FYI... if you need a place to start with more accurate information on both the grading and what to expect in general, read through this:
HTH
-ryan
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Ryan West
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 7:37 PM
To: Mohamed El Henawy
Cc: Josh Fleishman; Rick Tyrell; Alexei Monastyrnyi; Dennis Worth; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Failed Again!!!
Search the archives for 79 points and point values, it's well known
how the grading has changed. Netpro has this information as well.
Sent from handheld.
On Sep 8, 2009, at 7:20 PM, "Mohamed El Henawy" <m.henawy_at_link.net>
wrote:
> Hello Ryan ,
>
> is number of questions remains the same even after the config score
> is 79
> instead of 100 ?....if that's the case then yes OEQs will help as
> you can
> make more mistakes and yet pass but if number of questions are less
> then its
> same percent you have to pass it
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan West" <rwest_at_zyedge.com>
> To: "Josh Fleishman" <josh.fleishman_at_gmail.com>
> Cc: "Rick Tyrell" <rtyrell_at_gmail.com>; "Alexei Monastyrnyi"
> <alexeim73_at_gmail.com>; "Dennis Worth" <dennis.worth_at_gmail.com>;
> <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 2:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Failed Again!!!
>
>
>> I don't know about others who passed with OEQs, but I passed with 79
>> points in configuration (that's what I tell myself, probably cause
>> it's true). The lab felt like a 6.5 out of 10 and I had 30 minutes
>> less to complete it. Maybe I should feel cheated for having 7.5 hours
>> to complete an 8 hour lab.
>>
>> I agree the lab is too easy, but that's been the case for a much more
>> longer time than the OEQs have been in place.
>>
>> Post your config score. With the OEQs, the real change was that you
>> could get 10 wrong instead of 6, assuming you passed those super
>> 'easy' questions that keep tripping people up.
>>
>> Sent from handheld.
>>
>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 5:41 PM, "Josh Fleishman"
>> <josh.fleishman_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For what it's worth, I totally agree. Having had a similar
>>> experience of
>>> passing the lab but not the OEQs, I'm not inclined to taking it
>>> again until
>>> the OEQs are gone.
>>>
>>> Also, considering that (based on my experience) the lab portion is
>>> actually
>>> a lot easier now than it was before the OEQs were added, I
>>> personnally do
>>> not look at someone with a CCIE in the 24000+ range as having
>>> accomplished
>>> nearly as much as those with numbers below 24000. 21% of their
>>> accomplishment is based on them being able to answer 3 out of 4
>>> 'easy'
>>> questions. Not exactly a testament to their expertise IMO. Those
>>> who pass
>>> should feel a little cheated too.
>>>
>>> -Josh
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Rick Tyrell <rtyrell_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I failed for the 3rd time on August 17th. I haven't felt like
>>>> writing
>>>> anything until I read this post. I failed the OEQ section, even
>>>> though I
>>>> had passed it the last time. So I guess I went from being 100% on
>>>> Core
>>>> Knowledge to 0% even though I sat another bootcamp and was able to
>>>> dedicate
>>>> the final 6 weeks of preparation without having to be at work. I
>>>> covered
>>>> my
>>>> weak areas. But I can not memorize every Cisco Press book verbatim
>>>> which
>>>> is
>>>> what the OEQ seems to have become.
>>>>
>>>> Now I understand that Cisco is trying to weed out people who
>>>> cheat. But
>>>> they are doing it the wrong way. Don't waste someones money and
>>>> time
>>>> having
>>>> them fly out to a CCIE Lab locations and fail them on the OEQ
>>>> section.
>>>> Make
>>>> it a separate exam that can be taken remotely or at a local Cisco
>>>> office. Once they can pass the OEQ then they can be allowed to
>>>> take the
>>>> Lab
>>>> exam. Interview me in person at a Cisco office and see if I am a
>>>> cheater
>>>> or
>>>> not. It doesn't take long to find out if someone really knows
>>>> their stuff,
>>>> just talk to them face to face for a few minutes. I have worked
>>>> closely
>>>> with Cisco SEs and spent many hours on the phone with TAC
>>>> troubleshooting
>>>> problems they have never seen. Even teaching them a few things in
>>>> coming
>>>> up
>>>> with solutions!
>>>>
>>>> I also went throughout the CCNA, CCNP, and CCSP. I remember
>>>> failing the
>>>> Troubleshooting and Support exam for the CCNP twice before finally
>>>> passing
>>>> it, almost giving up. I also have over 10 years of building and
>>>> troubleshooting complex networks. If Cisco is really considering
>>>> the
>>>> "Cisco
>>>> Certified Architect" methodology maybe they should look at what a
>>>> candidate
>>>> has gone through before taking the CCIE exam. If I was cheating do
>>>> you
>>>> think I would have gone through the time and money it took going
>>>> through
>>>> the
>>>> foundational certifications and spending countless hours in
>>>> training?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe instead of an OEQ section we could write and essay about how
>>>> we love
>>>> Cisco and will never user another companies products...LOL. I
>>>> could
>>>> write
>>>> in there how I convinced my company to switch from 3COM to Cisco
>>>> and have
>>>> blanketed our entire Campus with their equipment and Smartnet
>>>> contracts.
>>>> This was all done by me, not a CCIE or "Cisco Certified Architect"
>>>> or Cisco
>>>> SE. I mean that is what they are trying to produce right? Someone
>>>> who
>>>> knows the technology, can sell the technology to the CIO, configure
>>>> and
>>>> troubleshoot it, draw up some pretty Visio diagrams, and upgrade to
>>>> the
>>>> newest model every few years. I have been doing all this for the
>>>> last 10
>>>> years :)
>>>>
>>>> I will learn the 4.0 material because it is relevant to current
>>>> industry
>>>> standards We are getting ready to implement MPLS VPNs where I
>>>> work. But I
>>>> will not be taking the CCIE 4.0 R&S Lab unless Cisco removes the
>>>> OEQ
>>>> section, if I decide to take it at all. I do feel the
>>>> troubleshooting
>>>> section is a step in the right direction. This exam should
>>>> be testing candidates on real world topologies and situations. I
>>>> have
>>>> always had respect for Cisco and their certification program. But
>>>> I'm done
>>>> with pissing my money and time down the toilet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Rick
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Alexei Monastyrnyi <alexeim73_at_gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to hear that, mate. 5th try was my lucky one, so you might
>>>>> pass on
>>>>> that one as well. Just keep up high spirits.
>>>>>
>>>>> A. #17234 (RS)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dennis Worth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI Group
>>>>>> Failed CCIE R&S for the 4th time, and this time it was because of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> OEQ's.
>>>>>> I am so glad Cisco wants to stop the cheaters out there, but
>>>>>> after 5
>>>> years
>>>>>> on and off of going through this stuff to pass this lab, failing
>>>>>> on 1
>>>>>> simple
>>>>>> question that is not EXACTLY what they are asking for is
>>>>>> absolutely out
>>>> of
>>>>>> control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will be back, but to all who take this lab exam, you might as
>>>>>> well
>>>> chalk
>>>>>> it up to LUCK more than skill or knowledge. I hate what this exam
>>>>>> has
>>>> come
>>>>>> to. It really has no relevance to anything with those questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best of LUCK to anyone who takes the lab, because you will need
>>>>>> it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.83/2353 - Release Date:
> 09/08/09
> 06:48:00
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Sep 08 2009 - 20:09:49 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Oct 04 2009 - 07:42:03 ART