below is what I believe the source of this thread is about. It looks like
some else had
also e-mailed Lorne, except Lorne sent him two reports instead of just the
one from
Caslow as was done for me. Below is Mr. Remakers remarks.
Mr. Phil Remaker is one of the first people to achieve CCIE certification
and in 1995
Mr. Remaker was
featured in a Wall Street Journal article focusing on
the technical genius behind the exploding Internet. Mr.
Remaker is
employed
by Cisco Systems as a technical advisor. His reaction to
the improved
CCIE
lab exam were:
"Well, first of all, to end the suspense, I failed the lab
with a score
of 34/100. This is not
unexpected, since I didn't study and have never worked much
with the
Catalyst switches. And taking a few
years off the day-to-day hands-on work really rusts your
skills. So
the good news is that the test is not
easy.
It is also not impossibly hard. It is full of nuance and
interdependency, and has some very good
exercises in interfacing to external networks (IPX, BGP,
frame-relay)
and administrative issues
(filtering, redistribution, port security). Stuff you do
in one
section affects others, yet it is not so
interwoven that you cannot skip around and focus on ones
strengths.
Also, by dropping the mundane basic
config stuff, more time is focused on the things that
really test your
skills, not your ability to type in
tedoius information (people that fail to type in the
tedious info will
probably also fail the lab).
I had the luxury of reviewing the exam question by question with feedback
from Jeff and
Howard, and I gave
some feedback on how the questions might be clearer of how
the
scenarios might be tweaked. But on the
whole, the exam as it stands was very good, testing time
management,
documentation reading, and network
configuration skills.
I did miss having the wiring just a little, but I think
that modern
networks are much more virtualized and
that wiring is less relevant in complex networks as
everything gets
VLANned. The ability to find a wiring
problem is still a serious skill, and I suggested that
maybe one of the
prewired networks be wired on the
wrong port and force people to find it 8-).
The lack of partial credit killed me, too. I got SO CLOSE
on so many
of the questions! But I agree with
the policy, since subjectivity could kill the exam
credibility. You
might want to emphasize to candidates
(maybe you already do) that there is no partial credit.
Another measure of a good exam is "Did I learn something
from taking
the exam?" The answer here is YES! I
learned about ISL and ATM (which I had never used before,
only read
about) and a little about
route-tagging and distribution lists that I had not
previously known. I
even learned about some Cisco
capabilities that I didn't know existed (port security).
I am a believer in the one-day lab. Anyone CCIE that
thinks it
cheapens the CCIE should come in and try
to pass it. We should invite the anti-one-day activists to
come in and
take the test for free ONCE so
they can give us feedback. I think the test hits the mark.
Thanks for inviting me in to try the exam. And thanks to
Jeff and
Howard for their overtime to accommodate my San Jose
schedule. Kudos
to the exam authors."
Enid Sorkowitz wrote:
> I am posting this per Lorne Braddock's request. Please don't directly
> respond back to me or Lorne because we simply can't reply to everyone
> and don't want to appear disrespectful.
>
> Regards,
>
> Enid Sorkowitz
> Manager, Customer Service
> CCIE Program
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The CCIE program team at Cisco Systems, Inc. recently announced a
> revised lab exam format and that sparked a good deal of discussion on
> this study group alias. I personally do not belong to the alias but one
> particular message was brought to my attention because it was not only
> inaccurate, it was potentially damaging. Someone posted what they
> represented as being valid test score results achieved by Phil Remaker
> and Bruce Caslow during their voluntary review of the our new CCIE lab
> exam format. Those were NOT valid test scores so the information posted
> by this individual was not only inaccurate and inappropriate, it was
> misleading and had the potential of professionally damaging the two
> individuals he was attributing the scores to.
>
> Because I do not personally belong to this forum, I elected to contact
> the individual who posted the misinformation to make him aware of the
> real facts. I was careful to explain that I had no problem with
> individuals expressing their personal point of view but, posting
> inappropriate, inaccurate and damaging information about someone else
> was in no ones best interests. I gave him the facts and asked him to
> post a clarification. By doing so, he would correct the records, gain
> personal credibility and send a clear signal that facts and not rhetoric
> are important. He assured me he would consider my request but, for
> reasons known only to him, he apparently decided to let the
> misinformation stand. I will not.
>
> I am the person who approached Bruce Caslow and Phil Remaker with the
> request that they evaluate our new CCIE lab exam format. I approached
> them along with a couple of other Internet notables because of their
> reputations and the industry wide credibility they possess. Both Bruce
> and Phil welcomed the opportunity to conduct such an evaluation because
> they sincerely care about the ongoing reputation and success of the CCIE
> certification program. Both men willingly donated their time, and good
> names, to this evaluation. They were also willing to document their
> findings and make them available to the interested public. In my
> opinion, their's is the kind of activism and involvement that is
> beneficial to all who are and aspire to be CCIE certified.
>
> Bruce and Phil were asked for their opinion on the test's relevance,
> degree of challenge, clarity and overall quality. I wanted their
> opinion as to whether this test set the proper standard of excellence
> for a CCIE level certification exam. Was it as good or better than it's
> predecessor? I told both of them that I did not expect, or want, them
> to take the lab exam for scoring purposes. It was the new lab exam
> format I wanted evaluated, not them. The analogy is as if I was asking
> a world class marathoner to jog a new course I mapped out to see if it
> suitable for world class record setting purposes. Is the course
> challenging enough, is it fair, does it test each athlete thoroughly?
> That's what I wanted their opinion on. Neither Bruce nor Phil studied
> or prepared in any way other than to clear their calender for the day.
> Of the two of them, Phil was the only one to even mention a score and he
> did so in a self deprecating way. Bottom line, no valid scores were
> tallied or posted. No score should be attributed to either one of them.
>
> Lorne Braddock
> Sr. Manager, CCIE Programs
> Cisco Systems
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=13854&t=13789
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
