From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 21:46:50 GMT-3
I don't think it's nearly as obscure as people make it out to be. It is an
unknown variable, and that scares people. Basically, you take your test,
you walk away and you receive a grade. As you say, it is black magic. :)
Of course, bear in mind that at some near point in our history, things like
thunder and lightning were products of black magic as well... But I
digress...
As for the grading part, I think what irritates most people is that they
walk away with this inherent assumption that they had it working because of
the output of some show command... Which may very well be true, but it
doesn't mean that they followed ALL of the instructions. Often the little
things that merely look like an explanation are actually specific
instructions of what to do or not to do, and in our mad rush to configure
things we blow those of as "yeah, yeah, I understand already"...
Those things are what cause the loss of points, because as they say, it IS a
results-based exam. But it is also results-based within whatever other
rules they set up along the way.
So as in my example, if they really do ONLY ask for that route to not
appear, it's a very simple test for the result. However, if they say no
ACL, that prohibits distribute-list and some other things along the way, so
there may be more specific criteria in a script such as not finding the
route AND not finding the distribute-list command.
It's still results-based, but there may be fewer variants of the result in
order to work. And remember that any SINGLE missed thing causes you to lose
the points in those sections (no partial credit), so the percentage that
comes out on your grade report may really not be indicative of your grasp of
the subject, but merely your mistake in following directions under time
pressure.
Rest assured though, that in the end it's not that obscure, it's just that
we don't get to see it and therefore make our own mental images about what
MUST be happening. All proctors are actually issued their own cauldrons
that they keep boiling and bubbling all the time, and every so often they
get together and chant incantations and thus new lab scenarios are spawned
from the depths of who-knows-where.
:)
Deity? Hell, I think the further I go along this path, the less I seem to
know. Self-realization isn't all it's cracked up to be! (grin)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: alsontra@hotmail.com [mailto:alsontra@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:16 PM
To: swm@emanon.com; Joe_Deleonardo@hotmail.com; 'Fernando Rodriguez';
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Internetwork Experts CCIE Routing & Switching Lab Workbook
Scott,
I am only asking because the grading of the CCIE lab is so "obscure". No one
"outside of Cisco" really knows how they are going to grade the exam. They
say the exam is result based, which I do not necessarily believe. If they
would just come out and say "we will not pass any R/S candidate who cannot
perform our IGP and EGP configs to a satisfactory level" I think I'd be more
comfortable. Anyone who has received a score report will most likely agree
with me when I say its -it's black magic... :-)
I'm not looking to make the tests any easier, but I would like to see the
grading put under little more scrutiny. Who knows perhaps it already is.
And regarding... "Just because I've done this before doesn't mean that
everything I say
must specifically mean something."
You are a Cisco Certified Internetworking Deity aren't you? ;-)
Alsontra (frustration)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
To: <alsontra@hotmail.com>; <Joe_Deleonardo@hotmail.com>; "'Fernando
Rodriguez'" <fernanrl@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 3:45 PM
Subject: RE: Internetwork Experts CCIE Routing & Switching Lab Workbook
> Ok... Just because I've done this before doesn't mean that everything I
say
> must specifically mean something. :)
>
> It was to illustrate a point. IF the scenario was ONLY telling you THAT
> specific instruction. Then the delivery method wouldn't matter and if a
> script were written to grade on it, that would be the 'fair' way to figure
> out whether you succeeded or not.
>
> In the end, you do whatever the lab tells you to do. I was merely trying
to
> illustrate a point about script grading versus the "right" way to do
> something.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> alsontra@hotmail.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:08 PM
> To: Scott Morris; Joe_Deleonardo@hotmail.com; 'Fernando Rodriguez';
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Internetwork Experts CCIE Routing & Switching Lab Workbook
>
> "For example, if I simply tell you do not let 10.0.0.0/8 appear in R1's
> routing table. No other requirements, so I don't care how you do it, then
I
> will look at the result. 'sh ip ro' on R1 and if 10.0.0.0/8 is in there,
> then something is wrong. But the script won't look only for a
> distribute-list in on R1, or offset-list, or whatever other method unless
> you are told to do or not to do it in some fashion..."
>
>
> Scott are you suggesting that getting the routes to show up in table is as
> important as reachability? It's easy to comply with a full reachability
> requirement, but much more difficult to put all routes in all tables. Can
> you elaborate?
>
>
> Alsontra
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 10:11:55 GMT-3