I know this isn't going to make anyone feel any better, but I did score 100% on a section that I didn't even finish???
I submitted a critique stating my concern about the scoring since this happened. I scored 100% on CRS and I didn't even do the script. This isn't intended to get everyone fired up and angry, but more so to express our concern to Cisco and use situations like mine as evidence that the scoring is flawed. Again, based on my last attempt, I felt like I nailed it, but my scored report said I missed it by 4-6 points. On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Jonathan Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, basically an 'abandon all hope, all ye who enter here...' > > We could boycott it... but that would only hurt us... > > > Jonathan > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Erik Goppel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The thing is, that the testscripts they run (as far as i`ve heard and > > experienced) only test some basic but major behaviour. > > And if the main parts are successfull, they will start grading the other > > parts of your lab. (as a timesaver probably) > > thats why they probably say, that they don`t care how you do it, as long > as > > you can provide the result. > > > > Our problem is, that we can`t defend our grading. So if we are > absolutely > > sure, that from the 5 questions we`ve answered 4 correctly. but the one > > major question was wrong, resulting in failing the testscript, which > > resulting in failing all 5 questions (as Cisco sees it). > > We well get a 0% score on the topic. where we could have an 80% score. > > > > So if you are for instance messing up something simple as DHCP, and you > are > > not getting any phones up. but you have everything else correct > configured. > > you will fail, simply because your built solution is not working in > total. > > If you manage to do DHCP, but you suck at QOS, you will pass because the > QOS > > (depending on points, and topology) will probably allow the test scripts > to > > pass. > > > > > > So i think we should just take it as it comes, and aim for the majority > of > > major parts to work. > > There`s nothing we can do about it. > > > > sorry > > > > Erik > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > I have heard both versions... one that it is not dependent, and one > > > that it is... no idea any more... > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Devildoc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > So you are saying that all of the questions in a section are > > inter-related > > > > and depends on each other for full points? So if i failed one > question > > > > that's critical for the test success of the other questions, and > even > > though > > > > i get all other questions correctly, i still failed because i didn't > get > > > > first question correctly. Now that makes sense. And i thought they > > award > > > > points based on each correct question regardless of how you answer > other > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > JD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:35:57 +0200 > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] First Failed Attempt at CCIE LAb > > > > > > > > > > > > You can try, but you are probably wasting time. > > > > I`ve asked the same question (because i`ve had the same issues) at > > > > networkers in Barcelona, but no results. > > > > The statement is, we don`t care how you do it, as long as it works, > so > > for > > > > instance , if you have 4 questions that can only be tested if you > have > > an E1 > > > > up, however you failed to set it up correctly. > > > > And you are sure you have the 4 remaining questions correct, you > will > > fail > > > > all 5 questions (basterds !!!) > > > > > > > > It`s not fair i know, however at the moment we are stuck with this > kind > > of > > > > grading. > > > > > > > > sorry. > > > > > > > > erik > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Devildoc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if that's the case, then i am horrified at my score. I mean > my > > score > > > > for the call routing section is 0%. How is that even possible? I > knew > > that > > > > i didn't have time to complete the test, so i spent extra time on > just > > one > > > > section to see how it is graded. I verified that all calls were > > successful > > > > and all requirements were met. Hell... there were many questions in > > that > > > > section, and i received zero point for that section? > > > > > > > > Does anyone know if there is a Cisco contact where one can inquire > some > > > > questions about the lab exam and its grading process? > > > > > > > > > > > > JD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 13:44:46 -0500 > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > CC: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] First Failed Attempt at CCIE LAb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is an excerpt from the report card. > > > > > > > > "Your CCIE Certification Lab exam was scored based on grading > policies > > that > > > > are adhered to uniformly by our proctors worldwide. Marking was > based on > > > > whether the answer you provided works. Candidates are not required > to > > use a > > > > set methodology in achieving a correct result. The imperative is > that > > the > > > > solution provided produces the outcome requested. " > > > > > > > > I do believe that they actually grade you correctly but again there > are > > > > chances of proctors messing up as well. > > > > > > > > Like Scott mentioned, I would just focus on things I can control and > > forget > > > > the rest... better luck next time buddy... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Scott Monasmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > They told me the reason why they don't hold the voice exams is > because > > they > > > > would take up a lot more storage (hard drives/images of 3 servers, > > router > > > > configs, etc.) vs. just backing up a few config files from a > > router/switch > > > > to a text file for the R&S lab. > > > > > > > > Sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/5/08, Jonathan Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What?!?!? > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Scott Monasmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > > > > Correct. BUT not available for voice though, Jonathon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/5/08, Jonathan Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, as I thought: > > > > > > > > > > > > "Reevaluation of Results > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are concerned your results are in error, you may request > a > > > > > > "reread" until 14 days after your lab date via an email to > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Each reread costs $250.00 USD and consists > of a > > > > > > proctor loading your configurations into a rack to recreate the > test > > > > > > and re-score the entire exam. This process may take up to three > > weeks > > > > > > after receipt of payment" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Jonathan Charles < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > There is a rescore option... isn't there? There was for the > R&S... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Scott Monasmith > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Devildoc, I do feel your frustration. I finished my last > > attempt in > > > > a > > > > > little > > > > > > > > over 5 hours and spent the next 3 hours verifying my work. > I > > walked > > > > > out of > > > > > > > > the exam feeling like I nailed it. However, based on my > score > > > > report, > > > > > it > > > > > > > > reflected a score of about 74-76 points. There were 3 > sections > > > > where > > > > > the > > > > > > > > score came out and I was left scratching my head thinking > "how > > can > > > > > this be?" > > > > > > > > - Talk about deflating. I had plenty of time to verify > > everthing > > > > and > > > > > I felt > > > > > > > > very good about my chances. And to this day I still have no > > idea > > > > how > > > > > I could > > > > > > > > have missed points on those sections. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me, there are 2 things we can do: > > > > > > > > 1. study harder > > > > > > > > 2. after each failed attempt, continue to stress to cisco > (via > > the > > > > > critique > > > > > > > > in your score report) that a re-score option needs to be > > > > established > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > exam. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I'm spending $2,000 (exam + travel) for each attempt, > the > > least > > > > > they can > > > > > > > > do is reassure us that they are doing everything possible > to > > ensure > > > > > that > > > > > > > > there are no errors in the grading. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, a proctor told me that voice is the most challenging > to > > grade > > > > > since > > > > > > > > there is more than one way to achieve the desired results > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/5/08, Jonathan Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I ran into the same problem with the R&S lab... there > might > > be 3 > > > > or > > > > > 4 > > > > > > > > > ways to do something, but only one of them gets you > points... > > not > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > if this is the same thing on the CCIE Voice lab... but I > > would > > > > bet > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No idea on how they grade the test. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I think a lot has to do with how you use the > proctor... > > so, > > > > if > > > > > > > > > there are 2 ways to do something, that means to go to the > > proctor > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > say, 'hey, I have way A and way B... which one is > preferred?' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, I would bet that one of those ways doesn't meet the > > > > > > > > > requirements... which is why this test is as difficult as > it > > > > is... > > > > > > > > > because you are going to have to know why 'way B' doesn't > > work... > > > > > > > > > which means a deep understanding of not just how to > configure > > > > > > > > > something, but in the way it works at a protocol level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example... let's say I wanted you to set up CAC for a > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > location. Now, no big, right, just set up locations-based > > CAC... > > > > or > > > > > > > > > use the GK... both work... both will provide CAC... but > let's > > say > > > > I > > > > > > > > > added to that, 'make sure that you can adjust bandwidth > on > > the > > > > > fly...' > > > > > > > > > now, we know locations-based CAC can't do that, we are > > looking > > > > for > > > > > > > > > BRQs and we have to use a GK and enable BRQs in CCM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The example is probably a bad one, but it is the only one > I > > can > > > > > think of. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do have a question tho... I have heard from people that > the > > > > CCMs > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > slow and nearly unresponsive... so, it can take 2 or 3 > > minutes > > > > for > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > page to load. Is this true? Whee did you take it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, Mark Snow has an example script on the DVDs, that > looks > > > > like > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > would take a few hrs to configure on the lab... even if > you > > knew > > > > > > > > > scripting... the requirements seem straightforward, but > then > > he > > > > > adds > > > > > > > > > extra steps to the script... that seem to be from IPCC > > Scripting > > > > > Best > > > > > > > > > Practices... and all for probably only 4 points on the > > test... it > > > > > > > > > seems like it would be almost impossible to get any > points > > from > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > scenario... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Devildoc > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just had my first attempt at the Voice CCIE lab last > > week, > > > > and > > > > > of > > > > > > > > course, > > > > > > > > > > i failed. I knew right away after the lab that i > failed. > > The > > > > > reason > > > > > > > > why I > > > > > > > > > > failed was not due to the lack of or inadequate amount > of > > > > > knowledge that > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > possessed but rather the lack of time. I was so nervous > and > > > > > stressed out > > > > > > > > > > that I tumbled clumsily throughout the day. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, the lab was not tricky or even > difficult. > > I > > > > > actually > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > that i over-studied for the lab. The Proctor Workbook > and > > the > > > > > Bootcamp > > > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > > > prepared me for the lab, so there was no problem with > the > > > > > knowledge > > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > > > Having said that, i was dumbfounded when i got my > scores > > > > result. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here are my questions. Does anyone know how Cisco > > grade > > > > > these > > > > > > > > labs? > > > > > > > > > > Is Cisco looking for a specific way to implement a > solution > > or > > > > > any > > > > > > > > method to > > > > > > > > > > implement a solution would work as long as it satifies > all > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > requirements asked of you in the questions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason why i am asking these questions is because > even > > > > > though i did > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > complete the lab, I did complete some sections. I > tested > > those > > > > > > > > completed > > > > > > > > > > sections and verified that all requirements were met, > and > > still > > > > i > > > > > > > > received > > > > > > > > > > 0% for those completed sections. Shouldn't I have > received > > > > some > > > > > points > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > those sections? I know that each question is worth ALL > or > > NO > > > > > point for > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > correct answer. However, there are many questions in a > > > > section, > > > > > and if > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > completed a section with all requirements met, then i > would > > > > think > > > > > that > > > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > least i would get 1 or 2 questions right if not all. > But i > > see > > > > > no point > > > > > > > > > > awarded at all for the completed sections, so that > means > > that i > > > > > must not > > > > > > > > > > have gotten all questions in the section right to get > 0%. > > But > > > > > how can > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > be since I tested it and verified that all requirements > > were > > > > met > > > > > and > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > the solutions that i implemented were working. This > only > > means > > > > > that my > > > > > > > > > > implemented methods were not what Cisco was looking > for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone have the similar experience or is it just > me? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > Pack up or back up–use SkyDrive to transfer files or > keep > > extra > > > > > copies. > > > > > > > > > > Learn how. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who > > > > understand > > > > > > > > binary, and those who don't" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who > understand > > > > > binary, and those who don't" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who > understand > > > > binary, and those who don't" > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live > > Messenger. > > > > Get started! > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > More immediate than e-mail? Get instant access with Windows Live > > Messenger. > > > > > > > > -- "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't"
