Re: Petition: Revamp or Replace OEQ

Ok - So as I hear you say it...

Everyone who is getting fed up with OEQ and is truly bothered by it should
start considering their options?

Is that truly what Cisco wants to hear?

Maybe it is...

Hello Huawei...

Maybe all the CCIE Candidate who can't cut it (97 per 100) should just
forget about advanced feature sets and get with the program...

You know Foundry looks and tastes a lot like Cisco.

Even has FDP and a version of EIGRP and mad packet forwarding...

Who needs all those QoS options anyway...

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:25 PM, William McCall <william.mccall_at_gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Rick Tyrell <rtyrell_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is not moaning and groaning, this is about keeping the CCIE program
>> what it is supposed to be. "Certifies the skills required of expert-level
>> network engineers to plan, operate and troubleshoot complex, converged
>> network infrastructure".
>>
>
> Define expert. Those obscure questions have come up before in interviews.
> I've used them on occasion when I get some weird problem. But then again, I
> work doing pre-deployment functional testing on code. Some of my defects are
> very obscure problems that would be missed by the average person but would
> be catastrophic if introduced into the network I support.
>
>
>> Not about obscure OEQ that are not relevant in the real world. Cisco
>> needs to drop the OEQ. You are one of the lucky ones, be grateful that you
>> passed. Unless you plan on taking the R&S again then don't worry about what
>> people are "whining" about.
>>
>
> They're adding this to all tracks. I am taking my service provider soon
> enough, but I will probably have to do core knowledge for it by the time I
> am ready. I failed core knowledge the first time on R&S. Didn't complain,
> didn't do anything but study even harder.
>
>
>> I have been personally responsible for shoveling millions of dollars
>> Cisco's way. I don't even need the CCIE. But I do believe it should be a
>> fair exam. I never had the experience of the two day exam, but would rather
>> use that method than the current one.
>>
>
> That's great. Doesn't mean you deserve a CCIE.
>
>
>> I will not waste my time again and neither should anyone else on the
>> current format. Cisco is a big boy and can admit when they are wrong and
>> make changes accordingly. Does John Chambers read groupstudy? John where
>> are you :)
>>
>>
>>
>
> Fair enough. Then don't! In the meantime, people who want the cert, play
> the game. Me personally, I am concerned with people who are down for the
> game. All of these exams are a game to understand what Cisco wants you to
> know.
>
>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM, William McCall <william.mccall_at_gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Call the waaaaaambulance.
>>>
>>> I passed it with the core knowledge section. Many others have too. If you
>>> didn't pass because of the core knowledge section, Cisco intended for you
>>> to
>>> not pass.
>>>
>>> Play the game or get left out. Petitioning Cisco to dumb down the exam to
>>> make people happy isn't going to work. I think the next thing they should
>>> do
>>> is include the requirement of knowing full PDU structures.
>>>
>>> For people who failed solely because of core knowledge, I'm sorry. Pick
>>> yourselves back up and start again. Moaning and groaning about it just
>>> makes
>>> you look whiny to people who had to do it. Failure is one of the things
>>> that
>>> you must learn to accept in life, even if it is at $1400 plus travel and
>>> lodging a pop. Just because you paid for the opportunity doesn't mean you
>>> earned the cert.
>>>
>>> An example, when I was going for my CCNP, I failed the ISCW 3 times
>>> before I
>>> finally passed. On the 4th one, I thought, "I should probably just give
>>> up
>>> on this and go get my CCIE written," but instead, I went back and took it
>>> and finally passed it.
>>>
>>> If you have some concrete examples (no NDA breaking, please!) of
>>> questions
>>> that cannot be solved, I will be more than happy to find the answers for
>>> you. I will take a maximum of 10 good questions.
>>>
>>> Ladies and Gents, Cisco does not really want you to fail, but they DO
>>> want
>>> to have prestige in the CCIE program.
>>>
>>> --WM
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Darby Weaver <darby.weaver_at_gmail.com
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>> > Seems like we need a petition to make the point clear.
>>> >
>>> > Now if some of you guys don't think that some of the OEQ's are fair...
>>> I
>>> > have to ask the question is repeating "Hearsay" even close the breaking
>>> the
>>> > NDA?
>>> >
>>> > Because if I were to show you some questions that I've run across you
>>> > might now find them so easy and if the instructors themselves can't
>>> find
>>> > reasonable answers... in a reasonable time-frame... (Ummm....
>>> Candidates
>>> > only get 30 minutes for 4 of these puppies and no use of Google.com
>>> btw).
>>> >
>>> > I've got to ask you? Who are we trying to get to pass the CCIE Lab?
>>> >
>>> > Disclaimer: See the first batch of OEQ. Straight forward mostly.
>>> >
>>> > If your questions start asking "Why"...
>>> >
>>> > You might as well just hand in your lab guide and catch your plane and
>>> go
>>> > home... Unless you know you nailed them and did not second guess
>>> > yourself.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Darby Weaver
>>> > Network Engineer
>>> >
>>> > 407-802-7394
>>> > darbyweaver_at_yahoo.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> William McCall, CCIE #25044
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> William McCall, CCIE #25044
>

-- 
Darby Weaver
Network Engineer
407-802-7394
darbyweaver_at_yahoo.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net