From: Przemyslaw Karwasiecki (karwas@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Mar 10 2002 - 04:28:56 GMT-3
After 2 days of thinking about this, and several messages I received,
I agree with Brian 110%.
I wish my command of English was better to clearly express my point,
but in the nutshell, I blow my CCIE LAB because I was not ready (yet)
and I think it was fair. I want to pass it, but definitelly not
for the price of dilluting its value.
If it would ever happened (CCIE for dummies and stuff...)
what would be the reward for all this pain I am going through
right now...?
Four letters and 6 digits? I have it already (MCSE 2119557,
among others), and guess what? Nobody cares.
I thing that nobody here wants to see more $60,000 job offers
for Cisco CCIE, CCNP or CCNA. (yes, some recruiters put ==
already between those)
Last, but not least, I was also thinking about some moral/ethical
issues. Those are wrong terms probably, but I don't have
any better words in my mind (and English vacabulary) now.
Anyway, let me try:
I am the last person here to discuss any moral or ethical issues,
but it just happened to me that I belive in one principle:
Person is free, can do whatever she/he wants to upto somebody
else freedom, BUT once some commitment is made, she/he NEEDs to keep it.
On top of this there are simple straightforward legal
rammifications of signing NDA, which most of us has made.
NDA is so clear that it cannot be any more clearer:
No one is allowed to discuss any topic/task from her/his exam.
You are free to decide: You don't like it, don't sign NDA,
and don't go to see original LAB scenarios.
This is what some folks from "commercial study businesses"
are doing. But once you decided and sign it
-- don't disclose any thing from your LAB, as you had commited.
And this is what several folks from Cisco CCIE program
send to me in private messages.
I agree with them, and simplicity of their point.
At the very end -- dilema I used to have: How to ask questions
about something I have seen on the LAB, and want to share here
to understand it better:
I can always do some research on CCO and if I don't see
answer there (or answers are confusing) I can ask questions
based on CCO and other reference materials without quoting
verbatim questions from original LAB.
We can talk about species in this pond without refering to
any particular specimen :-)
Thanks for all people who shared their opinions here and/or
send messages directly to me.
Przemek
On Sat, 2002-03-09 at 20:19, Brian Lodwick wrote:
> When dealing with secret information in the military I was told the enemy
> might already have all this information, but they don't know for sure if it
> is accurate until you validate it for them.
> If we somehow dillude the difficulty of this certification by giving others
> the easy track. It will most surely dillude the value of this certification
> as well, and I commend Cisco for enforcing the NDA for me because I am going
> to get this darn certification.
> I think the idea is to keep this cert from becoming another ______ for
> dummies showing the exact questions you'll be asked when you arrive on lab
> day.
>
> >>>Brian
> Couldn't help but to throw my 2 cents in. Sorry for wasting the space on
> your server Paul, with a non-technical message.
>
> From: Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net>
> >Reply-To: Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net>
> >To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@ldd.net>
> >CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: RE: no flames -- please (about NDA) Don't Sweat it.
> >Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 10:22:10 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Michael Snyder wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> >Here's the deal. The amount of data in the Doc CD is huge, and Enterprise
> >IOS has many thousands of nuances of configuration commands. The lab exam
> >is evolving and typically consists of the core routing protocols along with
> >"twists" as well as a few off-the-wall configuration commands. The
> >"twists"
> >and off-the-wall commands change and evolve. It's a _very_ big pond, with
> >_many_ species of fish.
> >
> >So you've been on the list, and reading the recommended books, and doing
> >the Fatkid and commercial lab scenarios. (Odds are that the CCIE group at
> >Cisco does this as well, so they know the twists and off-the-wall stuff
> >that's well-documented in the practice material.) You take the CCIE lab
> >and encounter a twist or off-the-wall that isn't quite like anything you
> >have encountered in the material you've been pounding into your brain.
> >Maybe you are able to figure it out, maybe not. Maybe you pass, maybe you
> >don't.
> >
> >A few days or a week later, you read Groupstudy, and the *exact* same
> >unusual twist or off-the-wall command appears. Right down to the same
> >time interval, or the same router numbers, "You are allowed to do 'X'
> >on R3 but not 'Y' on R5" for example. Something that has not appeared
> >here before and you haven't seen in any of the books, and something that
> >caused you enough grief in the lab that you remember it very well.
> >
> >And, unlike the typical "How do I keep ISDN from flapping" that gets lots
> >of answers and comes up periodically here, the response to this *exact*
> >question that you just saw in the lab but have never seen before here is
> >complete silence, at least for a while. Silence because most of the
> >group hasn't seen that question asked before and worked out an answer,
> >and those who have seen it know just where they've seen it and know that
> >it would be very improper to respond.
> >
> >That's the deal. It's dishonest, unethical, and cheating. And it doesn't
> >work. Because by the time you get the answer and it becomes common
> >knowledge it will be replaced by a different "gotcha" in the real thing.
> >
> >I agree that the best response to seeing such a question asked here is
> >to not comment publicly on the NDA aspects. And, for the record, Chuck
> >did not comment publicly. A note to CCIE @ cisco with a copy of the
> >question could be appropriate, or a private warning. I'd prefer a note
> >to Cisco. They have the resources to see if the person asking just
> >happened to recently take the lab exam, and which lab, and whether that
> >question was on it, and take appropriate action. Mentioning NDA publicly
> >just calls attention to the question being on an actual lab scenario.
> >
> >This list server is a valuable resource to those who are pursuing this
> >certification honestly, and many of us who have achieved it also owe thanks
> >to it and continue to participate out of gratitude. Paul provides it at
> >what is doubtless considerable expense of his own time and money as a
> >public
> >service. He can't afford to deal with a flock of angry Cisco lawyers.
> >If postings here result in such a flock of lawyers, this resource will
> >cease to exist. Do you want that? I didn't think so.
> >
> >That's the deal.
> >
> >--
> >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 13 2002 - 10:56:58 GMT-3