From: Brian Dennis (brian@xxxxxx)
Date: Thu Oct 11 2001 - 16:04:05 GMT-3
Matt,
If you're so worried about NDA violations I would recommend that you
unsubscribe yourself from this list because it's full of NDA violations. All
anyone has to do is sit here on this list and just wait for actual CCIE lab
questions to come to them. Not only that but they get answered by people not
knowing that they are answering actual CCIE lab questions. I'll estimate
that the NDA is broken on this list at least once a week if not more. This
is why the lab proctors and other people from the CCIE program are on this
list.
Also Matt you should be pissed at Cisco for working to help develop the CCIE
Lab Assessor that Mentor Tech is selling. It's obviously part of the "whole
CCIE training school thing" that you hate so much.
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
> Matt Wagner
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 11:12 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: 1-day lab format
>
>
> Amen, Bob and Jay. I don't get Marc pushing that crap here. As
> a matter of
> fact, I frankly think that the whole "CCIE training school" thing
> represents
> an NDA violation. Let me elaborate since I know I am about to
> get flamed.
> Sorry in advance to all the spam haters, but this has bugged me
> for a long
> time. BTW, I have never paid one of these places to teach me how to pass
> the lab. Here is my elaboration:
>
> 1. NDA: In order to make money selling lab preparation, customers
> would have
> to believe that the prep lab is similar to the real lab. That means that
> they go to your class, then they take the real lab, and say, "Wow, those
> were pretty similar!" Then they would recommend the class to
> others. Well,
> if your class is a lot like the real thing, how did it get that
> way. If you
> got information from someone that took the lab, then they and you are
> cheating. If you took the lab yourself and now you design labs, you are
> passing on what you know in a kind of veiled way. Surely you are not
> designing a lab that is in no way relevant to the CCIE lab info that you
> have, right? How can this not be a violation of the NDA at some level?
> That seems so easy to understand. It's no different than taking an MCSE
> class. You learn how to pass the test, not how to build networks.
>
> 2. Value: There has been a lot of moaning of late about the
> potential of
> the cert to lose its value with the recent changes. What makes the cert
> valuable? Employers who hire CCIEs finding out that they got
> their money's
> worth, that's what. As long as that happens, and until there are
> hundreds
> of thousands of QUALIFIED CCIEs, the cert will have value. What detracts
> from the cert? People who pass the lab and don't know how to
> sell, design,
> build, or fix networks. The things that can cause that are the
> test getting
> easier, braindumps, and "get your CCIE guranteed" classes. If booksmart
> people take a class and learn how to configure BGP in a lab environement
> with a half a dozen devices, they might pass the test. Ultimately, they
> will weaken the value of the cert.
>
> 3. Loyalty to the cert: First, I do not want to have anyone
> believe that
> the cert program means more to me than a way to learn, progress,
> measure my
> skills, and get more pay. If I pass and then the pass rate
> drops, good for
> me. Anyone who thinks otherwise is silly. So anyone who wants to help
> people that don't deserve a CCIE (eg., haven't earned it) is bad
> in my view.
> That's what I mean by loyalty to the cert. I mean loyalty to
> the value of
> the cert. These schools don't make money by creating valuable
> engieers. I
> AM NOT SAYING that all people who go through these schools are not good
> engineers. That would be absurd. But I am saying that the intention of
> these schools is untimatley to make money at my expense (assuming that I
> ever actually pass).
>
> Thanks Enid for stopping down NDA violators and their profiteers (like
> Marc). Marc, your questions were calculated to give people an
> advantage in
> studying for the lab that can only be gained from firsthand lab
> experience.
> You risk damaging the careeers, ambitions, and even marriages of anyone
> gullible enough to reply to you favorably. If you don't know
> what I mean,
> then I'm sure someone who is sacrificing like I am to get this cert will
> elaborate.
>
> I am going to go put on my fireproof suit now.
>
> Matt
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Bob Chahal" <bob.chahal@ntlworld.com>
> Reply-To: "Bob Chahal" <bob.chahal@ntlworld.com>
> To: "Jay Hennigan" <jay@west.net>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Subject: Re: 1-day lab format
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:48:30 +0100
>
> Marc,
>
> I used your labs and found them invaluable. IMO they are already a kind of
> "one-day" format. The labs need revamping anyway and with a few educated
> guesses turning them into marketable "one-day" labs shouldn't be a problem
> should it?
>
> I have to agree with Jay, what you're asking for is inciting
> people to break
> the NDA. I don't suppose many will though.
>
> Bob Chahal
> CCIE# 8233
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jay Hennigan" <jay@west.net>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 7:40 AM
> Subject: RE: 1-day lab format
>
>
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Marc Russell wrote:
> >
> > > So, do you really feel that this type of knowledge really
> gives someone
> an
> > > unfair advantage? I think this pushes the NDA to an extreme
> that wasn't
> > > intended.
> >
> > Yes, I feel that the type of information that you were requesting in
> > your original post would give someone an unfair advantage. And, yes,
> > I feel that revealing it would definitely be an NDA violation.
> >
> > > I suppose next it will be considered NDA to discuss what you ate for
> lunch
> > > during your exam.
> >
> > TTBOMK, lunch is not served in the exam room. At San Jose, you were
> given
> > a voucher for day one lunch and escorted to the cafeteria
> where there was
> a
> > varied menu. On day two you were on your own for lunch. I
> would presume
> > that this may vary by location, but that the candidates taking the
> one-day
> > exam would likely be escorted to lunch. Frantic phone calls
> to TAC from
> > the payphones in the Cisco cafeteria are not considered good form.
> >
> > > My interpretation of technical content would be something more like
> this
> > > "Hey did you hear that OSPF virtual-links now count for 90% of your
> score,
> > > better know that concept cold." If a CCIE candidate is going to
> actually
> > > gain an advantage by knowing the extent of preconfiguration of basic
> IP,
> > > interfaces, etc. he/she is going to fail miserably and it is a
> non-issue.
> > > How would this information help them pass the test? I guess I just
> don't
> get
> > > it. Help me see the light.
> >
> > Look at what you asked for:
> >
> > * We just want to know as to what extent the network is pre-configured.
> > * Is it just basic IP addressing and activated interfaces or
> more complex
> > * issues like ISDN setup, frame-relay setup, or basic routing
> protocols,
> > * etc.
> >
> > Look at bullet point three of the confidentiality agreement found at
> >
> >
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/625/ccie/ccie_program/confidentia
> lity_agrmt
> .pdf
> >
> > * That You may not disclose the Exam questions or answers or
> discuss any
> of
> > the content of the Exam Materials with any person, without prior
> written
> > approval of Cisco;
> >
> > IMHO, the extent to which the network is preconfigured and the
> specifics
> > you asked about with regard to IP addressing, interfaces, ISDN
> and frame-
> > relay, and basic routing protocols are indeed very clearly
> "the content
> of
> > the Exam materials" as defined by the NDA.
> >
> > > I have customers and competitors all going crazy over this
> 1-day format
> > > deal. It doesn't make any difference, but it is a marketing issue I
> need
> to
> > > address. The skills, preparation, and knowledge required will be the
> same
> > > for either test format. If I can actually get a customer on the phone
> and
> > > explain it to them they usually understand that it doesn't matter.
> >
> > The CCIE program is not, to the best of my knowledge, obligated in any
> > way to accommodate the customers or competitors of those in
> the business
> > of providing exam preparation services. In some ways the relationship
> > is adversarial.
> >
> > > It is just a customer perception problem I need to deal
> with. However,
> going
> > > through all of our older labs and updating them will be a lot of work
> and I
> > > would prefer to do it only once.
> >
> > I would approach it within the guidelines of what is on the Cisco
> website,
> > and not ask for people to risk violating NDA. Perhaps the newer CCIE
> > Assessor may be of value.
> >
> > Let me provide an observation, based on having taken the lab more than
> > once and having participated in this forum for a long time. There are
> > some technologies and scenarios I have seen discussed here frequently,
> > often in excruciating detail, that I have never seen in the lab. There
> > were things I saw in the lab that haven't been touched upon
> here at all.
> >
> > For me or anyone to provide information such as "You're wasting your
> > time studying 'X'", or "You ought to know how to do 'Y'", based on the
> > experiences of having seen the lab would clearly be wrong, do you not
> > agree?
> >
> > Yet what you're asking here is for information as to how the lab is
> > preconfigured. That is fundamentally part of the exam materials and
> > would give candidates inside knowledge of what not to study because it
> > is provided preconfigured.
> >
> > --
> > Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay@west.net
> > NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
> > WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 22:33:17 GMT-3