From: nrf (noglikirf@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2008 - 08:01:20 ART
>NRF,
>If you go to a school and get expelled what stops you from applying and
getting admited again and again.
Oh, I don't know, the school records perhaps? After all, if you apply again,
you are going to have to provide the school with identifying information about
yourself with which they can easily cross-check to see whether you had in fact
been a student at that school before. Heck, even if they don't do that and do
admit you, then when you enroll, they will find out (usually through one's
SSN) that you have a prior student record at that school, and that's when the
jig is up.
>It happens.
Really? See above. Every single school has, as a matter of law, a database
archive of the academic records of their prior students.
>Give it a break.
>Any CCIE can pass a class - mostly any class.
But that's not the point, for that's not what I'm talking about. I said it
before, and I'll say it again: the greatest weakness of the CCIE program is
that you can just keep attempting the lab again and again until you finally
pass. There is absolutely no penalty for previous failed attempts; heck,
employers don't even KNOW how many times you failed before you finally passed.
Hence, there is no reason why somebody couldn't just try the exam over and
over again.
Contrast that with what happens at any reputable school. You can't just fail
your classes over and over again and expect to stay. Eventually, they are
going to kick you out. And no, as I explained above, you can't just reapply
and get back in.
>I went to one of the three toughest schools by statistics in the country.
The Navy Nuclear Propulsion >program. Now let me tell you there is induced
stress there. It's a tough school. One must have aptitude to >attend (better
than 90th percentile as I recall). One must further have a clean record and
the ability to >obtain one or more security clearances. A little tougher than
just having a rich daddy.
snip
>Failed tests and sometimes even wrong answers on tests require an interview
with subject department >heads to review student notes, the teacher's notes to
verify the materials were taught and recorded by the >student, and the
student's study logs. They may then be given remedial homework. Failing scores
in the >school can result in charges of "dereliction of duty" under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, depending >on whether or not the student was
determined to be lacking effort, or lacking the ability to complete te
>program.
snip
>The only school with a higher dropout rate is MIT and the preceeding course
to it the nuclear field "a" school. This can be stressful
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Nuclear_Power_School
>It is regarded as one of the most difficult academic programs in the world.
Exactly exactly exactly. You have actually reinforced my precise point. The
Navy Nuclear Propulsion School is significantly harder than the CCIE.
Significantly harder. Why? Simple - there are actual penalties for failing.
>So tell me again how hard programs are nrf. I have been there, endured, and
am here now studying for the >ccie.
And it seems that you agree with me that there is a big difference between a
legitimately hard program like the nuclear power school and the CCIE.
>There is a subtle difference the ccie is voluntary and parents do not pay for
it and the military will not arrest >you or mess up your whole life over it.
Uh, I would hardly call that a "subtle" difference: in fact, that is as big
of a difference as they come. There are actual penalties for performing
poorly in the nuclear power school. Not so with the CCIE.
>So I can compare the CCIE Program to that of one of the most rigorous
programs in the world today and >for the past 50 years and not be ashamed to
do so.
>I've considered the legal and medical professions and they are not as
attractive to me. I'm a life-long >learner by design. The CCIE program and
beyond offer that "rush" to me. You speak of stress. Qualify >for me what
you call stress.
Well, stress would be a situation, as you described, where there are serious
penalties for failing. I said it before, I'll say it again, what exactly are
the penalties for failing the CCIE? Basically, you just lose a lab fee and a
day of your time. Honestly, so what? Many people actually budget those
factors into the total cost of becoming a CCIE.
Look people. I hardly see why this is such a controversial point. I am
simply pointing out that Cisco allows people to take the exam over and over
again, and as a result, many people do exactly that in lieu of actual proper
preparation. This is especially true for those people who happen to work for
employers (i.e. VAR's) who are located near to test centers who are willing to
pay for their employee's numerous test attempts. Heck, I used to work for a
Silicon Valley VAR that would routinely pay to send their employees to take
the CCIE exam over and over again, figuring that eventually, they'll all pass.
{To be sure, that VAR eventually went out of business, and maybe that's not a
coincidence.}
Besides, for those who would continue to debate this point, let me ask you -
why do you continue to defend the practice of allowing people to take the exam
over and over again as many times as they want? Why exactly is that a good
thing? I can think of several reasons for why it's a bad practice, which I
enumerate here:
* It compromises the integrity of the exam, and by extension, the
certification itself. Like I said, if you keep taking the exam over and over
again, then eventually you're going to see questions that you saw before.
Either that, or you're eventually going to get the specific version of the
exam that has those very questions regarding topics that you know how to
answer and no questions regarding topics that you don't know how to answer.
Either way, the constant "do-overs" ultimately results in a lower quality of
CCIE.
*It discourages people from studying properly. After all, it is only natural
for people who know that if they can just repeat the exam, then they don't
really need to prepare properly for each attempt, and in fact, can use each
attempt as "practice". Contrast the CCIE process with what happened when
we all were in grade school. You couldn't just keep taking the same test over
and over again until you got the grade that you wanted. Your teacher was
going to give you the test ONCE, and your grade was your grade. If you didn't
prepare properly, then you got a bad grade, and that's too bad for you.
Hence, it behooved you to put in the proper preparation. Or think about it
from a sports standpoint. The New England Patriots can't just keep demanding
to replay the NY Giants in the Superbowl over and over again until they
finally won. They play a one-shot game, and if they lost, then they lost.
Which means that the Patriots should have prepared better. If the Patriots
knew they could just keep replaying the Superbowl until they finally win, then
what exactly is the incentive to put in the proper preparation?
*It clogs up the system. As I think many of us know, availability of test
seats is still a problem, especially in some of the smaller test sites. Yet
that's because many of those seats are taken up by people who haven't bothered
to prepare properly and are just using their attempt for "practice" and/or are
otherwise just taking the exam over and over again until they finally pass.
These people are denying seats from others who did properly prepare.
Now, look. I'd like to think I'm a reasonable guy. I am not demanding that
everybody needs to pass the exam on their first shot, or even their first few
shots. What I am saying is that I think there should be reasonable policies
to discourage people from taking the exam over and over. For example, perhaps
there should be a yearly limit, i.e. every person can take the exam 3 times in
one year. Or perhaps a lifetime limit of, say, 10-15 total attempts. Or
maybe the price for each additional lab attempt should increase the more times
you fail. Or maybe lab seat priority should be allotted in a manner of
'weighted fair queueing', where first-time test-takers get highest priority
for seating, and those who failed the exam numerous times get the lowest
priority. I think any or all of these proposals are quite reasonable. For
example, if you can't pass the exam after 10 or 15 attempts, I think it's
reasonable to assume that you never will and you ought to let somebody else
have your seat. Another proposal would be to simply publish how many attempts
a person required before he actually passed.
But for those who would continue to debate this point, please, by all means,
tell us why a policy of unlimited attempts is a good thing. I would be very
interested in hearing such an argument because I certainly can't think of any
good reasons for why it would be so.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2008 - 06:59:15 ART