From: Mohamed, Liban [NTK] (Liban.Mohamed@sprint.com)
Date: Sun Oct 14 2007 - 15:52:07 ART
Rik,
Do like I did, set up a proc-mail and filter his e-mail. people really
have too much time in their hands, take the damn test and go on with
your life, I can careless if someone took the test 10times or 20times,
that is their choice, I m not sure if this guy (nrf) ever, ever posted
TECHNICAL question or if he attempted the test, but this beast is no
JOKE, so I would suggest we all go back to reading/practicing.
Liban Mohamed
NTAC-IP
Sprint/Nextel
www.sprint.net
liban.mohamed@sprint.com
(W) 678-291-3438
(PCS) 404-441-9701
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Guyler, Rik
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 2:11 PM
To: 'Cisco certification'
Subject: RE: CCIE Lab Price Increase
Nrf, did you sign up on this list to stir things up like on the other
list
or did you actually pass the written and are preparing for the lab soon
as
the list requires?
-----Original Message-----
From: nrf [mailto:noglikirf@hotmail.com]
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