Tools Automation Engineer
>where I developed scripts to automate testing of various IOS features. I
>can assure you that it's not impossible to automate the grading. For
>example, why would I need to know what you named your route-map? All I
>have to do is find the route-map that is applied to the redistribution
>command or interface to determine what name you used. As far as
>prefix-list or access-list it would be easy to put a condition in to check
>for either one.
>
>Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S)(ISP/Dial) CCSI #98640
>5G Networks, Inc.
>brian@5g.net
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > Jim Brown
> > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 4:36 PM
> > To: 'Libone Mhalanga'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: New lab format starting tomorrow!
> >
> >
> > I cannot see how the exam could ever be auto-graded.
> >
> > How could they know what you would name your route-maps or
> > whether you would
> > use prefix/extended access-lists?
> >
> > The permutations are limitless and your work could only be verified via
> > trained eyes.
> >
> > For auto-grading to even be considered, test requirements would need to
> > specify names for route-maps, prefix-lists, access-lists, and the like. At
> > that point a monkey could configure the scenarios if told which
> > commands and
> > technologies to use.
> >
> > Someone made a funny comment regarding the extremely specific design
> > requirements necessary for auto-grading...... We could all become CCCAPE
> > (Cisco Certified Cut And Paste Experts).
> >
> > I would like to purchase one of those San Jose lobby chairs after I
> > successfully complete the lab, just to burn it (you might be able
> > to relate
> > if you have taken the lab in San Jose). I'm starting to hate those damn
> > chairs.
> >
> > Have some sympathy for the proctors. They will now have to deal with twice
> > as many exams to grade, although no arguing, hostility, or
> > removal of upset
> > candidates during the debriefing.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Libone Mhalanga [mailto:libone@digisle.net]
> > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:16 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: New lab format starting tomorrow!
> >
> >
> > Well in my opinion anything that removes human intervention in deciding
> > the outcome of this exam is most welcome !!
> > Proctors are NOT above human failings and prejudices. I certainly found
> > that in Brussels two weeks ago !!
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Williams
> > Sent: Mon 10/1/2001 1:17 PM
> > To: John Kaberna; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: New lab format starting tomorrow!
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope that it does not come to that. I have heard people
> > express their
> > concerns about the CCIE losing it's value and I always thought
> > these
> > concerns were invalid, but I believe that this is something that
> > will
> > devalue the CCIE. If the CCIE goes to Sylvan testing, it will be
> > easier for
> > people to cheat and you will see a dramatic increase in the pass
> > rate.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Kaberna" <jkaberna@netcginc.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: New lab format starting tomorrow!
> >
> >
> > > Computer based marking is not next. However, Cisco already
> > has plans in
> > the
> > > work to extend testing to other remote Cisco sites and have
> > the proctor be
> > > available over a webcam. The next step is Sylvan testing. I
> > got this
> > info
> > > first hand from a proctor. It's not a rumor. Whether it
> > happens or not I
> > > think is still in discussion.
> > >
> > > John Kaberna
> > > CCIE #7146
> > > NETCG Inc.
> > > Cisco Premier Partner
> > > www.netcginc.com
> > > (415) 750-3800
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:11 GMT-3