From: Alexei Monastyrnyi (alexeim@orcsoftware.com)
Date: Fri Oct 06 2006 - 19:44:31 ART
back in January 2006 I talked to gentleman from UK why took a lab the
same day and he told that for him it was a common issue to expect an
ambush in each and every question... because of him being a native
Eng-speaker.... for us, non-natives, life is pretty good, as Scott M
usually says :-)
/"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" (c) W. Ockham
"especially if you don't know how far you can go beyond" (c) myself :-)
/
Alex De Gruiter (AU) wrote:
> I think I must have just over-read the question. That was ultimately my
> downfall. I read too much into the few questions that made a difference,
> and I have learned from the experience. I think a lot of my questions
> were, as Brad points out, over-analysed - so the proctor telling me to
> "read the question" was probably an indication that I was reading *too
> much* into the question.
>
> I was too reliant on the proctor, I think. I've read many threads in
> this forum where proctor-reliance is noted as a key element in achieving
> the CCIE - in my next attempt I'll simply pay attention to the wording
> of the question. I won't worry so much on the 2nd attempt about
> communicating with the proctor, unless absolutely necessary. I thought I
> could win the psychology battle on the 1st attempt, but life goes on.
>
> Technically the CCIE lab is a *LOT* easier than the vendor labs; but the
> CCIE, in essence, is a test of temperament and interpretation (I like
> Victor's pun about the Cisco English test!). I'm sure there are plenty
> of very capable people who fail, not due to technical inability, but
> misinterpretation of requirements. Perhaps this is why the cert is so
> valued.
>
> Such is life.
>
> Alex
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Angelo De Guzman
> Sent: Friday, 6 October 2006 4:32 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re:Proctor help?
>
> hi Alex,
>
> Usually if you ask a question in such a way that you demonstrated a
> clear understanding of the technology you would get a positive response
> from the proctor. In my experience usually I would ask a question that I
> already know the answer and see the response of the proctor. Just to
> check. If you do above and still did not get a positive feedback. As
> Scott usually quotes during my bootcamp experience, ask the proctor "
> why do you hate me?" hehe kidding only.
> Yes it is really better to read the question several times before
> you ask the proctor. Most of the times if you do this you might answer
> or even find the solution to your question.
>
> Angelo
>
> Alex De Gruiter (AU) (10/6/06 12:46 PM):
>
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>> I've read many, many times on this list people mentioning that the
>> "proctor is your friend" and if you need clarification the "proctor is
>> there to help". Well, I recently sat (and failed) the lab exam; I
>> evidently wasn't as ready for the lab as I thought I was - that's cool,
>>
>
>
>> I know the areas I need to improve. However I do have a question along
>> the lines of proctor assistance - or lack thereof.
>>
>> Literally every time I asked a question in my lab, I was told "Read the
>>
>
>
>> question" (a rather redundant activity I thought, given that I was
>> referencing the question in my line of enquiry!). Now, I don't expect
>> the proctor to give the answer away, not at all, but I am confused by
>> comments about how helpful the proctor was. I actually reached a point
>> with my proctor where I gave up asking questions because I already knew
>>
>
>
>> the answer: "read the question".
>>
>> I can't give concrete examples due to the NDA, however I know for a
>> fact that there were at least 3 or 4 questions that could be answered
>> using more than 1 methodology. However the proctor told me, in no
>> uncertain terms, that he would not assist in my choice. Has anyone had
>> similar experiences with proctors? In these situations, are we marked
>> down for choosing a methodology other than the one Cisco expected us to
>>
> use?
>
>> Alex
>>
>> ***********************************************************************
>> *******
>> - NOTICE FROM DIMENSION DATA AUSTRALIA This message is confidential,
>> and may contain proprietary or legally
>>
> privileged information. If you have received this email in error,
> please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
>
>> Internet communications are not secure. You should scan this message
>> and any
>>
> attachments for viruses. Under no circumstances do we accept liability
> for any loss or damage which may result from your receipt of this
> message or any attachments.
>
>> ***********************************************************************
>> *******
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>> ***********************
>> No virus was detected in the attachment no filename
>>
>> Your mail has been scanned by InterScan MSS.
>> ***********-***********
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ***********************
> No virus was detected in the attachment no filename
>
> Your mail has been scanned by InterScan MSS.
> ***********-***********
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 07:29:04 ART