From: Peter van Oene (pvo@usermail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 12:24:05 GMT-3
At 10:52 AM 4/29/2004, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>At 10:17 AM -0400 4/29/04, Peter van Oene wrote:
>>At 03:31 AM 4/29/2004, Richard Dumoulin wrote:
>>>Richard, this is what the employers expect from their engineers, being able
>>>to find solutions even if the question is absurd. I believe it is also
>>>required in the exam. Well done and thank you for making me learn something
>>>today,
>>
>>What did you learn?
>>
>>Maybe it was how to hose up your network by changing RID values that
>>likely causes way more harm than good. While I don't disagree that this
>>might fix this one problem, it is a waste of time to try and figure
>>out. If you had RIDs and loopback addresses mixed up in my network, we'd
>>be sitting down chatting about reference letters and your need to prep
>>your resume.
>>
>>I don't disagree that learning how to figure out things, and using
>>technology creatively is a good thing. Who is going to argue with
>>that. What I disagree with is spending time learning how to manipulate
>>routers to suit test scenarios that don't relate to appropriate uses of
>>technology (real world or otherwise) Spending time figuring out how
>>protocols work when you set them up to do things that they weren't
>>designed to do has very limited rewards. I personally think that the
>>reason these situations exist stems from some proctors desire to make the
>>test hard, instead of making it judge valuable skills.
>
>Another explanation is that Cisco may have changed the test so that an
>obsolete feature such as synchronization is indeed no longer on it. Just
>because Cisco changed it, however, doesn't mean that there aren't practice
>materials that reflect the prior use of the features. People that failed
>the lab before, when synchronization was part of it, might also still be
>assuming they need to solve it.
May be. I'm really hoping that it is for the sake of those testing.
>Of course, you may be right. Now, for other than CCIE, the test writers
>are not the course authors, or necessarily technically sophisticated. Does
>anyone know if the CCIE lab proctors actually write the scenarios, or if
>that's done in another group? It's frightening if a test writing group at
>the lab level was disconnected from reality, but stranger things have happened.
In the past, proctors wrote the exams. I'm not certain if this has
changed. I expect it hasn't though and they still do.
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:57 GMT-3