From: Scott M Vermillion (scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com)
Date: Sat Mar 21 2009 - 22:42:28 ART
Sounds fairly absurd to me. So what - the CCIE program team called
all of TAC to a meeting and briefed them on this anti-foreigner
stance? I hardly think so. Lab scenarios are expensive to develop
and take time to debug. Thus, it's a far more expensive anti-cheating
safeguard to cycle lab scenarios on a frequent basis (I, for one, am
glad that they don't cycle them *too often* because doing so would
raise the chances of my getting a scenario that's buggy and that could
erroneously dock me points) vs. cycling mere questions. Even if
you've memorized every stolen scenario for a given track and you know
exactly what commands to plop in in response to task language, you
will melt down when asked, in your own words, to explain a networking
concept.
And then there's the smell test. Why, exactly, would Cisco be upset
about the mix of US/non-US CCIEs? How does this harm their bottom
line? And couldn't they just apply a more stringent grading standard,
if that was their end-goal? I'm sorry, but this just doesn't seem
even remotely plausible. I'd expect to see this explored by Maulder
and Scully in an X-Files episode or something...
On Mar 21, 2009, at 4:31 , Greg Prowdel wrote:
> I've been told by a Cisco TAC insider that the primary reason for
> introducing the ccie lab open ended questions is to keep the number
> of foreign ccie's (non-US english speakers) down.
>
> Apparently cisco was not happy that there are now more foreign
> ccie's than in the states.
>
> Personally I don't think this is fair!
>
> Greg
>
>
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 06 2009 - 06:44:06 ART