I don't know why I am doing this but I am... As far as trading in numbers goes- It doesn't make a difference to me if I am #1100 or #11000. I am only a CCNA now and working on my NP. I feel the reason for the headhunters and HR types to value a lower number is due to pure ignorance. Most of them can't find their own ass with both hands and a GPS receiver. This comment though insulting, is aimed at the hiring side of IT. This is not aimed at the rest of their functions. I personally feel corp America should move to Argentina and Ecuador and hang out with the rest of the surviving Nazis. 'Course then we'd have a Fourth Reich to contend with and anybody who tried to make a decent living with anything less than a Bachelor's Degree would be castrated or asked to take a shower.
It's utter BS to believe a lower numbered CCIE is any better than a higher numbered CCIE. A lab is a lab is a lab of course. Right Wilbur? As far as I know (famous last words but I am not pussing out), there are no BootCamps for the lab portion. The test portion yes, the lab no. The CCIE should still be regarded as the penultimate certification for networking. Not for System Engineers but for Network Engineers. A little shot at RedHat there. I can't believe the way corp America has turned it's back on IT as a rule. I really love the way salaries have gone tits up. A couple more years and you'll have to have a Phd and five major certs to lick the urinal cakes in the men's room at a decent paying company. I am jaded if you couldn't tell, by the companies making ridiculous demands of time, money, and effort by requesting people have one cert or another and then offering them nothing in return by means of remuneration. And then, if it is the case, ranking people by their cert number ought to be grounds for forcing them to be pivot heads in a circle jerk. CCNA #9,999,996 and proud of it!!! -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jamie Johnson Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Any thoughts on these "people" (headhunters and HR People) out there? I have some thoughts on them, but I don't think my language would be appreciated.... Jamie -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark W. Odette II Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] Here's a question for those recruiters, headhunters and HR People- Out of CCIE 1025-9999, how many of them do you think are still actively with the program, still working in the industry, still are at the top of their game (i.e., could go back in and take the OLD LAB again), and are the Crhme of the crop that they have so valued them as??!?!?! There are reasons of human physiology and psychology that proves that the old saying is true... If you don't keep practicing a skill or knowledge through repetition, you simply will loose your "edge". My hat is off to CCIE #1058 if he can still complete the OLD LAB blind folded and run circles around CCIE #10,269 in regards to the complex multi-protocol setup of DECNet, IPX, SNA, IP (w/ BGP, OSPF, EIGRP), and AppleTalk for a 8-10+ router network that was the result of 2 or more multi-hundred-thousand-node companies merging. But I must insert my own pessimism that I seriously doubt this is the case. This could be for any number of reasons, but I'm sure the number one reason is that it was too time-consuming and expensive to maintain such "prestige". Not to mention, they probably got laid off for one reason or another in the past 3-5 years. Headhunters and Recruiters are more arrogant than those CCIE's that have been minted in the past 24 months. And they've been that way for at least the last decade. An engineer with Blah-blah-blah certifications is nothing but a potential for them making a huge commission for "hooking up" that engineer with the employer. And because of this arrogance, they have these BS ideals that CCIE# 6328 is truly expert, and CCIE #10524 doesn't deserve the respect of knowing much more than how to power on a piece of Cisco equipment. To put in your analogy format, that's like saying the M.D. that got his PHD 20 years ago, but got bored with continually going back to those medical conferences and continued education on advances in medical science is more preferential than the Doctor that has been practicing medicine for only the past 3 years. I bet is that the older Doc is going to continue performing "tried and true" procedures that have a greater risk of failure or permanent damage of some sort (could be scars, amputated limb, etc.) than the younger Doc that is current with procedures that result in more favorable outcomes for the same medical situations. NRF- You've said yourself in the past that Cisco has changed the CCIE program for financial reasons, be it for increased revenue or wiser financial efficiency in maintaining the equipment, facilities, etc. What about simple relevance? True, not as many routing protocol technologies are being tested on... but they make up for that by testing on new technologies such as Voice, Security, etc. So, because Cisco tests on new technologies, that makes it acceptable for the "market" and all those Headhunters, Recruiters, and HR folks to deem the CCIE not as valuable as it once was?!? They obviously have a jaded/ill-informed point of reference in comparing the "old" with the "new". Out of curiosity, just exactly what are the names of all these "brain-dump" groups/sites that make the CCIE LAB a cake-walk?!? If they are so common knowledge, I have a hard time believing that Cisco would allow them to continue operating. I'm sure Mr. Chambers is intelligent enough to look ahead and realize he would be preempting the demise of his own company if his company perpetuated the cycle of braindump-prepared CCIEs will equal less positive reputation for support and value of the products themselves. Or in more simplistic terms, surely he's smart enough to foresee the cause-and-effect scenario of allowing hundreds of CCIE's to be minted per month. If the economy is so dismal for a majority (read 70%+) of the country, especially the IT industry, just exactly how are all these New CCIE's affording to pay for braindump memberships, Bootcamps, rack rentals and/or personal lab purchases to prepare for the O-so-easy CCIE LAB?!?! I guess my point is, I must be continuing to perpetuate myself in this little naove bubble that makes me have a hard time believing/accepting the CCIE program is being overran in record time with wannabe CCIE's that just simply "bought" their certification rather than earning it. Give us some facts that can give merit to the "free market's" delusion that Computer Networking isn't worth the nickel it used to be. And yes, I believe the "free market" is under delusional control. Most of which has been perpetuated by the "Dot.Bomb" era (which has been nothing but pessimistic influence of the US Media [and yes, I know part of it was a result of bad financial decisions by some start-up companies and some of the Telco's, but the ripple affects caused in short by the media is why all the other businesses have experienced demise]). Real Estate and Oil had its "big boom" period too, but that hasn't seemed to have had an affect on the purchases of houses and gas in the past 15 years... in fact, they've just gotten ridiculously more expensive! As far as those questioning what YOUR CCIE number is... it's only human nature to verify one's point of "authority" on the subject/person at hand... especially when you single-handedly give off the persona of having such a pessimistic/negative point of view to the whole subject AND continue to blatantly say that the LAB isn't anywhere near as hard as it once was... for which the only way you could make such a statement with validity is that you HAVE engaged in the OLD and NEW LAB, and have passed. Bottom line is, when you make certain statements, you open the board up to assumptions and questions that you simply can't expect anybody to ignore- you expect everyone to simply go on FAITH that you know what you're talking about. And those elusive statements like "maybe I am and maybe I am not, etc., etc." don't help your cause any. Perhaps your career SHOULD be in Politics and such, rather than in networking. One thing for sure, you are obviously one of those graduates from the prestigious colleges you refer to so often, and you either majored in social science/debate, or you minored in it. - But hey, that's just my opinion. -Mark -----Original Message----- From: n rf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: number of CCIE [7:70151] Sigh. I knew this was going to happen. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70391&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
