What a good idea. Maybe Cisco should search the archives for the negative
posts and allow them a free go at the new lab. Bravo to the existing CCIE's
who would have a pop at it, for nothing other than the good and benefit of
the CCIE program.
Is there any truth in the rumour that re-certification may be the new one
day lab, or have I just made it up? :-)
Gaz
""Anand Ghody"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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=14053&t=13789
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
