From: Nick (ccieaz@googlemail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 06 2008 - 16:06:56 ARST
Hi,
I had the same problem with you on my second attempt I thought I was pretty
close.
I went for my third attempt and I felt even better. Walking out of the lab I
honestly thought I has passed. Got home and saw the results and it turned
out worse then my second attempt.
That blow me away for about a week and I considered giving up but now I am
back at it. Its hard to pull you self back when you get so close that you
think you have passed then find out you haven't. But my advise is to take a
1-2 week break and then see how you feel. Hopefully 3rd time lucky.
Good luck
Nick
2008/11/6 Scott M Vermillion <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com>
> Certainly can't argue against any of that Craig! I would loved to have
> been
> able to build-and-thoroughly-verify *and* have additional time at the end
> to
> cross-check it all. That would be the sweetest spot of all and certainly
> will be a goal of mine for any upcoming trips to the SP lab.
>
>
>
> I think one of the reasons I got away with not totally dominating the clock
> is that I did my task cross-checking up front and left myself notes (e.g.
> Task X looks like it's going to impact Tasks X & Z so be on the lookout for
> blah blah blah). Likely this is part of why I was in the lab for probably
> better than an hour before I ever touched my keyboard.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to offer an alternative perspective for
> consideration.
> I've heard some pretty outrageous things on this list and others in terms
> of
> how quickly people failed their labs and it always makes me wonder if a
> more
> measured approach would have been right for that specific individual.
> Impossible to know that about a person at a glance but it's certainly
> something worth considering.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Craig Tompkins [mailto:sidalo@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:14 AM
> To: Scott M Vermillion
> Cc: cciestudy; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Did not reach the summit.
>
>
>
> No doubt that everyone is different and proceeds in different ways. I
> certainly did not mean to sacrifice accuracy for speed. The key is to get
> your configuration to the point where you can accurately and quickly
> configure the required solution, and then test it. Configure section, test
> and verify that section, and repeat, although not needed to be in the same
> order as the lab book. When I say 5-6 hours that should include the
> individual section verifications as you configured them. It is nice to
> have
> about 2 hours at the end to review the lab in its entirety for errors and
> issues that you have not caught on the individual sections, or if a later
> section broke and earlier section without you realizing it.
>
> While none of these time measurements are really required, as the only
> thing
> that matters is 80 working points configured over 8 hours, it certainly
> does
> help to be able to have that extra testing time, and though not required
> should improve the chances of passing assuming you use that time wisely.
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Scott M Vermillion
> <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not entirely convinced that there is any one-size-fits-all advice as
> far
> as lab strategy/time management goes. The overwhelming majority recommend
> this idea of being done in x number of hours (some go as far as to say be
> done by lunch!). We've heard recently from someone who was so lightening
> fast he left an hour early. Unfortunately failed, though.
>
> Some people are far better of with a build-and-thoroughly-verify approach.
> Mock/Assessor labs taught me I was among them. Why? Because if I rush
> through and then have to find all of the silly mistakes I've made after the
> fact, I'm scattered and unfocused. I don't perform my work like that in
> the
> real world. Why should I in the lab? If I'm working on an OSPF task, the
> OSPF area of my brain is stimulated and focused. I build and thoroughly
> verify prior to moving on and awakening, say, the BGP area of my brain.
>
> Just a little different perspective to consider. Having said all of that,
> I
> have to admit that I waited too long to work on *some* degree of speed and
> I
> found it difficult to build-and-thoroughly-verify inside of my eight-hour
> time budget (ultimately finished my final task in San Jose shortly after
> they gave us the five-minute warning). It may not have been the sexiest
> performance ever given in the lab, but it was good for 80+ points...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
> Craig Tompkins
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:27 AM
> To: cciestudy
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Did not reach the summit.
>
> It sounds like you need to continue working on speed to allow for more
> testing and confirmation. Once you have your speed so that you can finish
> full labs in about 5.5 hours or less, spend specific time on knowing how to
> check everything and ensure 100% that what you put in place meets the
> requirements. Do not THINK you got it right, PROVE you got it right, so
> you
> know for sure. I spent two weeks on this alone before my passing trip to
> San Jose
>
> I had a layoff of 2 years between attempts once, and it felt like I was
> starting over. My personal advice is if your goal is to pass this, do not
> stop now. Finish it off. It is better to see it through now then pick it
> up again later. Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence
> and
> determination.
>
>
> --
> Craig Tompkins
> CCIE #16921
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:01 AM, cciestudy <cciestudy@mid-world.net> wrote:
>
> > I messed my 2nd R&S lab attempt Tuesday. In comparison to the first
> > attempt, I was able to handle time management better and get to all the
> > questions this time. However, I left the exam feeling that it was close.
> > The scoring showed I was not as close as I thought. I had missed some
> > categories that I though I had nailed down. There were some questions
> that
> > I know I clearly missed, and others that I had reservations as to exactly
> > what they were looking for. I suspect there were some small details that
> > were missed. Many of the questions were clearly vague and probably mean
> to
> > be that way.
> >
> > I am trying to decide what to do next. Continue on with this self
> torture
> > or quit this all together. I had spent about 1 = years studying and at
> > least 6 months of intense 20-30 hours per week studying. I went though
> the
> > IE vol 1-3 (at least half of the labs twice), Cisco ASET and some 2 year
> > old
> > GK boot camp materials.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Craig Tompkins
> CCIE #16921
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- ---Nick
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Dec 01 2008 - 08:18:29 ARST