Re: Petition: Revamp or Replace OEQ

I agree wholeheartedly 0EQ is a money generator a lot of current CCIE's I know now complained because of the number of people passing. I attribute that to better training materials (ine, nmc, ipexpert etc) now of those vendors how many are 360 ? Add the troubleshooting remove the oeq's add more relevant topics

E
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: Darby Weaver <darby.weaver_at_gmail.com>

Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 13:17:21
To: <smorris_at_ine.com>
Cc: Mark Matters<markccie_at_gmail.com>; ccie forum<ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
Subject: Re: Petition: Revamp or Replace OEQ

Correct.

However, I'm to understand that the ticket system is already pretty well
encumbered by the OEQ process and candidates who think questions are unfair.

The number was in the thousands - so I think a lot of people are already
doing this part.

The next step is to just stop paying for the lab and stop taking the lab
until there is a more reasonable solution to the problem.

I suspect this is already "in the process" but may need to be driven home.

Are companies willing to send a candidate and pay the $2000-2500.00 to get
certified on the flip that the candidate will fail on one question.

Maybe there is a lot of exaggeration on how many people are actually failing
on OEQ.

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 1:11 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> <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> <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
>
> 407-802-7394darbyweaver_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.
>
>
>
>

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