From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Oct 14 2007 - 07:14:51 ART
Very well said Gary.
Not to mention this list was probably started just due
to the fact, the test is often not passed on the first
attempt.
--- Gary Duncanson <gary.duncanson@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> There are bad practices but let's not be too quick
> to jump to conclusions
> about people.
>
> I can assure you my friend was not cynically taking
> slots away from others,
> he was as well prepared as anyone could be regularly
> working hard after
> hours to cover the syllabus while holding down a
> demanding job before
> passing on his fifth attempt in 2004. That's five
> labs spread out across
> three - four years of studying. Many of our CCIE's
> have failed the exam
> three or more times. That's common for many guys in
> fulltime work. It
> doesn't necessarily mean they are all taking labs
> for recon. Add to which we
> are all warned at the beginning of our studies how
> slippery the lab exam is
> and that many timeserved engineers have walked away
> from it shaking their
> heads (I think I read that statement in a book in
> 2000).
>
> One must be careful of stigmatising any CCIE who
> does not pass first time.
> It's unfair and will alienate most of the people on
> the list. I shall be
> taking my first attempt next year when I am fully
> prepared, at the same time
> I learn a good deal from the many CCIEs on the list
> and most of them are
> multiple attempt people.
>
> The field is a great leveler anyway. That is the
> true test of a network
> professional regardless of how many certifications
> they possess. If you
> 'fluff' your way through something as prestigous as
> the CCIE and then find
> yourself working alongside capable people and you
> are handed demanding
> technical requirements then sooner or later you will
> have a very bad day at
> the office.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com>
> To: "Guyler, Rik" <rguyler@shp-dayton.org>; "'Gary
> Duncanson'"
> <gary.duncanson@googlemail.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: Sunday, October 14, 2007 7:32 AM
> 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