From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Apr 17 2007 - 05:59:01 ART
I think this is the guy who may replace Maurillio.
You see why.
He's got it all figured out.
--- "Salau,Olayemi" <Olayemi.Salau@southampton.gov.uk>
wrote:
> JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> Many Thanks
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Olayemi Salau
>
> Network Analyst
>
> I.T. Solutions Division
>
> Southampton City Council
>
> ( 023 8083 4070 7 077 8811 2036 3 079 5825 7509
>
> * olayemi.salau@southampton.gov.uk
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If
> you are not the
> intended recipient, please be aware that the
> unauthorised use or
> disclosure of the information it contains, or the
> unauthorised copying
> or re-transmission of the e-mail are strictly
> prohibited. Such action
> may result in legal proceedings. If the e-mail has
> been sent to you in
> error, please accept our apologies, advise the
> sender as soon as
> possible and then delete the message. Under the
> Freedom of Information
> Act 2000 / Data Protection Act 1998, the contents of
> this e-mail,
> whether it is marked confidential or otherwise, may
> be disclosed. No
> employee, Councillor or agent is authorised to
> conclude by e-mail any
> binding agreement with another party on behalf of
> Southampton City
> Council. The Council does not accept service by
> e-mail of court
> proceedings, other processes or formal notices of
> any kind without
> specific prior written agreement. E-mails to and
> from Southampton City
> Council may be monitored in accordance with the law
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Marcus Lasarko
> Sent: 16 April 2007 18:12
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: 5-day-dreaming lab scenario
>
>
>
> Just taking a quick shot at this - feeding the rumor
> mill :)
>
>
>
> What if...
>
> In the future...
>
>
>
> To begin one would pass a written test, similar to
> now (we have to start
> somewhere). CCIE written exams would be conducted in
> varying climates
> with two 100-question parts and a break in between.
> Each portion of the
> written requires that you must score 70 or above,
> but average 75 or
> greater overall on both sections. Overall exam
> length would be 230
> minutes. 1 minute per question, plus the 30 minutes
> for the break in the
> middle. One half of the exam would be give in a
> walk-in freezer, while
> the other half would be taken in a desert-like heat.
> (Use your
> imagination)
>
>
>
> After passing the written beating one would submit a
> resume and
> portfolio with a minimum 5 years experience
> describing 5
> "large/enterprise" deployments as a
> tech_lead/architect/PM that apply to
> the track you are pursuing (This concept should
> sound familiar to some
> of you out there with certain other certifications)
> - And Yes! This step
> should be a requirement for those with an existing #
> as that number
> applies to some other technology specialization,
> this is a new track, a
> new technology, and the candidate should have a
> minimum amount of
> experience with that technology for (or within) a
> specified period of
> time.
>
>
>
> Then Cisco selects from the qualified candidates by
> random selection.
> These candidates are then interviewed by a select
> group of Proctors to
> validate their professional experience, answer
> questions regarding their
> implementation, etc... All candidates are subject to
> an audit of their
> application, but due to the nature of the new lab
> process the need for
> audits will be minimal. The fee for this interview
> would be $200.00 and
> would take approximately 2 hours, in person or via
> video-conference from
> a secured Cisco office/location using TelePresence.
> The candidate (or
> sponsor) is now ~ $500.00 invested into the program,
> has passed a
> "sincere" written exam, and spoken with Proctors to
> get a feel for their
> personality.
>
>
>
> At this point Cisco has determined a candidate is
> "paper and people
> ready". They have passed a written and interview to
> confirm their
> experience and that they are familiar with their
> proposed track.
> Approximately 20 candidates are selected at a time.
> This helps with
> scheduling as more seats are available and none left
> empty, optimizing
> profits and increasing efficiency.
>
>
>
> Note: There are no empty seats, aside from
> "no-shows". This "No show"
> issue is mitigated by the necessity for a candidate
> to check-in 36 to 48
> hours prior. A candidate not registered onsite at
> the lab within 36
> hours prior loses their seat, their $'s, and
> alternates are called and
> invited until the class is full.
>
>
>
> Now, candidates who pass the interview/validation
> process are scheduled
> for the "lab-week". This would be 6 to 12 months
> prior to the actual
> "lab-week" starting date. This is important to allow
> for ample time to
> surgically install an NDA-enforcement microchip into
> the base of their
> skulls. A procedure that would not be irreversible,
> but would certainly
> be a "high-risk" change control to remove :) This
> would also be one of
> three primary means of identification (currently all
> you need is a
> picture_ID). This new policy would require
> picture_ID, biometric
> (retinal, fingerprint, etc...), and confirmation of
> the presence of the
> previously installed NDA-enforcement chip on lab
> day.
>
>
>
> In the meantime, for the program overall, Cisco
> doubles available rack
> facilities at little cost by using confiscated
> and/or otherwise
> un-licensed hardware and increases the cost of the
> lab to $2500.00 for
> the week, double the people, double the cost, with
> only the need for
> some additional hardware/racks and a few "Associate
> Proctors", who could
> just as well be newbie CCIE's and/or other
> "students". Candidates are
> selected, fees are processed, the schedule is set.
>
>
>
> Now we arrive at lab week. The week starts on
> Monday.
>
> The candidates are given similar-difficulty labs,
> based on prior
> candidate performance, at random.
>
>
>
> Those who score in the top half of their class on
> day 1 move on to day
> 2...
>
>
>
> Those who score in the top half of their class on
> day 2 move on to day
> 3...
>
>
>
> Ties are allowed - a tie score may allow one or two
> more to move on to
> the next day, but the odds of that happening the
> next day,
> mathematically, are exponentially less likely.
>
>
>
> Note the above, the first two days, could be
> technology-specific.
> Perhaps one heavy physical-layer and core switching
> on ACTUAL PRODUCTION
> platforms (65xx, 45xx, 37xx, etc...), with little L3
> required. The next
> day perhaps intense IGP's - core routing, all L2
> done for you from the
> start (just do not 'break it", hint...).
>
>
>
> Note: not as much hardware variance in day 2
> hardware as day 3, SP
> candidates would potentially have different
> platforms than R&S as there
> could be ONS/optical, xWDM, etc...
>
>
>
> This leaves us with only 5 candidates who are
> invited back on Wednesday.
>
> They have shown their true expertise in regards to
> the core technologies
> and have outlasted their peers.
>
> The other 15 have been "voted out", their torches
> flame no more,
> "they're fired".
>
> <insert_your_favorite_reality_TV_catch_phrase_here>
>
>
>
> These 5 candidates get to take a full labs the next
> three days.
>
> The candidates must score above 70 on ALL labs, with
> an average of over
> 75.
>
> This may sound like a downgrade to some, but just
> think about it...
>
> 88 - 91 - 67, darn -you're out on the 3rd lab even
> though your average
> was an 82.
>
>
>
> There are no re-reads. If you want to try again you
> re-register.
>
> If you re-register there is a benefit in terms of a
>
>
>
> Those who meet the criteria above become a "MCCIE"
>
> And we all know what "M" stands for...
>
> Money!
>
>
>
> ...or Master,
>
> or Multiple
>
> or Machine,
>
> or whatever you want it to if you can get
> through!
>
>
>
> Seriously, just thinking about the possibility;
>
> How that COULD work.
>
>
>
> The only part that may be of issue is the NDA-chip,
> that could create
> health liabilities or other complications.
>
> Climate control for the written would require some
> medical waiver, of
> course.
>
>
>
> I do not see this as a problem for instructors,
> granted their material
> is original.
>
> Those who participate cannot share their knowledge
> as the NDA-chip will
> not permit it.
>
> Kind of like a polygraph, but looped-back to your
> synapse!
>
> You could not communicate/replicate the stuff you
> saw if you wanted to!
>
> If you even thought about asking question too
> precise to what were on
> your labs, what you saw...
>
> It would give a whole new meaning to the term
> "migraine".
>
>
>
> NDA-chip aside, I think the other steps are
> feasible.
>
> and would certainly "harden" the certification,
> empower those who pass,
> etc...
>
>
>
> While I believe someone *could* memorize a lab, it
> is doubtful they can
> memorize three,
>
> And that is if they make it that far :)
>
>
>
> Proctors would still be proctors
>
> The candidates are still human
>
> And we cannot cheat ourselves as humans so often are
> tempted to do!
>
>
>
> In the end, CCIE / MCCIE's are truly " experienced
> experts"
>
>
>
> Just day-dreaming - Happy Monday all,
>
> ~M
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 01 2007 - 08:28:36 ART