From: Darby Weaver (darbyweaver@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 08:32:54 ART
Exactly.
If the language of a given exam task exceeds one's
ability based on one's less than perfect knowledge of
the IOS in critical areas, then one can expect not to
fully appreciate the lab task in question and thus...
the candidate may have to repeat the lab again.
Yep, that sums it up.
And BTW - I'd say at least 50% of the questions on any
given exam are unmistakable and might even be so
unmistakable, that they may even be in the DOC CD and
the question and answer be word-for-word... So...
exactly what are we calling ambiguous...?
Of course, if one takes the time to find the
word-for-word solution that may or may not be in the
DOC CD, then one may not have time to properly
complete and verify the other 50% of the tasks... and
50% is still 30 points less than what is needed to
pass the lab...
Better work out as many issues as possible and as many
scenarios as possible prior to one's lab in the first
place.
--- Herbert Maosa <asawilunda@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well,
>
> I tend do differ a little bit regarding this so
> called ambiguities. From my
> experience, the wording is such that it eliminates
> certain ways of answering
> the question and drives you towards possibly the one
> single way they want
> you to do it. In my experience, it does seem to be
> ambiguous when you are at
> that point where they have eliminated all the ways
> that you know to answer
> the question and yet still expect you to answer it
> somehow. At the end of
> the day I personally am beginning to believe that
> the more intimate one gets
> with the technologies and and their intricancies the
> less ambiguous the exam
> seems to be. This is my experience of 2 unsuccessful
> attempts, the second
> one being really close and I have being wrestling
> with the idea of asking
> for a re-read until now that I have agreed with me,
> myself and I to just go
> back and pass it with no questions asked. But on my
> second attempt the exam
> was really clear to me, and for points that I missed
> I really know exactly
> why I missed them -
> Honestly speaking, the mentors are more than willing
> to clarify questions to
> you ( at least the mentors in SJ ) if you ask them
> wisely without making
> them feel like you are asking for a solution. So, if
> you find the exam
> questions not clear, you better ask them why you are
> doing the exam than
> wait for the score report and then complain on GS -
> usually a little bit too
> late.
>
> Without breaking the NDA, I had a question where I
> truly believed the IOS on
> my switch did not support the solution required. I
> went to the mentor and he
> confirmed that yes, the IOS version could not
> support MY solution, but he
> insisted that as an expert, FIND A WORK AROUND using
> the IOS provided.
>
> Well, guess what, I just found the work around :-)
> just a little bit too
> late ! And NO, I dont think this is even going to be
> in IEWB 12.0 :-)
>
>
> But that's besides the point.
>
> Hm.
> On 10/22/07, Felix Nkansah <felixnkansah@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been reading and hearing quite a lot these
> days about the real CCIE
> > lab using ambiguities to trick candidates or lead
> them down the wrong
> > paths.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, I think this is not fair
> or a good way of testing
> > technical skillsets and experience.
> >
> > However, given that the real lab is now a lab of
> ambiguities in wording,
> > does anyone have suggestions on how candidates
> preparing for the lab can
> > handle this 'problem' too.
> >
> > I know vendor workbooks help with the mastery of
> technologies, etc. But
> > what
> > would help to cope with the ambiguities? Not the
> proctors, I know.
> >
> > Perhaps a Masters degree in English Literature -
> :))
> >
> > Let me know your suggestions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Felix
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:17 ART