I certainly agree with all the points Chuck made. One thing that Cisco could do is
change the requirements to take the lab besides just passing the written exam. I am not
saying by any account that the written is easy, but I know people that have passed it
by
pure luck and really don't know a darn thing. I know a person right now that has passed
the written by getting the passing score on the dime, and he is taking the lab soon. I
wish good luck to him, however he is walking in blindly with out EVER actually
configured a router. He has no internetworking design or troubleshooting experience in
the real world, however he is going to go and take the lab exam just to "see what it is
like"....
I don't think Chuck's ideas are cruel and unusual. I think they really need to make
this
tougher then it already is. Who wants to put "CCIE #102,000" after their name? If they
just open more racks it may get to that point. I believe the written exam should be
scratched with a new format with a higher passing score. Truly the money issue
sometimes
makes little difference. If someone has 30,000 grand to spend on equipment, classes,
books etc., a few more grand can't hurt. And if their company is paying then who cares
right? I know a company that has spent countless dollars actually flying a guy to
Canada, putting him up in a hotel...and paying for his lab....they did this 5 times
before he passed his lab. Those slots could have been used for someone that actually
knew what they were doing and had a chance to pass. It would be nice if they had a 4
hour lab prequal after taking the written. Something that would not require a proctor
to
pass. You would be given many different scenarios at Sylvan and require to configure
them with a virtual IOS. The configs would be sent to an evaluator at Cisco and then
you
would be contacted a week later concerning scheduling your real lab date. This could
weed out some of the flunkies.
If Cisco ruins the value of this exam, they are not going to have any future revenue
from it.
Nate
Chuck Larrieu wrote:
> >> I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were
> going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck)<<
>
> some cruel and unusual thoughts come to mind.
>
> 1) Set some arbitrary standard such that people who fail day one by more
> than so many points have a 90 day wait for retest, rather than 30 days. Or
> you have to at least made it into day 2 to be able to retest within 30 days.
> Some such thing
>
> 2) Limit the number of times one may attempt the lab in any 12 month period.
>
> 3) Increase the price charged for each lab attempt. E.g. 1K for first
> attempt, 2K for 2nd, 5K for third
>
> I say this half jokingly, but half seriously. I talk to a lot of people who
> take the lab, both those who have passed and those who have not.
> The old rule of economics holds true - people act according to their
> perceived best interest. If someone else is footing the bill, and there is
> no disincentive for failure, then people will act accordingly. They will
> book themselves and make attempts even when they know they have no hope of
> passing. They will schedule attempt after attempt because there is no reason
> not to, especially if someone else pays, and especially if there is no
> penalty for failure.
>
> To be frank, I don't see any incentive for Cisco to do anything to change
> things on the demand side. They might add more racks, or more lab locations.
> But do the numbers some time. Cisco is booking something like 25 - 30 people
> a week in San Jose alone. That's 25-30 K per week in revenue, or at least
> 1.3 million a year. So they pay a couple of lab proctors 150K each. The rest
> is pure profit. ( yes, I know from an accounting standpoint there are
> several other cost factors ) So the incentive from Cisco's standpoint is do
> figure out ways to add revenue, rather than limit testing attempts.
>
> I look for Cisco to announce a bit more capacity, either in terms of adding
> another location or adding more racks at existing locations. Or both. There
> is a ton of money to be made in the certification game, and as the entity
> that controls the rules and the market, Cisco certainly enjoys the lion's
> share of that revenue.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 9:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Backlog for CCIE Lab (RTP at least)
>
> I am a little behind on my mail, so please forgive me if this has been
> answered.
>
> I called to schedule my lab on Dec 21. The next date available was June
> 11-12 at RTP. SIX MONTH BACKLOG...WOW!!!
>
> I did not ask about other test centers, but would imagine similar bookings.
> I was told Cisco was trying to reduce the problem, but not how they were
> going to achieve their goal. (I wish them luck)
>
> Jon Burns
> CCNP, CCDP, Lab Candidate
> Now, I just need to get a job! ;-)
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
