From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Oct 12 2007 - 01:03:09 ART
Let's just cut the number to if you at first you fail,
then in your coffin we hammer the nail...
One shot pass or fail.
That ought to do it.
Little or no chance of exams leaks and you only get
one shot at the title.
And there would be seats - BTW - If you are a no-show,
it is considered a fail and that's it (short of if you
like died in transit or something...).
Now that means only about 18000 x.03 = 540 CCIE's but
hey, why in the world would anyone in the world need
540 living and breathing CCIE's anyway...
Tell you what: the stock on those 540 CCIE's would be
worth their weight in Cisco Partner Gold.
Truth is, if Cisco wanted to put a limit on the number
of attempts, they would have done so by now.
They could cap it at 3 or 4 depending on the average -
figuring if you cannot pass past the average number of
attempts, maybe a CCNP is what you should be and
that's it, or let you go try the JNCIE instead maybe.
Man you know it is getting late...
Later
This is really a useless thread. Keeps one's eyes
from going blind on the CLI.
Anyone else missing work... and going crazy?
--- nrf <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, at least we can agree that X should be no less
> than 20. Actually, I
> believe that we can say that X should be no less
> than 10. After all, does
> anybody truly believe that it's perfectly fine to
> fail the test 10 times?
>
> Hence, if nothing else, we can at least set the X
> threshold to be 20 (or
> 10). I think there would be little argument about
> that. Hence, if nothing
> else, it's still an improvement over what we have
> today (which is no
> threshold at all).
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Usankin, Andrew"
> <Andrew.Usankin@twtelecom.com>
> To: "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com>; "Rahmlow, Howard
> F."
> <Howard.F.Rahmlow@unisys.com>;
> <sheherezada@gmail.com>; "Scott Morris"
> <smorris@ipexpert.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 9:04 PM
> Subject: RE: CCIE Lab Price Increase
>
>
>
> Well, couldn't agree more. 20 attempts is probably
> out of range :) But
> as you said before here comes the question - how
> many is OK?
> Actually I don't mind at all if my scores and
> attempts are available to
> general public, and from the other hand I'd
> understand other people who
> doesn't want publicity. In my opinion, lack of
> information leads to
> speculation. But that is a different discussion.
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nrf [mailto:noglikirf@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:34 PM
> To: Usankin, Andrew; Rahmlow, Howard F.;
> sheherezada@gmail.com; Scott
> Morris
> 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: "Usankin, Andrew"
> <Andrew.Usankin@twtelecom.com>
> To: "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com>; "Rahmlow, Howard
> F."
> <Howard.F.Rahmlow@unisys.com>;
> <sheherezada@gmail.com>; "Scott Morris"
> <smorris@ipexpert.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 7:52 PM
> Subject: RE: CCIE Lab Price Increase
>
>
>
> >I read somewhere, sorry if I mess it up, but I
> liked the following
> >phrase:
> >"when a class of medical students graduate even a
> last one is called a
> >doctor"
>
> And of course the rejoinder to that (with apologies
> to those who have
> heard me say it before) is that if you graduate last
> in your med school
> class, you probably won't pass your required USMLE's
> to get your medical
> license and hence you won't be allowed to legally
> practice medicine,
> which is the whole point in becoming a doctor in the
> first place. In
> contrast, anybody can legally 'practice' IT (and I
> think I have met some
> network guys who need to 'practice' their skills a
> whole lot more before
> they should ever be allowed anywhere near a router).
>
> >So would you have to choose between two CCIE's then
> yes, that would be
> >cool to know how many attempts it took from each
> one to pass the lab.
> >But that is not the case in reality. Nobody usually
> gets to choose
> >between two CCIE :) unless you have a very
> attractive offer to show!
>
> I don't know about that. I have known of companies
> that have had
> numerous CCIE's applying, and the offers they were
> providing were really
> not that good.
>
> >Besides, it doesn't matter to me if it will take 15
> attempts from Jeff
> >Brunner before he gets his number. At the end of
> the day all that
> >matters is your CCIE number and amount of
> experience you have. And
> >don't be surprised if at some places nobody would
> care if you have CCIE
>
> >or not and all they look for is your experience.
>
> Well, let me put it to you this way. What if you
> looked up guy who had
> his CCIE and found out that he failed 20 times
> before he finally passed?
> I don't know about you, but I would certainly begin
> to question this
> guy's
> professionalism. If nothing else, that signal
> would tell me that this
> is a
> guy who evidently doesn't believe in proper
> preparation. Would you
> really want a guy like that on your team? I would
> have my qualms.
> After all, he might show up to work on a project
> without being properly
> prepared.
>
> Look, failing a few times is probably no big deal.
> But after a certain
> number of failures, I think we can agree that things
> are just getting
> out of hand. We can debate what that exact number
> would be, but I think
> we can all agree that 20 (or even 10) is probably
> too much.
>
>
>
> The content contained in this electronic message is
> not intended to
> constitute formation of a contract binding TWTC.
> TWTC will be
> contractually bound only upon execution, by an
> authorized officer, of
> a contract including agreed terms and conditions or
> by express
> application of its tariffs.
>
> This message is intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity
> to which it is addressed. If the reader of this
> message is not the
> intended recipient, or the employee or agent
> responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient,
> you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this
> message is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this
> communication in error, please notify us immediately
> by replying to
> the sender of this E-Mail or by telephone.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:14 ART