From: Ryan Morris (ryan@egate.net)
Date: Mon Oct 22 2007 - 17:05:54 ART
I agree 100% with this assessment. In my lab probably 70% of the
solutions jumped out at me. The others required some clarification
because (a) Hadn't read the question closely enough, and (b) I tried to
implement it the way I wanted and couldn't. In fact, I had the exact same
conversation with the proctor in my lab, but was lucky enough to find the
workaround spelled out in the DocCD while I was in the lab.
I found the actual lab to be more straightforward than the practice labs I
had been doing. General consensus is that the practice labs deliberately
leave out information to get you thinking harder about the different
options you may have, or decide on a best option given several that can
answer the question. The actual lab describes a problem to be solved and
gives you all the information you need to solve it. This may include
identifying features/functionality of your IOS, reading up on them in the
DocCD on the spot, and (as I almost found out the hard way) carefully
re-reading the question to see what is right there in front of you if you
read it word for word from top to bottom.
By that last point I mean read the entire question, and consider that
every sentence, bullet point, and even the heading could be telling you
what to do. Don't just read the bullets, you may miss something in the
paragraph. If it's not clear, read it again word for word, starting with
the heading, and compare what's written with the diagram and the router
config. Try to map a configuration requirement to every statement. This
is how the NMC workbooks worked, and it served me well in the lab.
I also find that if the answer isn't jumping out at you, moving on to
other things and coming back allows your mind to work in the background,
and when you come back to it you may see the same question ins totally new
light.
My feeling was that the actual lab contained everything I needed to
figure out the solution expected. I just needed to step back and not rush
through the reading of the question. If you think about it, it's not in
the best interests of the proctors to give you a lot of wiggle room on
solutions. It would make grading the test much more manual.
Good luck to all,
Ryan Morris
CCIE #18953
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Herbert Maosa 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 16 2007 - 13:11:17 ART