From: nrf (noglikirf@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Oct 20 2007 - 08:17:31 ART
----- Original Message -----
From: "istong" <istong@stong.org>
To: "'nrf'" <noglikirf@hotmail.com>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <security@groupstudy.com>;
<comserv@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 4:51 AM
Subject: RE: CCIE Lab Price Increase
> 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.
Actually, I think an even better solution would be for Cisco to simply
virtualize the whole process. Why can't Cisco build a very good IOS and
network 'emulator'? I can't imagine it would be THAT hard - after all, open
source programmers have successfully emulated the zSeries and VAX, and these
are far more complicated OS's than IOS is. Heck, just a few weeks after
its release, Iphone emulators had already been built by hackers.
Let's be honest. Would it really be that hard for Cisco to build an IOS
emulation package, and then create a small 'virtual network' that comprised
of 8-10 software 'objects' that were running this IOS, each object
representing a router or switch that currently is part of the CCIE exam such
that this virtual network is an exact simulation of the current test pod?
Yes, I know, each object would have to include the idiosyncracies that are
involved in each particular piece of Cisco hardware. But, again, is it
really that hard to do? You could create tens of thousands of instances of
these 'virtual networks', and then run your exams off those instances. You
wouldn't even really need that much computing hardware to it all, as each
instance isn't exactly doing a whole lot of work anyway, as even a fully
configured CCIE test pod isn't exactly doing all that much in terms of
packet processing or node interaction, and the way that you interact with
your test network is through the CLI, which means that your interaction is
by definition is throttled by how fast you can type and how fast you can
read text from the screen (which is glacially slow compared to modern
computing speeds).
Hence, I can see a situation where authorized test centers would provide you
with remote access to an "CCIE test network instance" and you would
configure your "network" henceforth. Yes, you probably wouldn't be able to
use all of the existing Sylvan test centers (as some of them are pretty
sketchy), but you could use some subset of them (call them "authorized" test
centers). Or, you could have a test setup in the local Cisco regional
sales headquarters. The upshot would be not only far greater availability
of test seats, so that you don't have to wait months and months to get the
seat you want (because somebody else who is taking the test for the 20th
time took the seat that you wanted), and also less travel, which I'm sure
would be really valuable to many of the foreigners who have to put up with
visa hassles and other time-wasting activities. It would also mean that
Cisco wouldn't have to put up with the expense of running all these test
pods all over the world. As for proctor access, I can see a situation where
you have an videoconference/web-conference (i.e. with Webex) session with a
proctor.
Now, I know that somebody is probably going to play the 'security card' and
object that such a situation might be compromised by security, i.e. people
stealing and selling exam questions and other shenanigans. But let's face
it. That happens now. I don't see how a new test setup, properly run, would
be any more insecure than the current situation (which isn't really that
secure).
Besides, think of it this way. Cisco is a NETWORKING company. I don't know
about anybody else, but I certainly find it highly ironic that a company
whose entire revenue stream is derived from selling gear that enables remote
access and telework would ITSELF require that people PHYSICALLY attend a
testing office in order to become certified on that very same gear that
enables such remote access. I know that Cisco has been heavily touting the
benefits of remote education and e-learning. Shouldn't Cisco be leveraging
those benefits for itself?
>
> 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).
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/comserv.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:17 ART