From: HIERS, DAVID \(AIT\) (dh4578@sbc.com)
Date: Thu Oct 07 2004 - 16:10:34 GMT-3
Sadly, when a proctor has a bad day, it can cost the candidate thousands
of dollars and hundreds of hours. The candidate simply has no
protection against sub-optimal proctoring.
David
David Hiers
Systems Engineer
CCIE, CISSP
SBC Advanced Enterprise Solutions Engineering
6600 SW 92nd Avenue
Suite 200
Portland, OR 97223
(503) 944-6574 Office
(503) 944-6560 Fax
david.hiers@sbc.com
Notice: This e-mail message is confidential and intended only for the
named recipient(s) above.
As indicated above, this message contains information that is a
privileged attorney-client communication,
attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
You may not copy or forward this
message without express permission of the author. If you have received
this message in error, or are not the
named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender at (503)
944-6574 and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Matus [mailto:jmatus@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:50 AM
To: wes@stevens.name; Eric Cables
Cc: lab
Subject: Re: failed 1st attemp with dignity
i did actually phrase my questions that way. i told the proctor what
how i
was interpreting the question and what results i was seeing or what
results i
thought i should be seing, and all 4 times he told me i was indeed
interpreting the question right......go figure.
Regards,
John D. Matus
MCSE, CCNP
Office: 818-782-2061
Cell: 818-430-8372
jmatus@pacbell.net
----- Original Message -----
From: wes@stevens.name
To: Eric Cables ; John Matus
Cc: lab
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: failed 1st attemp with dignity
I also think you have to be very careful in how you ask your questions
-
i.e.
If I interpret the question this way I would solve the problem by
doing
this....
But if I interpret the question this other way I would solve the
problem by
doing this....
My point is that when you ask your questions to the proctor you have
to
leave no doubt that you know what you are doing and are only looking for
a
clarification on the question. If you come across as not understanding
the
issue that the problem is trying to test, the proctors are probably just
going
to tell you to go back and read the question again.
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Cables
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:55:47 -0700
To: John Matus
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 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 di d 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
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 06 2004 - 17:11:44 GMT-3