>they were boring because the questions asked had
>little or "nitwit" relevance to what the companies
>wanted to do.
>in my opinion a ccda exam shd have had better and
>interesting scenarios.
>regards
>mongol


That's a valid observation.

Let me offer a bit of perspective on nitwit-ism in the real world. 
When I taught the design/technical track of Cisco University (a 
program for resellers), all three tracks (design, sales, and 
operations) met as a group, then split up.  We usually left the 
design track in the original room.

I'd often start out by asking, "Anyone here from sales?"

And someone would raise their hand.

I'd respond.  "Thank you. I'll speak slowly."

Especially in a reseller context, you will often have to respond to 
scenarios in which you can only moan to the sales rep, "you sold them 
WHAAAT? And you want WHO to make it work?"

There's a whole art to responding to bad specifications with systems 
that inflict minimal pain. Mind you, I don't think the design cert 
exams are this subtle, but a good CID class will get into how you 
manage customer expectations and respond to poor specifications.

>
>--- "Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>  >Hi
>>  >I read in a forum that the CID exam now is 200
>>  questions in 120 mins !!
>>  >I was told a month back that it was 100 questions.
>>  >Pls clarify.
>>  >(Hope those boring scenarios are not there.)
>>  >regards
>>
>>
>>  Why are scenarios boring?  Aren't those the
>>  principal things you will
>>  deal with as a real-world designer?
>>
>>  _________________________________
>>  FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>>  http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>>  Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
>http://auctions.yahoo.com/

_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to