Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > [NRF] 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 > > [JN] Your overall approach has a pattern to it, and your > response ironically > reenforces the notion. The "number of CCIE" thread merely > complements the > entire line of reasoning that you have thus far been feeding > the topic of > credentials in general. Below is again a case in point. > > [NRF] 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. > > [JN] Admissions to a college is merely a step along the cheat > ladder for > many, and there are many "supplemental" colleges and > universities that hand > out the bachelors for those who fail the first admissions > hurdle. > Therefore, the overall picture is as dismal as that of the > cert: i.e.
Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to certain well-known elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's degree is born the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman Sachs will send recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And this is well understood - this is why parents want their kids to attend the best school they can. > Bachelors holders in various fields oversupply the market and > cause for > unemployment of their peers. For example, there is no > "national engineer > graduate limit" to contend with. More, if the student has > "completed" his > education and testing with enough "abundance of information," > then his GPA > and other such qualifications are also privy to such > "informational > corruption." >After the admission fiasco, you will once again > have the > typical student cram relentlessly during his college tenure, > tempting > him/her to once again reap the old Internet harvest of > information. I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. First of all, what "admissions fiasco"? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please show me this statistic where it shows this is happening. Are you saying that all of a sudden because of the abundance of information, everybody is now a star athlete or class president, or all those other factors that help you gain admission? There can only be one star quarterback, there can only be one class president, there can only be one head cheerleader. Are you saying that because of the information explosion, everybody's now getting a perfect 4.0 high school GPA? Again, I don't see that happening, and if it is, then it's really the fault of high-school grade inflation, not with the abundance of information per se. And then you talk about what people do when they're in college. If students are using the Internet to cheat, then that's really a problem with cheating in general and not with information abundance. That's why schools are implementing policies to check for the very kind of cheating that you have stated - school administrators themselves are keeping tabs on websites where you can download papers and other such 'tools'. >He will > have his myriad choice of cheating, whether that is by way of > hacked test > answers, ready made term papers on any given subject on the > net, or by way > of paid for term paper writing franchises. >This is an > irrelevancy that is > repeatedly used by your argumentation. Yet the same thing applies just as equally to the certification process. You talk about guys hacking test answers or getting ready-made term papers. Yet there have been several cases in Asia where CCIE proctors have been caught selling actual test questions on the black market. Right now, there are certain websites in China that will sell you these questions (I am obviously not going to name any of these websites here). And you talk about some people hiring term-paper franchises, yet people have engaged in the practice of hiring guys to take their CCIE test for them. The point is that cheating cuts both ways. Every single cheating method that you have mentioned in the academic world has its equivalent method in the cert world. I don't see that academic cheating is any more serious than certification cheating. So it's a wash. > I said it earlier: Any > such > generalization and "benchmarking" will be counterproductive and > damaging to > the process of choosing employees, particularly for our field. > It is > unfair, and it is stupid. Yet strangely enough, this is precisely what corporate America does. So basically you're saying that they're wrong and you're right? If so, then well, please, by all means, start your own company and compete against them. Since apparently you know more than they do, then you'll be able to defeat them handily and become the next Bill Gates. > > [NRF] And many others who are far more experienced in taking > the lab > interestingly > enough agree with me. > > [JN] Produce them. OK. John Kaberna. Hansang Bae. Kwame Gordon. To name a few. Who do you got? >I can vouch for the fact that certs have > not gotten > easier in and of themselves. Then ask yourself why is it that lab bootcamps are such a thriving business? Either it's because they make it easier to pass the exam or all the people who choose to buy them are stupid and throwing their money away. I don't think it's the latter. Therefore you must conclude that bootcamps make things easier. It then follows that the test is easier nowadays when there are bootcamps around then in the past when there were no bootcamps. >I can also vouch for the fact > that a college > degree can be obtained with much more ease than before, but > that is my > personal experience and bias talking. > Remember, I am also a > graduate in > addition to holding certifications, although in completely > unrelated fields. As am I, and I am telling you that it is the opposite. Moreover, I got corporate America implicitly on my side. How's that? Simple. If degrees were getting easier to obtain, then why do college graduates, on average, still continue to make more money than non-graduates? Do you think companies enjoy paying grads more? Do you think they like it? Oh, wait, because you're a college graduate, cool, then here have a higher salary because, you know us, we enjoy earning less profit? Come on. If college really is getting easier, then companies should respond by paying them less (supply and demand, if supply increases, then the equilibrium price drops). Are they doing that? I don't see it. > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70537&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
