From: Eric Lemmons (ericlemmons@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 13:24:03 GMT-3
My 2 cents worth.
For what it's worth, the test designers say that they try as hard as
possible to only have one working solution.
The procter supervisors also say that if a solution works, and
doesn't violate any of the question requirements, that you will get
credit. There is an appeal process for test scoring if you want to
pursue that also.
I'm stating this information based on the CCIE PowerSession given at
Networker's 2001. The session was run by William Parkhurst, Jeff
Buddemeyer, and, his name escapes me, the head of the lab in Halifax
when it was still operating. These are the head of the labs in St.
Louis, San Jose, and Halifax respectively. It is a very frank, and
open presentation about the test.
Having said that, are the test designers and procters perfect? Of
course not.
But they are going out of their way to avoid these type issues.
One of the perplexing things about the lab test, is not knowing
exactly what you did wrong. You probably have some idea, but may not
know the exact specifics. Otherwise, you would probably have gotten
the question right on the test.
I also think that a major part of scoring the test is done by
functionality. In other words, if your ISDN DDR link is supposed to
come up win one of the frame interfaces goes down, they'll unplug the
cable to the frame interface and see what happens. Do all of the
routes come back up as needed? Etc..
Obviously, all aspects of the test can't be tested this way, of
course. But when possible, I believe this is part of the scoring.
So where does that leave us? Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure
all aspects of the results of your test.
I do think that the main reason for test failure is lack of depth of
knowledge. This depth is what enables you interpret the questions
properly.
I would also re-emphasize the role of asking questions of the
procters. When in doubt, ask questions to get clarity.
I hope this adds something to the discusstion.
Eric
--- steven.j.nelson@bt.com wrote:
> All
>
> I think you will find may people who can state similar stories
> about the
> solution working and not getting good marks.
>
> There does seem to be a "right" working way and a "Wrong" working
> way.
>
> Anyway that said, back to the lab tonight...
>
> Don't beat yourself up over these small things, just do your best
> and get on
> with it...
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stefano [mailto:sandrello@tecnonetspa.it]
> Sent: 17 June 2002 16:05
> To: ccielab
> Subject: Re: Interpretaion of questions
>
>
> I had the same problem.....the question is: what kind of solution
> is the
> best for proctors?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <steven.j.nelson@bt.com>
> To: <troy@onenet.net>; <kurt@superonline.net>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 3:48 PM
> Subject: RE: Interpretaion of questions
>
>
> > Sorry Troy,
> >
> > Have to disagree, I had some requirement in my lab pertaining to
> ISDN. I
> > tested it fully 3 times, the last time being 10mins before the
> end of the
> > test as I know a number of people who have had bad marks for
> dial.
> >
> > My solution worked perfectly, I gained less than 50% of the
> marks.
> >
> > So they are looking for some specifics in addition to the
> solution
> working.
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Troy Rader [mailto:troy@onenet.net]
> > Sent: 17 June 2002 14:29
> > To: Erhan Kurt; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: Interpretaion of questions
> >
> >
> > If you accomplish what they ask, and do not use techniques they
> say you
> > cannot use, you get the points. My understanding has always been
> that the
> > proctors do not get to pick and choose what they personally like
> for a
> > solution. If you get it working, and don't violate the
> requirements of
> the
> > question, you get the points.
> >
> > I have had every question I asked, answered. I've been twice. I
> never
> ask
> > "which solution do you want". I clarify any wording that is
> unclear to
> me.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Erhan Kurt" <kurt@superonline.net>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 6:54 AM
> > Subject: RE: Interpretaion of questions
> >
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Instead of saying some percentages, it's better to talk about
> > interpretation
> > > issues in the exam.. It may be an effective way to interpret
> some topics
> > > here before real exam.
> > >
> > > Some topics are listed below:
> > >
> > > 1- Redistribution techniques:
> > > for example: which is the best way for area 0 range: 2nd OSPF
> > > process or redist. Conn. before summary address.
> > > 2- DDR:
> > > Interpreting is so important to do the way actually wanted.
> > > 3- QoS:
> > > i.e. in FRTS, your calculations of CIR, Bc, mincir will be
> based on
> > > verbal sentences provided.
> > > 4- BGP:
> > > Communities, attributes, confederations, sync vs no-sync...
> > > 5- ACL:
> > > o PAY ATTENTION to your ALL already done stuff when putting an
> > > access-list, if you have any, you must permit equivalent ports
> for them
> > like
> > > tcp eq bgp, ospf, eigrp, ntp, snmp, udp eq rip, etc.
> > > o PAY ATTENTION to new services through an interface containing
> > > access-list... if so make necessary changes on the
> access-list....
> > >
> > > 6- Bla, Bla, Bla.....
> > >
> > > It's sometimes really hard to say that this is the best way or
> the way
> > > wanted .. And then the result will be negative even it looks
> working...
> > >
> > >
> > > Never Give Up,
> > > Erhan
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Luu [mailto:wicked01@ix.netcom.com]
> > > Sent: 16 Haziran 2002 Pazar 23:27
> > > To: Anthony Pace; Wes Stevens; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: RE: Interpretaion of questions
> > >
> > >
> > > the ccie lab is 25% configuration and 75% interpretation
> > >
> > > At 08:06 PM 6/16/2002 +0000, Anthony Pace wrote:
> > > >I have the same problem interpreting the "lab questions". Many
> times
> > > >the best solution is not the correct one and it becomes
> important to
> > > >adhere to the "letter of the law" not the "spirit of the law"
> when
> > > >interpreting questions. This goes for the practice tests as
> well. One
> > > >thing I will do next time is "neatly write several options
> down" and
> > > >show them to the proctor. Others have said this is helpfull. I
> did not
> > > >avail myself of this when I took the test. Instead I chose to
> "stew in
> > > >my own juices' and waste alot of time speculating about all
> the
> > > >possible combinations of things which they "might" be looking
> for.
> > > >
> > > >Anthony PAce
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 00:14:11 +0000, "Wes Stevens"
> > > ><ccie_miami@hotmail.com> said:
> > > > > My first attempt was friday. I did not pass. Time was not
> that big
> > > > > of an issue. I was done with an hour left to check things.
> > > > > Everything seemed to
> > > > > work and I felt that I had at least followed the rules. But
> they
> must
> > > > > have
> > > > > not of liked my solutions. The interesting thing is that
> the parts
> > that
> > > > > seemed the easist were where I did the worst. The part that
> kicked
> my
> > > > > butt I
> > > > > did well in. I think part is that I got over confident on
> the easy
> > > > > parts and
> > > > > did not pay enough attention to them. But part is also the
> ability
> to
> > > > > interpret what they want for a solution. I don't feel
> experience is
> a
> > > > > big
> > > > > help here. I have been doing networking for many years and
> have
> never
> > > > > seen
> > > > > anything like what they put in front of me in the real
> world. I did
> > > > > give
>
=== message truncated ===
=====
(James) Eric Lemmons
Home: 972-862-6581
Work: 469-255-1843
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 08:12:35 GMT-3