The Road Goes Ever On wrote: > > some comments are meant in good fun, others are of more serious > source. pray > do not take offense, as none is intended. > > ""n rf"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. > > so why'd you bring it up in the first place? :->
First of all, I didn't. LamyAlexander did. He asked a question, and I answered it. I believe that if you ask an honest question, you should get an honest answer. If you don't want to hear the answer, then make sure that nobody asks the question. Guys (not talking to you, Chuck, but to everybody else here), if you don't like this thread, don't get ticked off at me. I didn't start this thread. Take it up with LamyAlexander. > > > > > Gentlemen, this is why I posted such a long response, because > I wanted you > > all to be honest with yourselves. I could have just said > what I had to > say > > straight-up, without any explanation, but I felt (and > obviously with a lot > > of justification) that I needed to do a lot of explaining. > Just ask > > yourself the question - if you had a high-number, would you > want to trade > it > > for a lower number? You know in your heart what you want, > even if you > don't > > want to admit it on this board. Answer the question and be > perfectly > honest > > with yourself. > > most of us on this list would take any number we could get! ;-> Come on, Chuck. Don't try to run away from the question. Would you like a lower number if offered to you? Be honest, now. > > > > > Somebody asked whether employers are asking for lower > numbers. You're > damn > > right they are. Several recruiters, headhunters, and HR > people have > stated > > that they give preference lower-number CCIE's. In fact, you > may have seen > > this several times on the groupstudy.jobs ng. Yet I have > never ever seen > a > > recruiter saying that he gives preference a higher-number > CCIE. Why is > > that? Why is it only one-way? I tend not to believe in > coincidences - > when > > there's smoke, there's probably fire. > > > so there are some idiot recruiters who are lockstepping with > what thweir > idiot employer / clients are asking for. I can recall when > CCNA became all > the rage, and there were some employers / recruiters who were > turning down > people with CCNP's. Against stupidity, the gods themselves > contend in vain. > As a job seeker, it behooves someone to focus on identifying > the kind of > people they want to work with and for, and those who should be > avoided. I'm not saying that there aren't some stupid recruiters. But, first of all, (a theme that I've echoed again and again), why is it only one-way? If recruiters were stupid across the board, then some would be preferring low numbers, and some would be preferrig high numbers. But that's not happening. I've never seen anybody give preference to high numbers, only to low numbers. So it's "one-way stupidity". Why is that? Second, it's not just recruiters, but HR people and others who are in charge of hiring. Maybe they're all stupid. But that's beside the point. The fact is, those people determine whether one gets hired or not. If they decide to use a requirement that you think is stupid, ranting and raving about it isn't going to change anything. If you need to put food on the table, you're going to need to jump through the hoops that the people who have jobs to give are asking you to jump through. Whether you think those hoops are stupid or not is not important. Sometimes you have to undergo things that you think are stupid. That's life. I think it's stupid that I have to stop at red lights at 3 in the morning when there's nobody around, but if I get pulled over, I can rant and rave to the cop about how stupid the situation is all I want, and I'm still going to get ticketted. Third, and most importantly, I don't know that it's just about recruiters. Again, I hate to sound like a broken record, but once you pass your lab, and Cisco offered to trade your number for a low one, would you take it? Honestly, now. Of course you would. I know I would. I don't know anybody who isn't being honest with himself that wouldn't. So it's not just recruiters who see what's going on. That's the point - the behavior of recruiters is only a symptom of the real issue. > > > > > Somebody also asked what number CCIE I am. Well, what > exactly does that > > have to do with anything? Because I may or may not be a > low-number CCIE, > > that somehow affects the truth of my arguments? Either > they're true or > > they're not. Who I am has nothing to do with it. Why the > ad-hominem > > attacks? Why can't people debate things simply on the merits > of the > > argument, rather than calling into question people's > motives? Hell, if > you > > want to go down the road of ad-hominem attacks, I could just > as easily say > > that all my detractors are or will be high-number CCIE's and > so therefore > > all their arguments should be ignored because their motives > are also > > questionable. But I don't do that. > > in general I respect your observations. I agree with this > particular > comment. I believe your own particular status is irrelevant. I > believe the > source is typical human nature. Just because someone has > achieved something > does not necessarily mean their observation or opinion is more > valid than > those of someone who has not. But human nature being what it > is, many people > tend to take the advice of someone with the numbers or letters > after tha > name as better than that of someone who does not. Actually, I have rarely seen the behavior you have just mentioned. Far more common is that people have read my statements and have already made up their minds that they don't agree with me, but are fishing for a cheap way to discredit me. But either way, they're still not going to agree with me no matter what. For example, not that long ago, I got into a heated argument on the jobs forum. Without getting too detailed, basically some guy got ticked because he thought I was bagging on a particular designation, so he basically said that if I don't personally hold the designation in question, then he should give no credence to anything I said. When I hinted that not only did I possess that designation, but several other ones that were even more prestigious, he then remarked that he didn't care about my biography. In essence - he cared about my biography when he thought I did not hold that designation, but if I do hold it, all of a sudden, he didn't care about my biography anymore. So basically this guy had his bases all covered and was engaging in bad faith. He implied that he would respect somebody who actually held the designation, but had no intention of actually honoring it. So, Chuck, that's what I'm talking about. Ad-hominem attacks are bad enough by themselves, but what's ever worse is that they're almost always "bad-faith" ad-hominem attacks. Most people who engage in ad-hominem attacks have already made up their minds and are just looking for a cheap takedown. But if they can't get it, it doesn't matter to them because, like I said, they've already made up their minds. > > > > > > And when did I ever compare networking to a software > company? Seems like > a > > complete non-sequitur to me. > > > > About me 'devaluing' networking - how could I really doing > that? Are you > > saying it's my fault that networking is devalued? > Seriously. I am only 1 > > person. How could 1 person acting alone devalue networking > in any > > measurable way? If I really had the power to manipulate > entire markets > like > > that, I'd be a multimillionaire and I certainly wouldn't be > hanging out > > here on this ng. I think the real fear that people have is > that I am not > > alone - that I really am telling the truth. If networking > has been > > devalued, it is because the free market has decided that it > should be > > devalued, and what is the free market but many individual > entities all > > acting in their own self-interest? Therefore if networking > has been > > devalued, it is because many people have decided that it be > so. Not just > me > > alone. > > you're NOT that powerful? How disappointing :-> > > the job market is what you make of it. Yes there are external > factors. In > the grand scheme of things, comparative advantage comes into > play somewhere > along the line. I suggest that netwroking is to the point where > fewer > companies require on site support staff. They can outsource, > colocate, > purchase manged services, and in the end this means fewer staff > jobs, and > the remaining staff jobs requiring more expertise. Not saying > it will happen > tomorrow, but I can see the trend as well. I agree that outsourcing is going to have a profound impact on the networking field. Let's face it, a lot of networking can be outsourced to places like India or China the way a lot of app-development is now. Most large enterprise networks and service-providers are run by NOC's that can be put anywhere in the world, and will obviously migrate to wherever has the cheapest costs. > > > > > > > > About the cpa argument - I would argue that whenever the cpa > test happened > > to be more difficult, then it would be more prestigious. > Whenever anything > > is more difficult, it becomes more prestigious. Is that > particularly > > shocking? Why is a degree from MIT more prestigious than a > degree from > > Podunk Community College? Simple - graduating from MIT is > harder than > > graduating from PCC. I even stated that if the CCIE all of a > sudden got > > very very difficult starting today, then anybody who passed > starting today > > would earn more prestige. Simply put - prestige follows > rigor. > > > I still disagree with your preemise - that the CCIE Lab is > easier than ever. > My own experience says otherwise. The existence of a plethora > of study > materials just means that on the average people are better > prepared, and > more knowledgable. It does not mean the test is easier. > > I don't have any recent statistics, but when I was keeping > track, I was > seeing about 100 new CCIE numbers being issued per month. This > was steady > over a period of two years. Towards the end of the time, there > was a trend > up[. This was prior to the elimination of IPX from the Lab, and > during a > time when there wasn't so much of a turnover in tests. So my > unscientific > conclusion at the time was that as the word got out, the test > became easier. > I'm willing to bet that a rigorous analysis would show that > this was no > different that previous historical periods. > > When the one day lab first came out, the passing numbers fell > substantially > over the period of a couple of months. As I said, I don't have > current > numbers, and the program managers at Cisco have refused to > disclose any > detail to me when I have asked. But I would suspect that the > numbers may not > be a lot different today than they were two yeares ago. The problem may simply be one of perception. I don't think so - but I have to concede it's possible. But even if that were the case, that's still a good reason not to have changed. Let's face it - perception is a tremendously powerful force. It doesn't matter if you're good if nobody thinks you're good. A lot of people still believe that the 1-day testers didn't take the "real" test. By changing the test from 2 days to 1, Cisco has introduced an element of uncertainty that really doesn't need to be there. Cisco has stated that the reason why they made the switch is to reduce the wait-times for lab dates, but now they're saying that the wait-times are just as long as they were before. So why not switch back - if only to restore the appearances of the old days? Let's face it, appearances are important. Or let me put it to you this way. Ask anybody what their opinion is about the switch and its effect on the program's overall quality. Everybody will say that either it was negative, or it was neutral. But practically nobody seriously believes that the change was positive. So, again, it's all one-way. Why? And if that's the case, why not switch back, if only to shut up the naysayers? > > > > > > And Chuck, you said it yourself - "True, there are more > cheaters out > > there, and more practice labs, and the like..." - and those > kinds of > things > > are exactly what I'm talking about. > > Let me be clear that I have no direct knowledge of cheating > going on. I have > had off line conversations in the past with someone ( I don't > remember who ) > who told me that major consulting firm ( I don't remember which > one - may be > out of buiness now ) had a regular program going on. all > employees who went > through the lab were debriefed in detail, and those schediled > to go in used > that information to prepare. This was back in the days of the > 3500-4500 > series of numbers, so it's not like this was a new thing. > > And just so the newsgroup police don't come asking, I have > since changed > computers, changed ISP's and changed e-mail clients, so I have > no way of > providing any of the information that resulted from that > conversation. > > > >Bottom line - the CCIE is not as hard > > to attain today as it was in the past, whether because of > cheating or more > > practice materials, or whatever. > > One person's opinion. Have you any statistics to back that up? > have passing > rates gone up or down? over what time period? with what > technologies being > tested? Again, I have the simple thought question - being perfectly honest, would you want to trade your number for a lower one or not? The prosecution rests. > > >You also said that the test is just as > > difficult today as it was in the past. But it's not just the > test that > I'm > > talking about, but rather the entire CCIE procedure that I'm > talking > about. > > The tests themselves may be of equivalent difficulty, but if > there are > more > > bootcamps and whatnot today, then ultimately that means that > the CCIE > > procedure of today is easier. Sure test A and test B might > be equal in > > difficulty, but if people are more "bootcamp-ed" to take test > B, then > > ultimately passing test B is easier. Again, I don't think > bootcamps are > > necessarily wrong, but it does mean that if you want to > maintain the same > > level of difficulty, you have to compensate for the bootcamps > by making > test > > B even harder than test A. Otherwise, you end up with a > situation where > > people who passed test A were good, but people who passed > test B may not > be > > quite as good, but had the benefit of bootcamps. > > > Again, very speculative on your part. The net result of > preparation is a > higher standard for all who have gone or who are going through > the process. > > YTo be honest, I don't believe you have a real basis for this > position. > Without facts, statistics, all you have is your own prejudice. Again, not just my prejudice. Answer the question that I have asked time and time again, but nobody seems to want to answer. > > > > > Or let me put it to you another way. Surely you would agree > that > companies > > like Princeton Review and Kaplan make the SAT's easier. The > SAT's "fight > > back" by using relative scoring - where your scores are > calculated not > > absolutely, but relative to your peers, according to > percentiles. > > (Incidentally, I think relative scoring is something the CCIE > program > could > > use, but I digress). But if ETS (the administrators of the > SAT) were to > > use absolute scoring, then surely you would agree that a > score of 1500 > > achieved in, say, 1950, would not mean the same as a score of > 1500 > achieved > > today. > > > Again, not directly relevant. The SAT questions change, there > are more > people and of different backgrounds taking the test now, so > that it is no > longer the domain of east coast prep schools, as it was in the > 50's and > 60's. > > But toi return to networking, there really is only so much that > can be > tested. So I don't think I agree with your point here. > > > > > > I'll make it even more stark. Let's say you're giving prizes > to runners > who > > run 100 meters in 10 seconds. The first group of runners run > without any > > nutritional or chemical supplements. The second group of > runners use > > anabolic steroids, ala Ben Johnson. Which group will win > more prizes? > > not a fair comparison. > > > > > But the bottom line, Chuck, is still what I've said before. > If you were > > CCIE #11,000, and Cisco offered you the chance to trade that > number in for > > #1100, would you take it? Be honest with yourself. > > > at this point I'd take any number I can get. but I think you > assume > something about me in particular that is not true. That's > another story, and > one to discuss during a long walk on some nearby mountaintops, > and not on an > internet news group. Please tell me you're not dodging the question. I'd expect that out of some other people here on this ng, but not you. Et tu, Chuck? > > > I don't think there's a > > person in the world who wouldn't take that trade. But what > about the > > opposite - would you trade 1100 for 11,000? Again, nobody is > going to do > > that. And that's what I'm talking about - it's all one-way. > Before > anybody > > argues with me further, ask yourself why is it one-way? > > > it's not about trading numbers, its about earning numbers. > Maybe because I'm > older than a lot of the folks in this business, and I compete > again 20 > somethings with no life and no family to support, and maybe > because I've > been around the block more than once, but if hiring managers > want to be > idiots, they are free to do so. I, on the other hand, am free > to choose not > to deal with them. That philosophy has served me well so far. > If enough > people behaved in a sim,ilar manner, the pointy haired managers > would find > themselves on the wrng side of things, and they would be the > endagered > species. More power to you. But on the other hand, surely you would agree that there are quite a few people who don't have quite that kind of power. They have to take whatever job they can get because they need to pay the rent, therefore they need to jump through the hoops that recruiters put before them, no matter how stupid they personally think those hoops are. > > JMHO. > > gotta run. got some remodel work to finish up. > > Chuck > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70348&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
