Brilliant answer. I can see debate is not one of your strong points.
:)
There are lots of things in life that I don't profit from. And yet, I
can understand/respect them. It has nothing to do with liking or not
liking. If Cisco wanted to, they would have asked my opinion about this,
which I could have given in a non-biased form. But they did not.
Do I appear to be whining about something because I won't profit? I'm
re-reading my e-mail and don't really think I'm coming across that way.
Kinda the purpose of pointing out all the "nope"s below. *shrug*
But feel free to write off any opinion that doesn't match up with yours
because it's clearly inferior. ;)
Scott
JB wrote:
It's a great business decision. You just don't like it because you won't
profit from it.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [ mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com ] On Behalf Of
Scott Morris
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:13 AM
To: Shaunjon29_at_gmail.com Cc: 'Narbik Kocharians'; 'Shaughn Smith'; 'Rob Phillips'; 'Brad Ellis'; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com Subject: Re: OEQ Waiver program! No MORE OEQ for Cisco 360 students.
My opinion... Hmmmm... Well, I've been spending a lot of time last
night and this morning reading the different responses and laughing at
different parts and pieces along the way.
What do I think about the waiver? Stupid business decision. I
understand what the intent was, and find it kind of amusing. However, I
think that it wasn't a very well thought out plan of attack.
What is interesting about many of the responses that have been going on
for the last 13 hours or so is that there is a good mix of both personal
opinions and business opinions. Personal opinions will always get
people up in arms. You can like something, I may not like it, or vice
versa... it is what it is. Business opinions though may tend to be a
little different. Understanding motivation (generally $$) is a good
starting point to get to the thinking behind a decision.
If Brad really came up with this idea, I ABSOLUTELY understand why. It
clearly serves his marketing goals quite well, and he has no skin in the
game from a legal standpoint. That (along with the registration of the
domain name) I can sit back and laugh at. Good marketing, have fun with
that!
Cisco, on the other hand, I really have to try to figure out where the
thought process was going. High level, same as Brad's view, I
understand. But they have more to think about, and that's why (in MY
opinion) I think it wasn't fully baked.
Will it have an effect on anything in the long-run? Who knows. I don't
think it will bring about the end of the world one way or the other. If
it makes some paranoid people run a particular direction because of it,
then that's what happens... But if nothing else, it does highlight the
idea of exactly WHERE the thinking happens to be. (See $$ above)
Am I worried about it? Nope. Am I going to run off to join the 30
program since someone told me resistance was futile? Nope. Am I
worried about any of my students passing the OEQs? Nope.
IMHO, it's a non-issue. But it is highly entertaining to sit back and
watch. Like anything, give it a while and see what else develops.
Scott
PS. Just the standard disclaimer stuff, I haven't discussed my opinions
with anyone else at INE, so I have no idea whether anyone agrees with me
or not (nor do I care). So if I irritate you, just take it out on me,
not them! ;)
Jones wrote:
What's your opinion on this Scott?
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [ mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com ] On Behalf Of
Scott Morris
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:03 AM
To: Narbik Kocharians
Cc: Shaughn Smith; Rob Phillips; Brad Ellis; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com Subject: Re: OEQ Waiver program! No MORE OEQ for Cisco 360 students.
May I take that as an official position from a Cisco 360 Learning
Partner?
Scott
Narbik Kocharians wrote:
You guys can bypass the OEQs by attending a 360 program, we have added
bunch
of stuff to the 360 program, and if the students complete the labs they
can
bypass the OEQs. I think its NOT bad, since they know whats going to be
covered in these classes. Our students go through the 360 material + all
the
materials that we have added to the program as supplemental materials
(roughly around 3500 + pages), and if anyone goes through this program,
they
can BYPASS the OEQ section.
But why fight it? It's NOT that you will get anywhere, we saw a
similar fight and bitterness when they introduced the OEQs, now they are
giving the students a chance NOT to do the OEQs.
Before OEQs everyone was complaining about the pass4sures and stuff
llike
that, so they added the OEQs, then, everyone started complaining about
the
OEQs, NOW they are giving the students a chance NOT to go through the
OEQs,
now some are still complaining.
Don't let things like this poison your blood, just go with the flow,
specially when you have NO other option.
Thanks
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Shaughn Smith <maniac.smg_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Couldn't have worded it better myself. As a qualified Commercial pilot
I
know where you are coming from. I am also truly disappointed at
Cisco's
decision on this.
CCIE # 23962
On Mar 16, 2010 3:26 PM, "Rob Phillips" <rrphillips_at_swankav.com> wrote:
Brad,
I am a Pilot who did his training in a 141 school from Private all the
way through my Commercial, Instrument, Multi-engine. The one thing
you
forgot or just never looked into is that at the end of the training
EVERYONE still must pass their checkride with an examiner who should
be
using 1 set of guidelines. The checkride as published guidelines that
EVERYONE must meet no matter if you are part 61 or 141. When I took
my
Multi-engine ride my 141 had lost their examiner so the final ride was
done by an outside source. That ride was no different than any other
ride. The examiner as me several oral questions before walking out to
the plan (OEQ), During the flight he simulated emergencies
(Troubleshooting) and I had to fly meeting other standards of regular
flight in different configurations (config section).
I believe the 141 as compared to part 61 is more structured, however
it
all comes down to the checkride. You publish ONE and only ONE
standard.
Everyone must meet that same standard. If you know a flight school
that has an examiner who skips this practice then please let me know.
I
will gladly report them to the FAA. I do not want to share the skies
with someone who learned something just long enough to make it past a
section of an approved course. I want to fly with guys who LEARNED it
so that they remember for a lifetime instead of just a few weeks.
I agree with many others on this list. If you know it then you should
be fine with the OEQ. How long does it really take to answer 4
questions that are just a few words long. If Cisco thinks that this
is
a plus to a student then they should sit back and look at the whole
idea
of OEQ. Why would that be a plus? Is Cisco admitting that some of
the
OEQ are just plain bad that by having a student go the 360 route then
they don't have to play the "how hard of a OEQ" lottery?
To sum it up, I feel very disappointed with Cisco that they would ever
have two different standard when it comes to the lab exam. I know I
will feel proud when I get my numbers that I did to the HIGHEST
standard.
-----Original Message----- From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com
[mailto:
nobody_at_groupstudy.com ] On Behalf Of
Brad Ellis Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:36 AM To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.comSubject: RE: OEQ Waiver ...
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
Received on Tue Mar 16 2010 - 13:06:27 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Apr 01 2010 - 07:26:35 ART