From: Mike Johnson (harbor235@gmail.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2008 - 10:32:12 ART
The failure in your logic is that you are comparing a regular class exam
with a CCIE exam. At least on a regular
exam you know what chapters to study and your professor/teacher goes over
the skills you must master in class.
You may have a quiz on those skills to aide you on which areas you are not
doing well in so you can concentrate your studies, this is not true for a
CCIE test.
On a CCIE exam the amount of potential material to study for is enormous,
take a look at a blueprint. Not only do you have to know the material you
have to configure it and get it working in a very short period
of time. I have a bachelors in Mathematics/Electrical Engineering and a MS
in Telecommunications Managemnet, hands down the the CCIE test was the most
grueling test I ever took (8 hrs). I studied for approx 8-10 months. During
that period
I normally studied about every day, for anywhere up to 4-12 hours a day.(I
was able to do some studying at work)
The other failure in your logic is that you can take the same test over and
over again. For example,
the current CCIE security exam has at least 6 versions of the test, perhaps
more. Its not the same test,
the change little things as well which force you to know the material inside
and out.
The pass rate on CCIE exams are about 26%, I believe they make it very hard
to see how you react
after failing. They also do not tell you what you got wrong, only a
percentage of a particular area that has
usually 4 to 5 parts. In my opinion you cannot pass the exam on the first
attempt unless someone has shared with
you the structure of the test and how to plan for it, there is just too much
material.
Check out this link:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/022006-widernet-ccie-side1.html
harbor235 ;}
On 5/5/08, nrf <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/comserv.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2008 - 06:59:15 ART