From: Jesse Loggins \(CCIE#14661\) (jlogginsccie@san.rr.com)
Date: Tue Nov 13 2007 - 22:05:26 ART
Wow this thread is still going? I responed to the original writer, almost
started a war, went and passed another CCIE and it's still alive. There has
to be a GS record for longest running thread. Not realy I just wrote to say
I joined the ranks of CCIE's with more than one, in the middle starting all
of this controversy. Now on to the next one hmm ..... I'm thinking security
based on my experience.
Jesse Loggins
CCIE#14661 (R&S, Service Provider)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Riling" <criling@gmail.com>
To: "Carpenter, Michael" <Michael.Carpenter@nationalcity.com>
Cc: <smorris@ipexpert.com>; "Scott Vermillion" <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>;
"Dennis Dumont" <dfdumont@yahoo.com>; "Adato, Leon"
<Leon.Adato@nationalcity.com>; "William Nellis" <nellis_iv@yahoo.com>;
"darth router" <darklordrouter@gmail.com>; <M_A_Jones@dell.com>;
<cisconuts@hotmail.com>; <joe@affirmedsystems.com>;
<pauld@marshallcomm.com>; <jlogginsccie@san.rr.com>; <tom.nohwa@gmail.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>; "Marci Carpenter" <marcarpe@cisco.com>;
"Leon_home" <leon@adatofamily.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise, Swiss
> Nice!
>
> On 11/12/07, Carpenter, Michael <Michael.Carpenter@nationalcity.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> really happened example: College of Ohio Works First Electronic Center
>> for
>> Educational Services
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Scott Morris [mailto:smorris@ipexpert.com]
>> Sent: Mon 11/12/2007 2:43 PM
>> To: 'Scott Vermillion'; 'Dennis Dumont'; Adato, Leon; 'William Nellis';
>> 'darth
>> router'; M_A_Jones@dell.com
>> Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>> pauld@marshallcomm.com
>> ;
>> jlogginsccie@san.rr.com; tom.nohwa@gmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
>> 'Marci
>> Carpenter'; Carpenter, Michael; 'Leon_home'
>> Subject: RE: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise, Swiss
>>
>>
>>
>> hehehe... Very true. I remember a few years back a buddy of mine wanted
>> to
>> start a user's group in northern CA and thought that Bay Area Routing
>> Freaks
>> sounded cool until I burst out laughing and told him that the acronym
>> would
>> scare people away...
>>
>> :)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Vermillion [mailto:scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:19 PM
>> To: smorris@ipexpert.com; 'Dennis Dumont'; 'Adato, Leon'; 'William
>> Nellis';
>> 'darth router'; M_A_Jones@dell.com
>> Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>> pauld@marshallcomm.com
>> ;
>> jlogginsccie@san.rr.com; tom.nohwa@gmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
>> 'Marci
>> Carpenter'; 'Carpenter, Michael'; 'Leon_home'
>> Subject: RE: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise, Swiss
>>
>>
>> >Any ideas for names, by the way? I think that Networkers Anonymous
>> >wouldn't give the right connotation. ;)
>>
>> Especially since that would acronym to "NA" (as in "Not Applicable")...
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis Dumont [mailto:dfdumont@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 12:38 PM
>> To: Adato, Leon; William Nellis; Scott Vermillion; swm@emanon.com; darth
>> router; M_A_Jones@dell.com
>> Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>> pauld@marshallcomm.com
>> ;
>> jlogginsccie@san.rr.com; tom.nohwa@gmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
>> Marci
>> Carpenter; Carpenter, Michael; Leon_home
>> Subject: RE: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise, Swiss
>>
>> Let me expand on the idea of a guild a bit for clarity.
>>
>> An apprentice is anyone who has completed some form of training. This
>> could
>> be as simple as a completed series at someone like an ITT Tech Institute,
>> or
>> a BS in computer science. This gets you membership into the 'club' you
>> would only need to submit you 'credentials' and get assigned to a local
>> 'journeyman'
>> for subsequent training and experience. In the best of all possible
>> worlds
>> that person would be at your current employer but that assumes a high
>> level
>> of penetration - and I won't make that assumption. No fez, and no back
>> rooms filled with cigar smoke - just fill out the paper work and you get
>> your 'card' back in the mail with a letter to contact your local
>> Journeyman.
>> And She/he also gets one letting her/him know you exist. After that its
>> between the two of you.
>>
>> Journeyman is a second submission of credentials, and I'd consider all
>> current numbered CCIE's to already be in this position. I'd likely also
>> include a few other industry certs that have similar scope and
>> recognition
>> within their respective disciplines. I'm thinking of things like the
>> Master
>> Oracle certification, or the Redhat Certified Architect. Note this WOULD
>> NOT BE SPECIFIC TO NETWORKING!!! An advanced (and preferably
>> practical) vendor certification would be valid for entry into this level.
>> It would also allow you to take on Apprentices and part of your CONTINUED
>> CERTIFICATION would be dependent upon your working with Apprentices, and
>> THEIR SUCCESS. After all you don't have to be a good teacher for someone
>> to
>> learn from you. However the converse is also true - if you know nothing
>> no
>> one can learn anything from you either. This keeps the tie to industry
>> certification for recognition (of the Journeyman level) and also begins
>> the
>> split into various Disciplines. A Journeyman would be encouraged to
>> pursue
>> multiple disciplines.
>>
>> As for Master, I really think their are only a very few people who have
>> demonstrated significant contribution to the art to qualify. Furthermore
>> I
>> think you have to also demonstrate significant contribution to the art to
>> gain entrance. No one can deny the contributions of people like Scott
>> Morris(Nearly everything Networking), Linus Torvalds
>> (Linux) or Larry Wall (Perl). It would be the first task to get these
>> people and others like them not only to promulgate the idea, but also to
>> sit
>> on the board to review submissions (for Masters).
>>
>> For Master class I'm specifically proposing a submission process similar
>> to
>> what the people at OpenGroup (http://www.opengroup.org/itac/) are trying
>> to
>> do - but with a purely technical focus. It would entail an actual
>> project
>> (including ALL DOCUMENTATION) wherein it could be demonstrated that a
>> NOVEL
>> APPROACH or a NEW TECHNOLOGY had been applied or created.
>> These would then feed into the training material for other levels.
>>
>> This approach solves the issue of technology innovating us into oblivion,
>> as
>> this feedback loop keeps everyone moving forward. It also solves the
>> issue
>> of what makes a 'master' by using the same process used for granting a
>> PhD.
>> You must innovate.
>> The guild then becomes one of the bodies moving the art forward, rather
>> then
>> trying to keep up. Also similar to a PhD, the Master classification
>> would
>> be in a particular discipline, say Database, Programming, Networking,
>> System
>> Mgmt, etc.
>> There is also the possibility of Intellectual Property rights. In this I
>> can see under certain circumstances that the guild would own (the IP of)
>> the
>> submission and would have the right to not only disseminate the IP to its
>> members, but also gain financial backing for its licensing. After all we
>> have to figure out how to PAY for such an organization and I'm not very
>> fond
>> of fees - although I think for a while it would have to be that.
>>
>> I hope that helps clarify my idea. Feel free to tear this one apart - or
>> chime in support. I really do think we need something to pull us out of
>> the
>> mess we are in now. There is no way to determine right now a good IT
>> person
>> from a mediocre one - and mediocrity is what keeps our salaries low and
>> removes us from consideration for higher positions. After all this a
>> free
>> market and the supply (of bodies with some
>> certification) is high compared with demand. That is why CCIE's in
>> Cleveland,OH can bank on about 80K/yr from a large employer - at best. I
>> don't want to be in that realm any longer. I want my kids to think, "If
>> I
>> want to make some REAL money I can become a Lawyer, a Doctor or a IT
>> Master."
>>
>> Yeah I'm dreaming but then isn't that the point? See the goal and move
>> toward it - don't complain about not being there yet.
>>
>> Another $0.02
>>
>> Dennis Dumont
>>
>> --- "Adato, Leon" <Leon.Adato@nationalcity.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry for the late reply, but just a counterpoint to Scott and
>> > William's
>> > thoughts:
>> >
>> > What Dennis *might* be suggesting is the beginning of the evolutionary
>> > process that gives us today's AMA (American Medical Association).
>> >
>> > One of the challenges I find with the "50 or so"
>> > organizations is that
>> > they are largely vendor-based. CCIE does not apply to Nortel. MCSE
>> > does not apply to Novel. RedHat certification does not indicate AIX
>> > expertise. It may imply a level of conceptual familiarity, or even
>> > experience based on the likelyhood of cross-platform environments. But
>> > an Ophthalmologist is not licensed only for Alcon brand techniques or
>> > procedures. And taking it further, even if you go to a plastic
>> > surgeon, you can safely assume that they can start an IV, perform an
>> > emergency tracheotomy, give CPR, etc. Even if you wouldn't trust a
>> > cardiologist to do factial reconstructive surgery, you know they
>> > understand the fundamentals.
>> >
>> > So what I'm talking about is a vendor-agnostic organization that goes
>> > beyond the "clubs" that I see out there today (dba associations and
>> > the like). This group would set the curriculum for the training
>> > organizations. It might even administer centralized standard testing
>> > that would be distributed or hosted by local training org's.
>> >
>> > Speaking to the guild metaphor (and it's only a metaphor), I don't see
>> > it as a question of good ol' boys in fez's with secret handshakes as
>> > much as a more formalized process of ownership and mentorship.
>> > Studying under an IT mentor would give the mentor an extra set of
>> > hands for certain tasks, and it would provide the apprentice with name
>> > association and the chance to experience environments they might not
>> > have access to on their own merits.
>> >
>> > I am, of course, extrapolating a lot of political what-if's to
>> > continue to overlay the medical metaphore onto IT, but I see it not
>> > only as possible but also beneficial.
>> >
>> > Stepping back from my (typical, for those on this list who don't know
>> > me) naieve rosey-sunglasses outlook, I would submit the following
>> > observations based on 17 years of involvement in IT:
>> >
>> >
>> > 1) no automated test can accurately weed out "paper tigers".
>> > 1a) practical tests such as in the CCIE do a better job, but it's
>> > still possible to "fake it"
>> > 2) prolonged interaction - both with an individual and watching that
>> > individual work in real situations - rarely will fail to separate
>> > those who actually know a topic from those who do not.
>> >
>> > Presuming those 2 (ok, 2.5) items to be true, it suggests that direct
>> > observation over time is the best way to "certify"
>> > what someone actually
>> > knows. The challenge in IT is that the only time this happens is when
>> > someone has been hired for a job. And the problem there includes 2
>> > realities:
>> > 1) when a person is deemed not-knowledgeable, companies are limited in
>> > what they can tell the NEXT employer
>> > 2) at higher levels (CCIE, for example), the person being hired is
>> > often supposed to be the best expert, so by definition there is
>> > frequently no peer-level employee to accurately identify what this
>> > person does or does not know.
>> >
>> > The apprentice - journeyman - master (or some modern
>> > equivalent) would
>> > mitigate that, and might even boost IT workers value in the eyes of
>> > employers and businesses. Having a master craftsman on your staff may
>> > mean something to customers and investors.
>> >
>> > Leon Adato
>> > ==============
>> > "Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so"
>> > - Galileo
>> > Reply to: adatole@yahoo.com
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: William Nellis [mailto:nellis_iv@yahoo.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:22 AM
>> > To: Dennis Dumont; Scott Vermillion; swm@emanon.com; darth router;
>> > M_A_Jones@dell.com
>> > Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>> > pauld@marshallcomm.com; jlogginsccie@san.rr.com; tom.nohwa@gmail.com;
>> > ccielab@groupstudy.com; Adato, Leon; Marci Carpenter; Carpenter,
>> > Michael
>> > Subject: Re: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise,
>> > Swiss
>> >
>> > The way you keep less than qualified people from taking your position
>> > or the sale, is by demonstrating your value day in and day out. Not by
>> > creating an exclusive club. The best thing we could do is, not form an
>> > "industry guild" (actually, on that note, there is probably only about
>> > 50 of them already... which means none of them hold any merit)... So
>> > industry certifications are supposed to give some ability at this.
>> > Given, they are not perfect, the CCIE is challenging enough to move
>> > beyond rote memorization, and it is also unbiased.
>> > Even if it is not
>> > perfect, having this unbiased system is better than having a bunch of
>> > guys sitting with elk hats making subjective votes on who can join the
>> > union. How do you measure that? How do you offer a business case for
>> > value based on subjective matters? If the unbiased system isn't
>> > working, lets improve that instead. I'm of the opinion, that while it
>> > aint perfect... it does weed out allot of people.
>> >
>> >
>> > I honestly dont have the answer to all these questions, one of the
>> > main problems is IT is a constantly sliding window. It develops at a
>> > pace in which whatever standards you set now will need to be
>> > reevaluated every
>> > 24-36 months for relevance. Another problem is there is a constantly
>> > short demand for talent. There is ample "people", but the companies
>> > need talent. I think there are allot of people in Ops and Tier 1/2
>> > positions that want to move around and develop but are challenged
>> > because there are lots of other people there, while companies are
>> > looking for tier3/4 type people to work on their ever increasing
>> > networks... (for sake of simplicity I put all people in 4 tiers for
>> > this
>> > discussion)
>> >
>> > AND, the Tier 3/4 people today that don't stay abreast of the moving
>> > targets lose value over time. Tech is rough man, you got to work just
>> > to stay afloat. These networks aren't getting any easier, and it seems
>> > the more companies rely on them for increasingly mission critical
>> > reasources, it keeps getting hairier.
>> >
>> > So, when interviewing people, your not looking just for someone to do
>> > the job today. That isn't as bad, but also looking for people that can
>> > understand new technology and advances As they are being written and
>> > coming out, and be able to grow with them and design for them. So your
>> > looking for someone with promise, someone you can invest in and get
>> > ROI out of. Someone with critical thinking, experience to some degree,
>> > and probably a Cert to get their foots in the door.
>> >
>> > I don't think the "bashing" of these so called Paper CCIE's is the
>> > same as the bashing we used to do of paper MCSE. it's a whole other
>> > level, and given, they may not be the BEST of the BEST in every
>> > permutation, and you can pick them apart, they have reached a
>> > milestone in their education that, like it or not, makes them an
>> > asset.
>> > Not for every
>> > opportunity or every organization, but an asset none the less.
>> > Because, at the least, you can ensure they have some semblance of
>> > problem solving capabilities, or that they worked extra hard to get
>> > it. So, like it or not, the reason CCIE is the most respected cert, is
>> > because it is the best the industry has.
>> >
>> > CCIE = Aptitude + effort. So, you can say some people don't have as
>> > much aptitude, but in that instance, it means they had to exert more
>> > effort.
>> >
>> > And another reason to stop the "Paper CCIE" stuff already, it's a
>> > plaque, darn it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> > r/s
>> > William Nellis IV
>> > nellis_iv@yahoo.com
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> > From: Dennis Dumont <dfdumont@yahoo.com>
>> > To: Scott Vermillion <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>; swm@emanon.com;
>> > darth router <darklordrouter@gmail.com>; M_A_Jones@dell.com
>> > Cc: cisconuts@hotmail.com; joe@affirmedsystems.com;
>> > pauld@marshallcomm.com; jlogginsccie@san.rr.com; tom.nohwa@gmail.com;
>> > ccielab@groupstudy.com; Leon Adato <leon.adato@nationalcity.com>;
>> > Marci Carpenter <marcarpe@cisco.com>; Michael Carpenter
>> > <michael.carpenter@nationalcity.com>
>> > Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2007 5:17:20 PM
>> > Subject: RE: CCIE Important Interview Quesition asked by Sunrise,
>> > Swiss
>> >
>> > Back when I was a hiring mgr, I had a few questions I asked that had
>> > multiple right answers. Case in point, "You have just typed, 'deb ip
>> > pack det' in your session, but nothing shows up.
>> > What's wrong and how
>> > do you fix it?"
>> > Yeah there's LOTS of answers to this one, but I was looking for the
>> > thought process, not the actual answer.
>> > I don't see how 'lifting' router or fixing it still attached to the
>> > rack applies, but I'll say this - I concur wholeheartedly with the
>> > other comments in this thread around 'paper' CCIE's. I thought I'd
>> > never admit such a thing existed, except I've interviewed too many of
>> > them.
>> > They couldn't design there way out of a wet paper bag, and probably
>> > couldn't troubleshoot an inverted 60-pin serial cable.
>> >
>> > I think this points to an even more pervasive problem in the IT
>> > industry
>> > - lack of governance, or more correctly of an admission process to the
>> > industry.
>> > Just because I can cram a Transcender or TestKing test puke, doesn't
>> > mean I know anything about the technology. Quite frankly all
>> > certifications EXCEPT the CCIE Practical exam are fundamentally flawed
>> > by being a multiple-choice questionnaire. The correct answer appears
>> > in the test question simply for the person to select - but I digress
>> >
>> > I said this before on other forums, but I think WE need to decide what
>> > to do with OUR industry. I think we need a guild, or some form of
>> > regulatory body, like what Lawyers, Doctors and even CPA's go through
>> > to ENTER their respective professions. We need people like Scott
>> > Morris, Linus Torvalds, et. al. to be on the Board and to delineate
>> > how the rest of (that haven't already proven our worth through years
>> > of
>> > contributions) get into the Guild. I think a system that follows the
>> > Apprentice, Journeyman, Master kind of hierarchy would work well and
>> > has significant recent and historical validity.
>> >
>> > What do YOU think? How do we either prevent less-than-qualified
>> > people from taking our positions (or our sale), and/or how do we
>> > validate that we as a person know what we are talking about and can be
>> > trusted?
>> >
>> > Just my $0.02
>> > Dennis Dumont
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com/>
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
>> > protection around
>> > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com/>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------
>> > ***National City made the following annotations
>> >
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------
>> > This communication is a confidential and proprietary
>> > business communication.
>> > It is intended solely for the use of the designated
>> > recipient(s). If this
>> > communication is received in error, please contact
>> > the sender and delete
>> > this communication.
>> >
>>
>> ============================================================================
>> ===============
>> >
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date:
> 11/13/2007 11:09 AM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:29 ART