From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Feb 23 2007 - 15:24:48 ART
I know I thought I had Multicast pretty well under my
belt and seemed to do pretty well in most of my graded
labs last year (granted I had to improve a bit as it
was a work in progress), but I considered it a
strength.
Two labs attempts later had me thinking, I better
re-examine what I was doing and what I was not doing.
Cause 0% does NOT imply that I understood the question
very well, or I was saddenly mistaken in my
"knowledge" of the topic.
So...
Again I say be careful when doing graded labs (even
though I kind of prefer them personally) as they tend
to make you overly cautious about some things and
perhaps not as much about others? Or there are a lot
of us with some serious delusions about our levels of
proficiency.
I am re-visiting the topic this time around and
perhaps will be much better about my technique.
--- anthony.sequeira@thomson.com wrote:
> I do remember it happening to me once as well...I
> felt great about that
> section (Multicast) and saw the goose egg. I have
> just been assuming
> ever since that I did misinterpret a key task.
>
> I wonder if this is an area where the grading script
> looks for a
> specific configuration - and it is not until a human
> really looks
> closely that our working configuration is
> acceptable.
>
> I am just thinking about RP "assignment" as an
> example...there are many
> ways to get it done - and if Cisco is not explicit
> with the method we
> need...
>
> If I were preparing right now for the Lab Exam - I
> would definitely
> pre-plan to ask the proctors some detailed questions
> if anything is hazy
> in this section.
>
> Anthony J. Sequeira
> #15626
>
> P.S. I think we also have to face the fact here that
> for many of us that
> are reporting the 0% - there is a good percentage of
> us (me :-)), that
> really did completely mess up the section!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Joe Yohannan
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:34 AM
> To: alextols@gmail.com; deji500@hotmail.com
> Cc: swm@emanon.com; narbikk@gmail.com;
> louisccie_r_s@yahoo.com;
> bit.gossip@chello.nl; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: regrading
>
> That is interesting to hear. I'm in the same boat
> as Deji. I got 0% on
>
> multicast and I feel it was 100%. I read the
> questions over and
> verified
> several times. It was right.
>
> - Joe Yo
>
>
> >From: Blastmor <alextols@gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: Blastmor <alextols@gmail.com>
> >To: "Deji Steve-Fagbemi" <deji500@hotmail.com>
> >CC: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>, "Narbik
> Kocharians"
> ><narbikk@gmail.com>, "Lou Ioanni"
> <louisccie_r_s@yahoo.com>,
>
> >BitGossip <bit.gossip@chello.nl>, "Cisco
> certification"
> ><ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> >Subject: Re: regrading
> >Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:20:07 +0300
> >
> >Everyone I know who tried to pass recently and got
> 0% in multicast
> after
> >regrading got points (even 100% for section)
> >
> >2007/2/23, Deji Steve-Fagbemi
> <deji500@hotmail.com>:
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > >
> > > Is that not saying something about the process
> of grading the CCIE
> lab?
> >It
> > > means that there is no consistency. If you got
> points that you
> didn't
> >have
> > > originally and you lost points that you had
> originally, then the
> process
> > > of
> > > grading labs requires some analysis.
> > >
> > > I had my first attempt last month and I got 0%
> for multicast and I
> am
> > > almost
> > > certain that I completed both tasks in my
> multicast. Do they use
> >computers
> > > to grade? If so, how can a computer grade
> accurately?
> > >
> > > If you do not get detailed score reports then
> how can you challenge
> your
> > > score if you feel you have passed?
> > > At least if you are at University and you feel
> that you didn't do as
>
> >well
> > > as
> > > you hoped, you can apply to the exam board and
> get some other tutor
> to
> > > regrade.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Scott Morris
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:02 PM
> > > To: 'Narbik Kocharians'
> > > Cc: 'Blastmor'; 'Lou Ioanni'; 'BitGossip';
> 'Cisco certification'
> > > Subject: RE: regrading
> > >
> > > Nope, but I got back the points I was irritated
> for not getting.
> But I
> > > lost
> > > some other points which kinda pissed me off.
> But I passed the next
> >time,
> > > so
> > > it wasn't the end of the world.
> > >
> > > ;)
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: Narbik Kocharians
> [mailto:narbikk@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:55 PM
> > > To: Scott Morris
> > > Cc: Blastmor; Lou Ioanni; BitGossip; Cisco
> certification
> > > Subject: Re: regrading
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott, Did you pass after the regrade?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/22/07, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did not get that on my regrade, but that was
> also three years
> ago...
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > > From: Blastmor [mailto: alextols@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:39 PM
> > > To: Scott Morris
> > > Cc: Lou Ioanni; BitGossip; Cisco certification
> > > Subject: Re: regrading
> > >
> > >
> > > You will receive table with was/now points on
> each section
> > >
> > >
> > > 2007/2/22, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com>:
> > >
> > > You will get a score report, just like the first
> time around. And
> you
> >MAY
> > > see differences in the values.
> > >
> > > You will not, however, get any detailed feedback
> or specific
> listings of
> > > what you missed.
> > >
> > > The score report is only meant to let you know
> 'areas' that you may
> need
> > > additional work in, not give you details.
> > >
> > > HTH,
> > >
> > >
> > > Scott Morris, CCIE4
> (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
> >JNCIE
> > > #153, CISSP, et al.
> > > CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
>
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 07:38:48 ART