Re: Petition: Revamp or Replace OEQ

Statistics. The object isn't to test your knowledge of the entire
blueprint, just a subset thereof.

If it were done the way >I< would design it, you'd get some initial
questions, and if you failed them, you wouldn't even be able to see the
rest of the lab. THAT would solve the braindump problem. But wouldn't
that piss you off even more, to go, and 30 minutes later you're kicked out?

On the bright side, you get the see the entire lab, and you'll get to
see exactly what/how things are being asked. The next time you'll pass.

People have this problem with written tests all the time. The thing
that makes this format harder is that it isn't "multiple guess". That,
and when people fail a $125 test, they're irritated, but not quite as much!

Scott

Nadeem Rafi wrote:
> why only 4 questions.... its quite unfair. questions should be gone as for
> dumpers troubleshooting can do the trick. If these are not gone then at
> least should be increased so that a question should not cost 1400 USD which
> in many countries is more than few months salary.
> just few thoughts....
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Scott Morris <smorris_at_ine.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Let's not be too far off the beaten path here...
>>
>> First of all, missing one question is just fine. Missing two will cause
>> you to have an expensive lunch. So keep with the accurate program here
>> (Maurilio had these details long ago).
>>
>> Now, I may be part of the minority (and arguable since I don't have to
>> take them), but I am in favor of the OEQs. I think the idea is very
>> much worthwhile.
>>
>> Now, I sit back and hear a lot about the quality of the questions from
>> people, and see the folks who SHOULD be passing yet are not, which
>> indicates a problem. But it's one that's simple to fix as part of a QA
>> process from Cisco. (That's not Question/Answer by the way)
>>
>> If you have QUALITY questions, they can achieve the goal needed, and can
>> easily be argued that those who miss them do so based on techincal merit
>> rather than some other absurd reason.
>>
>> Boycotting's an interesting idea, but unless you have some plan to reach
>> EVERYONE out there and make a serious impact the quantity of people from
>> GS going will merely make it look like a statistical blip.
>>
>> But if everyone who feels wronged by the OEQs files a certification
>> support ticket, it will force the group to review the questions, and any
>> anomolies or "bad questions" will be more easily recognized by the "in
>> your face"escalation process.
>>
>> Just my two cents. (As opposed to $1,400)
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>> Darby Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> Well we could just say that...
>>>
>>> However, Cisco is a Marketing Company and is a For-Profit Company and the
>>> CCIE Program has become a profit-making venture.
>>>
>>> I think the term Boycott is a bit stronger and has a little more effect.
>>>
>>> When the number of CCIE's available for Cisco Partners starts to turn
>>> NEGATIVE...
>>>
>>> Cisco has a choice, either Get Rid of the OEQ...
>>>
>>> OR...
>>>
>>> REVAMP the Cisco Partner Program...
>>>
>>> Maybe there is a 3rd Option... or 4th...
>>>
>>> But if there are no CCIE's... the CCDE is likely to take a tumble...
>>>
>>> No CCDE's what happens to the CCA?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's got quite the Domino-Effect...
>>>
>>> Let's see how many people active on this list care to voice their own
>>> opinions...
>>>
>>> Taking the CCIE Lab and Failing based on "One Question"... is ludicrous
>>>
>> at
>>
>>> best.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are 4 questions. 3 will earn a candidate 21 points...
>>>
>>> Lose 1 question more and you lose $1400.00 + Travel and Expenses.
>>>
>>> More in some countries as I understand it.
>>>
>>>
>>> $2000-2500.00 for 1 question?
>>>
>>> Excuse me but this is ABSURD!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Mark Matters <markccie_at_gmail.com>
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Your email looks like it's missing a few words, confusing.
>>>> But I agree. GET RID OF THE OEQ
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM, 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> "The more I learn the less I know". This is incredibly frustrating to
>>>>
>> me.
>>
>>
>> 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

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sat Sep 05 2009 - 13:35:42 ART