From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 07 2002 - 20:06:55 GMT-3
At 6:38 PM +0000 8/6/02, adrian 36 wrote:
>What you are starting to see is the business side of IT and
>specifically the CCIE status. The business justification to obtain
>a CCIE is for the corresponding relationship with Cisco (read:
>$aving$ ie. partnership).
Absolutely true. And to be more specific, there is a clear benefit in
the Cisco relationship if and only if you are a channel partner, not
an enterprise or service provider.
>But now that sales are waning there is no longer the need to build
>this relationship. To technical people, who understand the CCIE,
>the four numbers represent dedication and knowledge, but to the
>business people (who invariably make the HR decision) there may not
>be cost/relationship justification to hire a high salary CCIE as
>opposed to someone else just as competent but cheaper. Money does
>make the world go around! Remember...its all about business.
An optimist looks at a glass of water and says it is half full. A
pessimist looks at the same glass and says it is half empty. A
capacity planner looks at the glass and wonders if:
1) was the workload properly specified?
2) did someone want to include growth capacity?
CCIE skills are overkill for small and medium businesses that do not
do unusual networking things. One can look at the anti-CCIE
situation and say it is bad for CCIEs. One can also look at the
anti-CCIE situation and say. "perhaps this adds value for CCNPs and
CCNAs, and gives more opportunities for them to get experience."
>
>No flames please. If you are offended by this, re-read it. The
>CCIE is a great accomplishment.
>
>>From: Michael Smith <michael.smith@neumannhomes.com>
>>Reply-To: Michael Smith <michael.smith@neumannhomes.com>
>>To: "'Colin Barber'" <Colin.Barber@telewest.co.uk>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: RE: Anti-CCIE's ?
>>Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 12:28:29 -0500
>>
>>If you read the job description though, They are asking for the world. They
>>want someone to fully redesign their infrastructure, make sure it will be up
>>"99.999%" of the time and then design a front end for information using
>>Visual Basic, as well as work as a break/fix person. I agree, maybe they
>>think a CCIE would leave to soon. Maybe they don't have a clue what they
>>are talking about. Or maybe the department head doesn't want to bring in
>>someone better then himself.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Colin Barber [mailto:Colin.Barber@telewest.co.uk]
>>Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 10:59 PM
>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: RE: Anti-CCIE's ?
>>
>>
>>Maybe the job is not challenging enough for a CCIE and the employer knows
>>that a CCIE would soon look for another job, or that a CCIE would only be
>>taking the job to get work whilst still looking for something better?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jake [mailto:jakeczyz@yahoo.com]
>>Sent: 06 August 2002 02:17
>>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>>Subject: OT: Anti-CCIE's ?
>>
>>
>>Sorry about the OT, but here's a question relevant to most of us:
>>
>> Why do you suppose a company would post a job and specifically say that
>>they don't
>>want to hear from any CCIE's? I'm a little surprised and outraged by this.
>>Are there so
>>many CCIE's in Chicago looking for work (other than yours truly) that they
>>need to put
>>this stipulation in the description to keep a few hundred otherwise
>>unqualified CCIE's
>>from flooding their recruiters' mail boxes? Has the telecom deep-6 left this
>>field that
>>damaged? Has the credential now become a liability on my resume?
>>
>><http://www.chicago.computerjobs.com/job_view.asp?jobid=1418164>
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>>
>>Jake
>>9102
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:19 GMT-3