Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > John, > > Perhaps your bias is based on the intrinsic value of longevity, > of > experience, associated with the lower number. You tell me. > > Another poster, Craig Columbus > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > pointed out market forces, to which I find no objection, > however speculative > it is. There is the trend of saturation of market with > technicians, but the > same argument, if it must, can be made against those holding > the good old > bachelors of engineering: e.g. those working their own ice > cream stands > throughout the country - if they are not yet exported to > Singapore (speaking > from the USA perspective). > > Again, NRF's stress is that of the inherent fallacy of the > certification > process itself, of the lack of value of the certification due > to the "lack > of credibility" associated with it due to, according to him, > abundant > over-supply of test related information. I respectfully > disagree with that > one-dimensional assessment, and the main objection that I make > is that ALL > educational programs suffer from such "abundance of > digitally/Internet based > information." That is a weak argument in itself to justify > promoting a myth > that destroys the reputation of sometimes rigorous (if > accomplished > honestly) certification tracks.
Uh, well there's an interesting take on things. Kind of a "super-straw-man" combined with an underhanded ad-hominem attack. Sort of like a two-for-one special. You purport to explain my underlying, "stealth" thesis and then you proceed to explain why my stealth thesis is flawed. First of all, I don't do stealth theses. If I wanted to attack certification in general in this thread, believe me, I would have done so, and done so explicitly. Why don't you leave the explanations of my own arguments to me? Who better to explain my own arguments but me? In this thread, I have attacked what has happened to the CCIE lately. Not the CCIE in general, just what has happened to it lately. This is a localized attack. Not only do you keep trying to drag me into a whole different argument (about certs in general), but you claim that I'm the one who's actually bringing that issue out with X-files-ish subterfuge. Au contraire, mon frere. Please don't deconstruct my arguments in this thread into allegories, metaphors, smoke signals, and interpretive dance, but rather when have I actually stated in clear and present terms, that in this thread, I've indicated that I want to talk about certs in general? Please point out those words that I have said where I indicate that. Can't do it, can you? Exactly. And now to your specific points. All education does not suffer from an abundance of information, for one specific reason. Education uses relative scoring, something that I've advocated for awhile. You want to get into college, especially an elite one? You can't just present a summation of qualifications. You win admission by beating out the other guy. If the other guy raises his game, then you have to raise you game too. Top colleges therefore retains their elite status precisely because they are always admitting the very best students, whatever "best" happens to mean at that particular time. If all students all of a sudden have access to more information, it doesn't matter, because the those colleges will still skim from the top, whatever the "top" happens to be. Therefore they will always do a good job of identifying whoever the top students happen to be. Relative scoring ensures that this happens. I'll put it to you another way. In every sport, only one team can win the championship. If all of a sudden, all the players in the NFL discover a new way to lift weights that makes them super-strong and superfast, it doesn't threaten the integrity of the game because that means that all the players will play better, but there's still only 1 championship given out. The NFL doesn't have a "set" bar and whichever team happens to reach that bar is given a title ring. No, only one title is given out a year. It's inherently relative. > > The only "hole" in the CCIE certification that could be found, > due to the > lack of such "Internet based information supply" argument > pertaining to the > lab, is that of "numbers." One individual says "there are too > many for the > market, so you now have devaluation," but at least this > individual does not > attempt to degrade the educational and testing process of > certification > itself. The other individuals says "higher number CCIEs are > inferior due to > the easier lab," to which some experienced in taking the lab > exam object > vehemently. And many others who are far more experienced in taking the lab interestingly enough agree with me. > > You be the judge. > > **************** > > I think nrf is using this as a hypothetical examle to reinforce > his point. > He's not implying that it would be reasonable or likely. I > feel that it > does a good job of illustrating the point. Many people--not > all, and maybe > not even a majority--give more weight in their own minds to > CCIEs with lower > numbers. I will admit to doing this myself sometimes, and > right or wrong it > demonstrates a bias that many share. This bias appears to be > more and more > prevalent among HR people and nrf is simply pointing this out > while > attempting to show that many of us, if we're honest, have the > same bias. > > John > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70436&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
