> But on the other hand, there are indeed a significant number of CCIE's out > there to which I would never trust a production network. They're not > 'paper' because they did pass the lab, but they are basically "lab- CCIE's" > because lab-work is the only thing they know. The 'lab-CCIE' (or perhaps > the more pejorative term of 'lab-rat') is someone who has zero or minimal > experience in a production environment. And let's not beat around the > bush - a production network is totally different from a lab. >
> One quick fix that I think Cisco should do for the program is something that > the CISSP program does now - mandate X years of verifiable experience before > you can attempt the lab. Or, if that seems too harsh, then perhaps Cisco > can institute another program that sits on top of the CCIE (call it the CCIM > or whatever) and have that program be not only hard, but also use verifiable > experience as a pre-req. This is not a personal attack on nrf, I do agree with him that there are many "holes" in the test the do undermine it's authority as the domineering certification exam. However, I think we might be doing more harm than good. There are too many "router caressers" out there who would fulfill one qualification to take the exam yet totally fail due to their lack of speed, problem solving, and cognitive capabilities. Yet the qualified individuals with the skills I mentioned would be eliminated because they did not caress routers for a few years. Besides, how can the manager, who typically has far less technical prowess be able to verify his employee has done his job to the finest of his ability. Too many times I have heard someone say "well, the way we did it in company XYZ is this way because that's the way we have been doing it for years." (even if it's dead wrong, inefficient, and what not.) I would be more frightened of the guy sitting in maintenance of a production network for years and he never knew WHY things were the way they were. The manager might think he was doing a great job in "keeping the network up" because the employee never setup anything. In fact, typically in a production network you are greatly discouraged from setting up anything intrusive in anyway. (oh no, moving to OSPF from RIP, can't do that now better save that for 48 weekends!). Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Just, you can find people who have been doing aggressive setups with a fraction of the "years of experience" who can beat the crap out of anyone who has done the "years of router caressing" simply because they do not have to work on that "wait until the weekend" cut over time frame for every little change, instead they are working on quite a few turn ups for different clients every weekend and supporting them. I am trying to gear more towards agreement with Howard's earlier statements in reference to not being so worried about the person who did not port 80 == HTTP but rather that there is a protocol over TCP etc etc. Knowing the raw fundamentals down cold is a big plus and filtering out qualified individuals because they were not allowed to "router caress" for three years seems a bit unfounded. When people say "I know the theory about XYZ" the common belief is that they do not know it that well. My take on it is reversed, IF you know something, you can explain it cold, and IF you can explain the theory of something, you can teach it and explain it. So most people who say "Yeah I got the theory about FTP..." NO, quit fooling yourself, you do not know it. The CISSP's "restriction" has done little to stop their own flood of "paper" CISSPs. In fact, the same story goes there, people have seen quite a few CISSPs who know very little about real world security. Ironically, they should be applying their knowledge to real world products but they typically fail since the kind of mentality of a person going for these certs is usually for the "least amount of work for the most amount of money." People still think the CCIE is a very difficult exam in it's current form. Both tests have "cheaters" who sneak through. Maybe we should stop trying to fix the exam and increase awareness of what the exam "guarantees" in terms of deliverables. Perhaps it is just time for people to reevaluate their needs and their requirements for new employees rather than trying to fixup the one "Examination" to rule them all. Sorry Sauron. (this was not directly to you, nrf, just ... a little humor if you could catch the allusion.) -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60656&t=59481 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
