From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Oct 12 2007 - 00:51:19 ART
NRF,
It sounds like you are saying that a person who
schedules a lab, pas for it, and shows up is wasting a
seat?
I'm not sure I buy it.
You see I went to the lab 3 times and some times it
was hard to find a seat earlier or even later or even
on my own sceheduled date for that matter.
Now the truth is, if there are no-show's, these are
the people wasting the dates.
Not the people who pass.
Not the people who fail.
The people who book the date, but never pay and never
show.
So...
Look elsewhere to blame someone for the seating
arrangements.
And I'm sure there are a ton of reasons for this:
1. Financial
2. Work-related
3. Cold Feet
4. Something else maybe?
So - why not ask those folks who know they are not
going to show for the exam to reschedule more than 30
days out.
I got a suspicion that if a person books and does not
pay the lab within the 30 day mark, the lab seat is
still waiting... (now maybe that no-show can't book
for some period, but nevertheless the seat may still
be "booked").
Else why out of 15 seats would only 4 or 6 be
available for testing - and no slots open immediately
prior? Hmmm....
Why do I think this...
Cause at one lab, I overheard Melanie (I believe) come
down and talk to a guy about his payment which was
due...
Maybe there was something else, but I recall the
incident and it left me with that notion in my mind...
--- Scott Morris <smorris@ipexpert.com> wrote:
> Heheheh..... Ok, so there are more prestigious jobs
> for those who pass on
> the first try, but look at the track record prior to
> that point in their
> lives! I'd be willing to bet that passing the bar
> on the first try is not
> the first major milestone those individuals have
> accomplished.
>
> And to that same end, the difficulty of the test and
> the other factors
> leading up to that have already established the bar
> (pun intended) at an
> exceptionally high level. So work on the
> content/format of the exam.
>
> Changing the price of the bar exam wouldn't
> drastically change who tried or
> how often they tried.
>
> It's nice to compare the CCIE to these other
> milestone accomplishments, but
> at the same time though, the things you are talking
> about changing is not
> going to solve the perceived problem.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nrf [mailto:noglikirf@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:06 PM
> To: Scott Morris; 'Rahmlow, Howard F.';
> sheherezada@gmail.com
> Cc: 'Burkett, Michael'; 'Brad Ellis'; 'Christopher
> M. Heffner'; 'Eric
> Dobyns'; 'Brian Dennis'; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
> security@groupstudy.com;
> comserv@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: CCIE Lab Price Increase
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott Morris" <smorris@ipexpert.com>
> To: "'nrf'" <noglikirf@hotmail.com>; "'Rahmlow,
> Howard F.'"
> <Howard.F.Rahmlow@unisys.com>;
> <sheherezada@gmail.com>
> Cc: "'Burkett, Michael'"
> <Michael.Burkett@c-a-m.com>; "'Brad Ellis'"
> <brad@ccbootcamp.com>; "'Christopher M. Heffner'"
> <cheffner@certified-labs.com>; "'Eric Dobyns'"
> <eric_dobyns@yahoo.com>;
> "'Brian Dennis'" <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>;
> <security@groupstudy.com>; <comserv@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:46 PM
> Subject: RE: CCIE Lab Price Increase
>
>
> > Would that logic not also increase the potential
> for people to want to
> > find some way to shortcut the exam and pass on the
> first try?
>
> I'm not sure that I understand this question. What
> do you mean by 'shortcut
> the exam'?
>
> As to what I think your point is, I would ask, what
> is bad about a system
> that encourages people to try to pass on their first
> attempt? I would say
> that that's a GOOD thing, as it encourages better
> preparation. After all,
> most newly hired lawyers who are hired right out of
> law schools by major law
> firms or prestigious judicial clerkships are
> strongly encouraged (heck,
> they're expected) to pass the Bar exam on their
> first try, which would
> generally be the July right after they graduate. If
> they don't pass in
> July, they have to wait until the next February when
> the bar is held again,
> and they can't practice law during the interim
> period. {They can perform
> other advisory work or client building during that
> time, but they can't
> perform any actual licensed attorney's work.}
>
> Like I've been saying, right now, many people are
> taking the test without
> properly preparing themselves, figuring that they
> will use their attempt as
> a 'practice run' and will return for their "real"
> attempt sometime later.
> I don't think too many people take the Bar, USMLE,
> or CFA as a 'practice
> run', because the stakes of failure are so high.
>
> What makes the issue even more acute than, say, the
> Bar, is the shortage of
> CCIE seats. If you take the Bar and fail, the only
> person you're hurting
> is you. Nobody else is affected. But when you take
> and fail the CCIE,
> you've basically taken away a seat from somebody
> else who might have passed.
>
> So when you fail, not only are you hurting yourself,
> but more importantly,
> you're hurting others. You're imposing a cost on
> everybody else.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:14 ART