From: istong (istong@stong.org)
Date: Sun Oct 14 2007 - 05:51:59 ART
Bottom line in my opinion - Cisco needs to add more equipment/locations so
there is not such a backlog on available lab dates. People should be able to
take the lab to gain experience with it if they want to. Not to mention the
hands on lab is hard enough without having to stress about finding an
available date.
Plus at $1400 per exam it would be great revenue for them.
Just my thoughts,
Ian
www.ccie4u.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of nrf
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 2:32 AM
To: Guyler, Rik; 'Gary Duncanson'
Cc: Scott Morris; ccielab@groupstudy.com; Darby Weaver; Usankin, Andrew;
Rahmlow, Howard F.; sheherezada@gmail.com; Burkett, Michael; Brad Ellis;
cheffner@certified-labs.com; Brian Dennis; security@groupstudy.com;
comserv@groupstudy.com; Eric Dobyns
Subject: Re: CCIE Lab Price Increase
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guyler, Rik" <rguyler@shp-dayton.org>
To: "'Gary Duncanson'" <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>; "nrf"
<noglikirf@hotmail.com>
Cc: "Scott Morris" <smorris@ipexpert.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; "Darby
Weaver" <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>; "Usankin, Andrew"
<Andrew.Usankin@twtelecom.com>; "Rahmlow, Howard F."
<Howard.F.Rahmlow@unisys.com>; <sheherezada@gmail.com>; "Burkett, Michael"
<Michael.Burkett@c-a-m.com>; "Brad Ellis" <brad@ccbootcamp.com>;
<cheffner@certified-labs.com>; "Brian Dennis"
<bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>; <security@groupstudy.com>;
<comserv@groupstudy.com>; "Eric Dobyns" <eric_dobyns@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: CCIE Lab Price Increase
> Great story Gary and describes very closely what I went through during my
> first two attempts. In fact, I told my employer (who paid for both labs)
> that I wasn't ready for my first one and wanted to reschedule and my boss
> told me to just go take it for the experience. Let he who is without sin
> cast the first stone. Let he who is without lab experience STFU about how
> we should change the way we do lab business.
See, this is precisely what I'm talking about. You guys were taking away
spots from others.
Now, I can agree that if there are extra spots that nobody was using anyway,
then sure, by all means, use the seat for experience or for practice. Fine.
But, come on, if somebody else is out there who actually wanted to use it to
make a bonafide attempt at passing the exam, why shouldn't that seat go to
him? Why should you get it? He can't get the seat because some other
people just want to use that seat for practice? Is that fair?
Now, don't get me wrong. I am cetainly not blaming you. You didn't do
anything that was against the rules. The problem is with the RULES. Cisco
allows this to happen, hence Cisco is to blame.
>
> And about having more information not being a bad thing? I'll say it's
> almost always bad if it's being misunderstood and not put into the proper
> context. If I failed 5 times and HR or even most technical managers saw
> that, surely they would believe me to be less of an engineer than the
> person
> that passed first try. Because these people have no concept of the lab
> experience they cannot possibly put the pass/fail rate into proper
> context.
> I don't want any part of my lab scores in the hands of people like that.
> I
> trust most of you to understand what a fail means (nothing for the most
> part) but not them.
Labor markets are far smarter and flexibe than that. After all, like I
said previously, plenty of companies don't care if you have a terrible
college GPA, or even whether you went to college at all. That's information
right there that companies could use, but not all of them care to use it.
Furthermore, more importantly, you seem concerned about what information
regarding test attempts might be signalling, but we also have to consider
what the LACK of information is currently signalling. For example, you talk
about some companies that might discriminate against a CCIE if they knew
that the CCIE failed 5 times. Ok, sure. But at the same time, those same
companies are probably discriminating against ALL CCIE's RIGHT NOW. Why?
Because right now, they don't know how many times any particular CCIE
failed. He might have passed on the first time. He might have failed 20
times. The company doesn't know. Hence, the "safe" thing for the company
to do is to discriminate against ALL CCIE's by just not relying on the
certification at all for hiring. For example, the company might simply
decide that they will never hire any IT people through public job postings,
but instead only hire through referrals from current employees (I think that
something like 90+% of all hiring is done this way).
The upshot is that those companies who would choose to discriminate against
perpetual CCIE test takers are the same companies who, right now, probably
don't have confidence in the CCIE. Economists would deem this to be a
market failure due to incomplete information. When faced with incomplete
information, many market actors will simply choose not to transact at all,
and markets therefore break down entirely.
What that means is that the guy who failed 5 times and now can't get a job
from some company (because the company prefers 1st-time passers) were,
frankly, not going to get a job with that company anyway (again, because
that company was probably previously hiring through referrals because it
didn't know what kind of CCIE it was getting, so it instead chose not to
transact through that market at all).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:14 ART