From: Eric Cables (ecables@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 07 2004 - 14:55:47 GMT-3
John,
Sorry to hear about your failure, but I am very surprised and a bit
hesitant to believe you got that kind of a response from a proctor.
You are exactly right, they are there to assist you, and if you did
receive that kind of response you should file a formal complaint.
Also, how do you know you scored 67%? You can't just add up all the
percentages in your score report, and divide by the number of topics,
because each topic isn't worth an equal # of points. For example:
BGP = 100% (15/15 points)
Multicast = 33% (1/3 points)
IGP = 60% (6/10 points)
Assuming the above, by just adding/dividing the percentages you'd get
a 64.3%, but in actuality you really got 78.5% (22/28).
Better luck next time!
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 09:57:53 -0700, John Matus <jmatus@pacbell.net> wrote:
> well, i just got back from san jose and had my score report waiting for me. i
> was very hopeful. there were only 8 points worth of section that i knew i
> didn't get but i was sure that the rest of it was kosher. i scored a 67%
> overall. i was very apprehensive about taking the test but had done enough
> practice and bootcamping and was reaching a point of diminished returns on the
> studying. all and all, i felt that despite my scoring, i actually performed
> rather well and happy with that. unfortunately cisco's grading style for
> section is the old 'all-or-nada' approach and one misinterpretation of a
> question can lead to disastrous results.
>
> i did have a very bad experience with the proctor, tom, whom i had heard was a
> pretty nice guy, but who [today] was very irritable and huffy. i asked him
> for clarification on 4 tasks b/c they were vague and didn't say "you can't do
> this" and i just wanted to make sure it was 'ok' to do the stuff that it
> didn't say you couldn't. at one point he said to me "i don't have time for to
> ask me all these questions (huffy puffy). i thought to myself 'what the @#$%
> do you think you're here for then?' heaven knows that the tests are 'just a
> bit' ambiguous and if they weren't everyone would be ccie's! i was told that
> the proctors were friendly and willing to answer question. i guess this blows
> a whole in that theory (and no, i was not fishing for answers)
>
> so i'll take a short break, regroup and try again in a month [i guess].
>
> Regards,
>
> John D. Matus
> MCSE, CCNP
> Office: 818-782-2061
> Cell: 818-430-8372
> jmatus@pacbell.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
-- Eric Cables Network Engineer, CCIE #12799
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:44 GMT-3