From: Cockcroft, Lance (lance.cockcroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Oct 11 2001 - 16:50:25 GMT-3
As a MCSE and CCNA instructor I have to agree. The previous argument holds
no water. IF Marc is asking information that is in violation of the NDA
then shame on him and his company, however I do not believe that simply
offering a class focused on the CCIE or any other CERT is a violation of any
NDA nor is it wrong in any way. The classes should be geared toward
learning the material not learning the lab exam. I'm sorry but you cannot
be prepped well enough to pass the lab exam. I believe there are allot of
people that want to get the cert and then make it impossible for anyone else
to get it so that they get more and more money. If your motivation for
getting the CCIE is to reach the goal of being a industry expert then you
would encourage others to join you in order to further the industry and the
value of the cert. I think greed affects some peoples proper thought
process.
Many professions have gone thru this same process. They want to make more
money by limiting the amount of people that can do what they do. Barbers
sought laws to make it illegal to cut someone's hair unless you were trained
by them and passed their "Certification process". Lawyers did the same.
Doctors did the same. The doctors and their lobbyist practically declared
war on Chiropractors because they saw them as a cheaper solution to solve
sports injuries and the such even though many chiropractors have more
education than the doctors that were trying to stop them from working.
This is not a new issue, its the same greed issue that has risen its ugly
head in many industries.
P.S. The MCSE classes were created and sponsored by Microsoft, so I do not
see how anyone can argue that these classes are created only to get students
certified without actually training them. Which would you rather have:
1- Someone with a certification and no experience
2- Someone without a certification and no experience.
If there were no classes at all the only people to understand the
technologies would be the people that write the operating systems and
software.
Lance Cockcroft
BellSouth BTSI- e-business
Network Engineer
IPS=lancecockcroft
(678) 441-7315 Office
(678) 441-8403 Fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Some Internet User [mailto:shadowd2@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 2:42 PM
To: Matt Wagner
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: 1-day lab format
Amen Matt!!! Stop all CCIE Education! and let's not draw the line there
stop
all Education, instructor-led, elearning, and by all means let's stop Cisco
Press from making books! Self Test Software and Transcender from making
tests,
ban the CCO web site, and break our Cisco CD's!!!
Let's learn the old fashioned way by trying and making mistakes, NO don't
use
the '?' command!!! That's cheating!
Come on guys, this is ridiculous...
SM
International Software Consultants, INC
Matt Wagner wrote:
> 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/confidentiality_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