Just a few clarificatory points inline:
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: "Kevin Cullimore"
Cc: ;
Sent: 26 May 2002 9:41 pm
Subject: Re: written [7:45056]
> I agree with your statement about poorly worded questions. However, this
> is just an excuse for a poorly written test!
>
> Oh just for the record, ever hear of a bandwidth domain? If you have
> please let me know about it because I can't find it anywhere.
>
> I didn't say that only CCSE<>knowledge of security! (Man if you had any
clue you would have said
> CSS1<> knowledge of security and I didn't say that either! But why not
> say CCNP/IP<> knowledge of Routing just to be consistant!)
Agreed about your original claim. Unfortunately, i can only speak about the
CCSE since I don't have (and did not sit the exams for) the CISSP or the
CSS1. I could easily make the same (verifiable) claims for 6 other vendors,
which would encompass the CCNP, but I'm not sure that that would have been
relevant to your case.
Given your dissatisfaction with the rigorousness of the tests in question,
the expectation ("would give at least a suggestion") appears to be way out
of line. The expectation also leaves you open for misinterpretations such as
"only CCSE<>knowledge of security!" Though definitely NOT by me.
What I implied
> was that those 3 tests in combination would give at least a suggestion
> that I do know security enough to not get a 0% on an easier test
> especially with the same vendor! Additionally, what I said before is that
> the CCSE was a test where I had to memorize answers in order to pass the
> test pure and simple vs Most of Cisco's tests where what I read in a book
> is used the same day on the job. If you know the theory then you know it.
> It will be the same in RSA or a RFC or sometimes even Microsoft or other
> publications.
>
> Oh can I make this clearer? If I read Doyle, Halabi, Pricilla, Howard or
> Moy, I can not only apply their knowledge to any vendor network, but I can
> pass Cisco tests based on their books and become more educated in the
> process. (I am still making money just from Top-Down) If I don't know
what these 5 authors are talking about then I need to
> reread them for I will fail to know networking in more than one
> environment. I really didn't have this experience with Checkpoint although
> RFC 2401-2410 did help a bit. With Checkpoint I was pretty much on my own
> and no matter how many times I did the labs and implemented solutions for
> customers, I still didn't help me on the test. 4 routers, Halabi and
> Caslow, and a day in an ISP was all I needed to increase from a 10% to a
> 100% on the BGP section of the BSCN (of yeah about 10 lattes at least).
> That is how tests should be.
>
> Reread what I said about the CCSE again... The implication is more
> towards the CSS1 and CCIE Sec wri. I just aced the first RSA test and
> Microsoft design Sec test and what helped me out for them? Grad School,
> CSS1, CCSE, CISSP, work, RFC 2401-2410, RSA Press, white papers,Maeda. If
> Cisco can help me get a better score on a non-Cisco test then it should
> help me get a better score on a Cisco test! Got the point?
I knew the point in advance, I just am forbidden from criticizing
educational endeavors without having endured them myself, no matter how much
of a well-established pattern they might follow to the letter.
>
> Perhaps what you said about my history situation is correct. If my
> customer have pre 12.0 I just tell them to upgrade or I will not work for
> them. So far it has worked every time. The same goes for PIXs. If they
> are using 5.2 or the 520 I tell them to get 6.1 and upgrade to the 525 and
> po's are signed. Just force the issue with them or walk away. It works
> well for me :-) It makes your company more money too.
It does indeed make your company more money, I've just encountered a
different success rate with the walking away tactic.
>
> I know Foundry is not the only solution. We have here, Extreme, Juniper,
> NEC, Hitachi, Packeteer, BigIP, among other vendors. I used Foundry
> because of the straight forwardness of the vendor,
I'm not sure that straightforwardness extends to their documentation or even
product specs; I've seen people make the wrong purchasing decision based
upon bad information received from technical support on topics that were not
covered online.
quality, and price but
> I evaluated the other vendors as well.
>
> Theo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Kevin Cullimore"
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 05/27/2002 08:44 AM
> Please respond to "Kevin Cullimore"
>
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc:
> Subject: Re: written [7:45056]
>
>
> Dealing with poorly worded questions can sometimes serve as good practice
> for interpreting the inherent incoherence & unrealism characterizing many
> customer demands and concerns in real time.
>
> The relevance of the history questions underscores the distinctiveness of
> your situation. You are indeed fortunate to not have to contend with
> legacy
> code, but many of us lack the financial independence to adhere to your
> high
> standards, so we're faced with situations where we need to make sure that
> the intermediate systems on the far end running code from 1999 can support
> the relatively new functionality we were hoping to implement on devices
> found at the near end.
>
> Two side notes: Foundry is not the only alternative, and I can verify
> firsthand that CCSE<>knowledge of security (although I admit that those
> exams contained more questions concerning rfc-based security standards
> than
> any other exams I've taken).
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: 26 May 2002 4:44 am
> Subject: Re: written [7:45056]
>
>
> > Yeah but I can sympathize with you man because several times on the test
> I
> > think that Cisco is wrong. Usually, Cisco is right on and I have to
> agree
> > because the right answer is just here. However, sometimes I don't think
> > the answer is there at all or I think the question is phrased in a way
> to
> > make me fail. I don't like those questions.
> >
> > So far, BSCN, BCSI, IDS, VPN, PIX, MCNS and QoS had questions that I
> could
> > not disagree with and though yeah, the correct answer is right here. The
> > questions properly tested my knowledge and if I was wrong, I agreed I
> was
> > wrong. These are good tests. Especially the CLI questions, very
> > respectable.
> >
> > However, for CCNA, CCDA, CID, CIT, and CCIE R&S/SEC written, some of the
> > questions I thought were more designed to make me fail rather than test
> my
> > real knowledge on the topic. It was like, I would take sometimes 3
> > minutes just to try to figure out what the hell Cisco was asking. I
> never
> > had that problem with the other tests. I don't like it either when
> Cisco
> > plays English language word games on the test. Some of my friends are
> not
> > native English speakers can they can't understand the questions. In
> > particular, I don't like the IOS history questions. They really get me
> > vexed. Can you imagine this.
> >
> > Router>
> > Router>en
> > Password: ********
> > Question: What IOS version introduced NAT?
> > Question: 11.0 (Engineer shouts explictives!)
> > Question: wrong
> > Question: 10.2
> > Question: wrong
> > Question: 11.1
> > Question: wrong
> >
> > If my router asked me this I would throw it out the window and go buy a
> > Foundry machine asap! I don't understand why I need to know the history
> > of a command. So far, only Cisco is asking me these silly questions.
> > Understanding a topic is quite different from understanding the history.
> > Historical questions are just silly I think! I just can't understand
> > how I would be a better engineer if I knew the history of commands
> > expecially given that I now only use 12.0 and above. If someone wanted
> me
> > to do below 12.0 I would tell them to find a starving CCIE from Cali!
> >
> > And get this! I am a CISSP and a CSS1 and CCSE. You would think that I
> > know security right? I got a 0% on the CID security section twice! I
> > still don't know why. How could I not know enough when I got over 900
> on
> > each of the CSS1 tests all on the first try??????? I just don't
> > understand sometimes.....
> >
> > Theodore Stout, CISSP
> > Senior Security Consultant
> > CCSE, CSS1, CCNP, CCDP, MCSE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Erwin"
> > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 05/26/2002 01:57 PM
> > Please respond to "Erwin"
> >
> >
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > cc:
> > Subject: Re: written [7:45056]
> >
> >
> > How would you know that the particular question does not have a correct
> > answer, based on the score you get--69%-- It does not sound convincing
> to
> > me.
> > Even you get that question rewarded to you, it does not mean you will
> get
> > 70% since I believe it is calculated using a statistical analysis
> > technique.
> > Even if you can get 70%, it does not mean that you master the topic
> well.
> > The most important thing is that you understand and master the topics,
> not
> > just "pass pass pass". Try to get distinction or high distinction
> > (unfortunately, the exam grade is only pass and fail).
> >
> > Good luck for your next exam.
> >
> > ""CJ"" wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Having obtained 69% and failing the CCIE qualification, There was one
> > > question
> > > which did not have a correct answer. Whom do I contact at Cisco
> address
> > this
> > > issue. [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not yet replay since the last 4 days.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45115&t=45056
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
