From: Michael Snyder (msnyder@xxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Mar 09 2002 - 10:42:03 GMT-3
Here's the deal. This study group and the CCIE program fish from the
same pond. You are saying that you are surprised to see questions about
scenarios that you know are on the lab exam. Think about it, how could
it be otherwise? We all have about the same skill sets, and we are
studying the same things and using the same equipment. If we are
studying things that aren't on the exam, are we not wasting our time?
Say that you are taking a college chemistry course, do you not know that
all the tests in that course are about chemistry? I bet there's some
questions about carbon. Is that breaking the nda (of the chemistry
course) to talk about carbon-12 and carbon-14 in a college study group?
How about if you classmates know there was a question about carbon-14 on
last years test. Does that mean that you can't talk about carbon-14 as
a group? In other words, I say if the subject is chemistry, then the
scope of study is chemistry. Excluding textbook pages 14, 17, 222, and
412 from study because you know there's practice questions close to the
real thing would be a stupid thing to do.
One more thing, Cisco over the years has released lots of real lab
scenarios as practice scenarios. Not only books, and CCO content, how
about the ECP VLabs you could have accessed on PEC last year. My point
being that anything that Cisco has released to the public, CANNOT be
used to enforce the NDA.
Final thought, as a group, we (groupstudy) have quite a high IQ per
member. In other words, together we are a hell of think tank. And we
know that proctors follow our message threads. It would be safe to
assume that we may have came up with new scenarios and catch-22's before
they have showed up on the lab. Maybe we should copyright our messages,
and sue the CCIE lab when we see groupdstudy material on the lab.
Sounds like a chicken and egg problem to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Przemyslaw Karwasiecki
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 6:48 PM
To: cchurch@USTA.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: no flames -- please (about NDA)
Hello,
<disclaimer>
Please, don't over-interpret this email.
I really would appreciate your opinion,
I am not trying to be sarcastic, assertive or whatever.
</disclaimer>
I blow my lab approximatelly 2 weeks ago.
Since then, I have seen at least 3 or 4 questions taken
varbatim from my scenario, posted to this group.
Because some of those question confused me, I would like
to discuss generic technology behind them on this forum.
On the other hand, even participating in the thread started
as verbatim copy of original CCIE LAB makes me feel, well,
unconfortable, because I don't want to be accused of violation of NDA.
I don't want to be even remotly associated with such possible
accusition, by merely participating in those threads.
But I still want to discuss with someone some issues, which
IMHO are at least not clear, (or to be frank -- CCO has contradictory
examples about them) without taking a risk of steping on the thin ice
of NDA violation.
Also, as I can tell that at least 4 threads are about problems
taken verbatim from MY scenario, how many otheres threads are
verbatim copies of OTHER scenarios?
I felt much more confortable and "free" to be active here before
my actual exam..... Should I look for those cool flashlights,
used by MIBs (not SNMP :-) to eradicate my memory about my scenario ?
Any thoughts?
Maybe someone from cisco will voice their opinon?
Thanks,
Przemek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:56:58 GMT-3