Re: CCIE bootcamp that will take learning credits?

Nasser - I agree with everything you've said - good post! ;-)

Regards,

Wayne A. Lawson II - CCIE #5244
President & Founder - IPexpert, Inc.
Email: wlawson_at_ipexpert.com
Mobile: 810.334.1564

:: Message sent from iPhone.

On Jun 10, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Nasser Abraham <nasser.abraham_at_gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wayne,
> Technically, you are correct. To be labeled a CCIE, all you need to
> do is pass a lab exam. If you measure your success just by the sheer
> number of how many people pass the lab exam, then I guess IPExpert
> are successful in that regard.
>
> But if I can quote the great Jeff Doyle, "I want to make CCIEs, not
> people who can pass the CCIE lab."
>
> You ask me how to measure training material, that is an extremely
> difficult question to answer. Personally, I would measure how the
> material aims at developing technical skills which can be applied in
> the real world.
>
> I don't think either of us want to start a training vendor war here,
> my intention was just to draw a comparison between INE and the 360
> program.
>
> Disclaimer: I am not way affiliated with INE apart from being a
> satisfied subscriber.
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Wayne Lawson <groupstudy_at_ipexpert.com
> > wrote:
> Nassar -
>
> Your response doesn't make any sense to me. "You can't measure
> the quality of your training material based on how many people
> passed" - its CCIE TRAINING MATERIAL - Remember?!?!? How else would
> you measure the legitimacy of CCIE training material???.....Please
> explain....
>
> You also say that "not everyone is motivated by a 6-figure
> income" - yeah, although that's true (but even then a majority of
> the 1,300 CCIEs we have helped certify have been motivated - and
> excited about the income increase they received after passing!) -
> CCIE Candidates ARE motivated by the job securty it provides. Why
> else do you suggest people spend thousands of dollars and invest
> their heart and soul into an amazing accomplishment?...It's the same
> as chasing after an MBA....most people don't toss 100k+ at a
> University and many years of their life just to "learn" something
> and not "reap the rewards" of their hard work....
>
> Great plug on the INE 2.0 materials - and I would agree that
> they provide valuable training resources (I also measure them as
> being successful because they have the world's 3rd largest list of
> CCIEs - behind NLI and us). In fact, NLIs material and Narbik's
> material are also "valuable" in their own unique way. Personally, I
> think the INE "2.0" strategy wasn't necessarily a "big revolution"
> like they claimed it was. Although their workbooks are solid (as are
> ours and our other competitors), they took freebies (their free
> online training sessions) and began charging for them (ours are
> still free), they took a negative and attempted to market it as a
> "positive" (their workbooks will "never be complete") -
> pleeeease...they got beat up for years because their products were
> never "complete" - our products have a predefined design - and when
> it's done - it's done - we don't ask our competitors to "hang in
> there forever because our products will never be complete. Minor
> error corrections and updates are understandable, but "never
> complete" is a marketing scheme based on word play - and
> unfortunately some people bought it (and some peope even see it as a
> "great revolution" which amazes me - that's what they were bashed
> for over the span of many years - now people think it's a
> positive?!?). And their poly-whatchya-callit labs seems (to me)
> like a very bad idea. How can you accurately prepare for the real
> lab if they are "pulling out topics you understand" - isn't that
> (other than time management) one of the biggest challenges of the
> lab?!?....to get EVERYTHING working together properly?!....pulling
> out topics (even if you score well on those individual topics) will
> eliminate a large portion of various "situations" that can arise
> with other various protocols and technologies overlap....
>
> Again - I'm not attempting to start a vendor war here - so note
> that I did give "kudos" to the other "grey market" vendors. The
> primary point in this thread is that Cisco's 360 is an unproven and
> unfinished product - and in July that's all CCIE candidates will be
> able to purchase with CLCs. Cisco clearly didn't want to offer
> proven, quality materials through their partners (materials such as
> ours, IEs or Narbik's) - they just want to earn a buck selling
> something that's not as good, isn't supported well, doesn't have a
> solid guarantee and is extremely expensive. We, Narbik and IE will
> all be around years from now - I highly doubt the 360 program will
> be. Check back with me in 3 years on this! ;-)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Wayne A. Lawson II - CCIE #5244
> President & Founder - IPexpert, Inc.
> Email: wlawson_at_ipexpert.com
>
> :: Message sent from iPhone.
>
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Nasser Abraham
> <nasser.abraham_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wayne,
>> Not everyone who pursues a CCIE does so just to pass an exam. You
>> really cannot measure the quality of training material purely based
>> upon how many people have passed the CCIE exam. Also, not everyone
>> is motivated by a "six-figure income", but if that is the way you
>> try to sell your product, then kudos to you.
>>
>> In saying that, we have the 360 program available to us through
>> work. Whilst I find the 360 program to be a valuable resource, I
>> would consider INE CCIE 2.0 program to be more comprehensive in
>> teaching the technologies.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Wayne Lawson <groupstudy_at_ipexpert.com
>> > wrote:
>> I guess the questions to ask are: *how many people have passed
>> using 360 material* and *how many people have passed using "grey
>> market" material*....

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Wed Jun 10 2009 - 21:14:10 ART