From: John Matus (jmatus@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Oct 07 2004 - 15:46:06 GMT-3
eric,
you raise a good point about the percentages. i did just add up the
sections and divide by x.
but the what i said about the proctor is absolutely true. he told me he
didn't have time to answer all of my <huffy-puff-puff, roll-the-eyes, sigh>
questions. i was really shocked and almost confronted him about it but
decided to just focus on my exam, but i was really disappointed with him. a
formal complaint is a definite consideration.
Regards,
John D. Matus
MCSE, CCNP
Office: 818-782-2061
Cell: 818-430-8372
jmatus@pacbell.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Cables" <ecables@gmail.com>
To: "John Matus" <jmatus@pacbell.net>
Cc: "lab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: failed 1st attemp with dignity
> 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