|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.cisco > April 2003 > Cert numbers are exploding!!!!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Cert numbers are exploding!!!!
|
|
|
|
| vladimir 2003-04-22, 1:24 pm |
|
"VPN" <cert@ificates.com> wrote in message
news:aBdpa.1799$Zj2.350174@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 1/2 a million to date..ouch!!
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030422/225293_1.html
It's still less than 00.01% of the world population so I wouldn't say it's
exploding but it's growing.
>
>
| |
| Karate-Kid MC 2003-04-22, 2:24 pm |
| Lets put it this way...
In 1997 I did seven Newbridge (now Alcatel) exams, six prometric and the
final one of which was a lab based exam. This certification program never
got off the ground since no one was interested. I therefore wasted five
months of my f***ing time studying for it. Now, what would I prefer? A
certification exam program that is complete crap and that no one wants? Or
a system where people see the value and want to get a foot in the door? I
know which I would prefer. I have recently got my CCIE (thanks to you guys
involved, you know who you are) and I don't care if there are 9700 people
with it. That's fine to me - it means it's a seriously mainstream
qualification.
Cisco is a seriously big company with a serious turnover - just like
Microsoft. If people think they are going to be in some way "unique" by
having a vendor qualification from these ginats then they are living in
dreamland. Even more silly to decry the fact that more and more people are
getting certified. If people want to be unique then do a Ph.D in "Flower
arranging in the Byzantine tradition" or what about a masters degree in
"Philosophical methods of the Swahilli; 200BC - 800AD".
Come on guys - more people being certified is a good thing.
"VPN" <cert@ificates.com> wrote in message
news:aBdpa.1799$Zj2.350174@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 1/2 a million to date..ouch!!
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030422/225293_1.html
>
>
| |
| vladimir 2003-04-22, 2:24 pm |
|
"Karate-Kid MC" <Doo-Daa@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b841ma$5vh09$1@ID-179018.news.dfncis.de...
> Lets put it this way...
> In 1997 I did seven Newbridge (now Alcatel) exams, six prometric and the
> final one of which was a lab based exam. This certification program never
> got off the ground since no one was interested. I therefore wasted five
> months of my f***ing time studying for it. Now, what would I prefer? A
> certification exam program that is complete crap and that no one wants?
Or
> a system where people see the value and want to get a foot in the door? I
> know which I would prefer. I have recently got my CCIE (thanks to you
guys
> involved, you know who you are) and I don't care if there are 9700 people
> with it. That's fine to me - it means it's a seriously mainstream
> qualification.
>
> Cisco is a seriously big company with a serious turnover - just like
> Microsoft. If people think they are going to be in some way "unique" by
> having a vendor qualification from these ginats then they are living in
> dreamland. Even more silly to decry the fact that more and more people
are
> getting certified. If people want to be unique then do a Ph.D in "Flower
> arranging in the Byzantine tradition" or what about a masters degree in
> "Philosophical methods of the Swahilli; 200BC - 800AD".
>
> Come on guys - more people being certified is a good thing.
That's a nice and fresh way to think about especially coming from a ccie
certified person. Being certified
means primarilly being able to do a certain job . If you want to be unique,
how about inventing medicine for aids,
no one's done that
>
>
>
> "VPN" <cert@ificates.com> wrote in message
> news:aBdpa.1799$Zj2.350174@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > 1/2 a million to date..ouch!!
> >
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030422/225293_1.html
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Daniel Lawrence 2003-04-22, 2:24 pm |
| Karate-Kid MC
More certified people is a good thing to a point. As long as they are able
to do the job they are supposedly certified for great. However, as the
number of certified people grows and employers start really demanding the
certs in order to get employment the more the vulture trade schools and boot
camps will pump out paper certified people devaluing what some people worked
so hard to get.
--
Daniel Lawrence
A+, Network+
"Karate-Kid MC" <Doo-Daa@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b841ma$5vh09$1@ID-179018.news.dfncis.de...
> Lets put it this way...
> In 1997 I did seven Newbridge (now Alcatel) exams, six prometric and the
> final one of which was a lab based exam. This certification program never
> got off the ground since no one was interested. I therefore wasted five
> months of my f***ing time studying for it. Now, what would I prefer? A
> certification exam program that is complete crap and that no one wants?
Or
> a system where people see the value and want to get a foot in the door? I
> know which I would prefer. I have recently got my CCIE (thanks to you
guys
> involved, you know who you are) and I don't care if there are 9700 people
> with it. That's fine to me - it means it's a seriously mainstream
> qualification.
>
> Cisco is a seriously big company with a serious turnover - just like
> Microsoft. If people think they are going to be in some way "unique" by
> having a vendor qualification from these ginats then they are living in
> dreamland. Even more silly to decry the fact that more and more people
are
> getting certified. If people want to be unique then do a Ph.D in "Flower
> arranging in the Byzantine tradition" or what about a masters degree in
> "Philosophical methods of the Swahilli; 200BC - 800AD".
>
> Come on guys - more people being certified is a good thing.
>
>
>
> "VPN" <cert@ificates.com> wrote in message
> news:aBdpa.1799$Zj2.350174@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > 1/2 a million to date..ouch!!
> >
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030422/225293_1.html
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Karate-Kid MC 2003-04-22, 2:24 pm |
| Hi Daniel,
I often here this old line about "they may be a CCNA, but can they can do
the job?". It is a perfectly reasonable point to propose. However, I also
think this line is used very defensively by many holders of these
qualifications, so that they can add some sort of authenticity to their own
certifications and put down others who they perceive as "paper" holders of
those same certifications. In actual fact, I reckon that many of these guys
actually COULD do the job. How would people with this sneering opinion
think then? Maybe, in actual fact Cisco's cert program is infact very good,
and in order to pass, you really do need to know how to do the job at that
level? Maybe this whole "paper" theory is just non-sense peddled by folks
jealous that more and more people are sharing their qualification? Not
saying that you think that Daniel. However, many others do.
No offence - just a point for discussion.
"Daniel Lawrence" <delphiworks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qYfpa.1899$Zj2.365044@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Karate-Kid MC
> More certified people is a good thing to a point. As long as they are able
> to do the job they are supposedly certified for great. However, as the
> number of certified people grows and employers start really demanding the
> certs in order to get employment the more the vulture trade schools and
boot
> camps will pump out paper certified people devaluing what some people
worked
> so hard to get.
>
> --
> Daniel Lawrence
> A+, Network+
> "Karate-Kid MC" <Doo-Daa@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:b841ma$5vh09$1@ID-179018.news.dfncis.de...
> > Lets put it this way...
> > In 1997 I did seven Newbridge (now Alcatel) exams, six prometric and the
> > final one of which was a lab based exam. This certification program
never
> > got off the ground since no one was interested. I therefore wasted five
> > months of my f***ing time studying for it. Now, what would I prefer? A
> > certification exam program that is complete crap and that no one wants?
> Or
> > a system where people see the value and want to get a foot in the door?
I
> > know which I would prefer. I have recently got my CCIE (thanks to you
> guys
> > involved, you know who you are) and I don't care if there are 9700
people
> > with it. That's fine to me - it means it's a seriously mainstream
> > qualification.
> >
> > Cisco is a seriously big company with a serious turnover - just like
> > Microsoft. If people think they are going to be in some way "unique" by
> > having a vendor qualification from these ginats then they are living in
> > dreamland. Even more silly to decry the fact that more and more people
> are
> > getting certified. If people want to be unique then do a Ph.D in
" Flower
> > arranging in the Byzantine tradition" or what about a masters degree in
> > "Philosophical methods of the Swahilli; 200BC - 800AD".
> >
> > Come on guys - more people being certified is a good thing.
> >
> >
> >
> > "VPN" <cert@ificates.com> wrote in message
> > news:aBdpa.1799$Zj2.350174@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > 1/2 a million to date..ouch!!
> > >
> > > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030422/225293_1.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
| |
|
|
"Daniel Lawrence" <delphiworks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6Pgpa.2013$Zj2.373341@news20.bellglobal.com...
> no offense taken. I have to agree with some of of your points but I feel
> that there really are too many paper certification holders as it is and it
> is painfully obvious when you are working with these people and they can
not
> even format a floppy.
>
> Now on the point of the Cisco certs I have to admit I have not done them
yet
> I am scheduled to take courses shortly so I can not comment directly on
> this, but would love to hear from others on this point.
>
> In my experience certifications on thier own are a waste unless backed up
> with actual hands on experience, which of course you can not get without
the
> certifcations.
This is not good news... in fact Cisco is letting unemployed job seekers do
the certs for FREE in London... too many people have certs and it seems that
certs are becoming a big part of Cisco and Microsoft's money making racket,
a bit like merchandise at a rock concert
and the stupid quote about it only being 00.01% of the worlds population...
well bud.. only about 5% of the worlds population have PC's
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
| |
|
| I'm doing it for free, it's paid for by the EEC, what's wrong with that?
--
Kenny
"My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!"
"Blaze" <asfdaf@aff.com> wrote in message
news:3ea5cdcf_2@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> "Daniel Lawrence" <delphiworks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6Pgpa.2013$Zj2.373341@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > no offense taken. I have to agree with some of of your points but I feel
> > that there really are too many paper certification holders as it is and
it
> > is painfully obvious when you are working with these people and they can
> not
> > even format a floppy.
> >
> > Now on the point of the Cisco certs I have to admit I have not done them
> yet
> > I am scheduled to take courses shortly so I can not comment directly on
> > this, but would love to hear from others on this point.
> >
> > In my experience certifications on thier own are a waste unless backed
up
> > with actual hands on experience, which of course you can not get without
> the
> > certifcations.
>
>
> This is not good news... in fact Cisco is letting unemployed job seekers
do
> the certs for FREE in London... too many people have certs and it seems
that
> certs are becoming a big part of Cisco and Microsoft's money making
racket,
> a bit like merchandise at a rock concert
>
> and the stupid quote about it only being 00.01% of the worlds
population...
> well bud.. only about 5% of the worlds population have PC's
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
| |
| Bernie 2003-04-22, 8:24 pm |
| On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:29:29 +0100, "Karate-Kid MC"
<Doo-Daa@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Lets put it this way...
>In 1997 I did seven Newbridge (now Alcatel) exams, six prometric and the
>final one of which was a lab based exam. This certification program never
>got off the ground since no one was interested. I therefore wasted five
>months of my f***ing time studying for it. Now, what would I prefer? A
>certification exam program that is complete crap and that no one wants? Or
>a system where people see the value and want to get a foot in the door? I
>know which I would prefer. I have recently got my CCIE (thanks to you guys
>involved, you know who you are) and I don't care if there are 9700 people
>with it. That's fine to me - it means it's a seriously mainstream
>qualification.
>
>Cisco is a seriously big company with a serious turnover - just like
>Microsoft. If people think they are going to be in some way "unique" by
>having a vendor qualification from these ginats then they are living in
>dreamland. Even more silly to decry the fact that more and more people are
>getting certified. If people want to be unique then do a Ph.D in "Flower
>arranging in the Byzantine tradition" or what about a masters degree in
>"Philosophical methods of the Swahilli; 200BC - 800AD".
>
>Come on guys - more people being certified is a good thing.
It is only good if people aren't cheating like mad, etc.
>"VPN" <cert@ificates.com> wrote in message
>news:aBdpa.1799$Zj2.350174@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> 1/2 a million to date..ouch!!
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030422/225293_1.html
>>
>>
>
--Bernie
| |
|
|
"vladimir" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:sZepa.100239$BQi.44106@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "VPN" <cert@ificates.com> wrote in message
> news:aBdpa.1799$Zj2.350174@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > 1/2 a million to date..ouch!!
> >
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030422/225293_1.html
>
>
> It's still less than 00.01% of the world population so I wouldn't say
it's
> exploding but it's growing.
Uh, I really don't think that's relevant. Let's face it. The vast majority
of the world's population lives in the Third World where there is utter
poverty and certainly no IT infrastructure. Those people don't care about
computer systems, they care about clean water and getting enough food to
eat. I don't think anybody here should be compared to a peasant from
Botswana (with apologies to any Botswanans here).
Furthermore, a giant chunk of who's left consists of minors. Again, I don't
think it's proper to compare anybody here to the children of the world.
Also, another large chunk consists of old retired people who also don't care
about computer systems because they're not in the working world anyway.
And of course the biggest chunk of all consists of people who don't work in
the IT field. What does a doctor care about a computer certification? Or a
farmer? Or a bus-driver?
So when you really look at the relevant population, that is people who
actually care about the IT field, you could say that the cert numbers are
exploding.
> >
> >
>
>
| |
|
|
"Karate-Kid MC" <Doo-Daa@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b841ma$5vh09$1@ID-179018.news.dfncis.de...
> Lets put it this way...
> In 1997 I did seven Newbridge (now Alcatel) exams, six prometric and the
> final one of which was a lab based exam. This certification program never
> got off the ground since no one was interested. I therefore wasted five
> months of my f***ing time studying for it. Now, what would I prefer? A
> certification exam program that is complete crap and that no one wants?
Or
> a system where people see the value and want to get a foot in the door? I
> know which I would prefer. I have recently got my CCIE (thanks to you
guys
> involved, you know who you are) and I don't care if there are 9700 people
> with it. That's fine to me - it means it's a seriously mainstream
> qualification.
>
> Cisco is a seriously big company with a serious turnover - just like
> Microsoft. If people think they are going to be in some way "unique" by
> having a vendor qualification from these ginats then they are living in
> dreamland. Even more silly to decry the fact that more and more people
are
> getting certified.
The problem is not with more and more people getting certified, per se. The
problem has to do with lowered standards. There has been a palpable drop in
quality of the CCIE's who have been certified recently as compared to those
who were certified, say, 5 years ago. Nobody talked about "lab-rats" 5
years ago - why not? Because back then they hardly existed, that's why, but
they do exist in significant quanitities today. Back in the old days, you
could essentially assume that a CCIE was a highly experienced and competent
network engineer, but nowadays this is no longer a safe assumption.
Exploding numbers of certified people are just a symptom of the real
problem - namely, lowered standards.
And as always, the free market will adjust. This is why you have employers
who demand CCIE's with a number lower than X. It's not because those
employers are intentionally trying to screw guys with high numbers, but
because they have realized that the quality of the low-number CCIE's tends
to be higher. Employers are always looking to preferentially hire high
quality guys, and they will figure out where the quality is.
I'll put it to you this way. Americans generally have faith in their
doctors due, at least in part, to their highly rigorous training. Every
practicing doctor has to go through years and years of grueling schooling
and training. But what if that were not the case? What if, all of a
sudden, medical training got much much easier - like medical schools started
a "get your MD in 30 days bootcamp" kind of thing? Would you feel
confident having one of those guys be your doctor, or might you prefer a guy
who had gone through the "old-school" medical training? That's my point.
Heck, when I go to the meat section of the supermarket, I, just like
everybody else, prefer meat that has been graded "prime" because I know that
it means it's a higher quality of cut, but that's only true because most
meat is not good enough to be graded "prime". If that were not true, there
would be no reason to prefer prime. Just like you want high standards out
of the goods and services you enjoy, employers want high standards out of
any people they employ.
>If people want to be unique then do a Ph.D in "Flower
> arranging in the Byzantine tradition" or what about a masters degree in
> "Philosophical methods of the Swahilli; 200BC - 800AD".
I do agree with you that anybody who's pursuing the CCIE because he thinks
it will make him special and unique is just kidding himself.
But I think you take things too far. Surely you know the impact of supply
and demand. For something to be of value, it must both have low supply and
high demand. Just having low supply is not good enough.
Consider this. 32 NFL teams want to win the Superbowl trophy every year.
Yet only 1 team actually gets to win. Players and coaches kill themselves
physically and mentally every year to get that trophy. What makes that
trophy special is that all the teams want it and only 1 can have it. That's
why it's such a big deal to win it, and such a cause of celebration when you
do win it. If only one team wanted to win the Superbowl, then nobody would
care about it. You wouldn't be seeing the ad of the MillerLite Catfight
Girls on a broadcast of an event that only 1 team cared about. The fact
that all 32 teams want it, and only 1 team actually gets it is what makes
the Superbowl such a big deal. Same can be said for any kind of major
sports championship - the World Cup, the Olympics, the World Series, etc.
Everybody wants it, only 1 gets to have it, therefore it's special.
The fact is, nobody really demands somebody who knows about Swahili
philosophy. So low supply is canceled by low demand.
But I'll say it again, I think anybody who's looking at the CCIE because he
thinks it will make him unique is kidding himself. The CCIE no longer
necessarily means you are an elite network engineer. That designation has
become ordinary and mainstream, like you said. The cutoff between elite
and non-elite will therefore, as the free market will inevitably dictate,
migrate to some other criteria - like work experience, size of networks
you've worked on, number and quality of publications,
>
> Come on guys - more people being certified is a good thing.
>
>
>
> "VPN" <cert@ificates.com> wrote in message
> news:aBdpa.1799$Zj2.350174@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > 1/2 a million to date..ouch!!
> >
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/030422/225293_1.html
> >
> >
>
>
| |
| Stuart Robinson 2003-04-23, 2:24 am |
| > I'm doing it for free, it's paid for by the EEC, what's wrong with
> that?
EEC as in Europe ?
Nothing wrong with that at all.
Please tell me how I can get my course\exam\training materials paid for.
Stuart.
| |
| Stuart Robinson 2003-04-23, 2:24 am |
| > Exploding numbers of certified people are just a symptom of the real
> problem - namely, lowered standards.
In that case would you contend that the exams have got steadily easier ?
Stuart.
| |
| Karate-Kid MC 2003-04-23, 4:24 am |
| Absolutley not. Standards have got higher as a general rule. Networking
and computing have matured, have been around for longer and more and more
people now have the skills and knowledge - much more so than even five years
ago. This means CCIE will now pay less? So be it IMO - I am not greedy. I
do not think the world should think I am wonderful for passing a couple of
exams. I just do as my employer tells me, even though I am proud to have
passed. What I do know is that I AM more knowledgeable for the experience
and that is the point of it all surely?
I do not deny there hasn't been some element of getting the certifications
for it's own sake. However, who can blame a person who worked in, lets say,
ship building and now finds that trade to be redundant? They need to do
something else. A more real world example. The British government (just
like the US government for ex armed forces personnel) pumped many tens of
millions of pounds into the IT development of the unemployed two years ago.
These guys learned about computers and networks etc and suddenly caught onto
this certification craze - quite rightly thinking that these were going to
be essential resume items. My question is who the hell can blame them? I
do not think to myself "they are diluting my certification" I think to
myself Good luck to them !!
I agree that when anything becomes more mainstream the "uniqueness" of that
skill steadily decreases with an appropriate salary adjustment. However,
that principle can be applied to anything. If many of us could fly jet
airliners then there would be a corresponding drop in the salary of that
profession. Well, many more of us CAN now understand IT networks and
computer systems so there has been a drop here too.
Of course, only an idiot would deny there isn't a brain dumping culture.
However, that is missing the point completely. If they want to brain dump
then let them ! If they think that they can land a nice job with their
brain dumped skills and no real world experience then best of luck to them !
Meanwhile the rest of us REAL engineers don't have a problem do we? We are
supposed to understand the material aren't we? We are experienced aren't
we? The idea of the certs is just a badge to prove you have sat the exam
and have some measure of exposure and understanding of the technology - just
like a driving license says you passed the driving test though you need more
experience . People will judge me as a driver by how I drive, not by the
fact that I have a driving license and passed the driving test. People will
judge you on what you can do, not what a piece of paper says you can do.
This has always been my experience with hundreds of customers. They do not
care a damn about what certs you have. Let me catagorically assure you that
we recently interviewed for two CCIE's. We had 40 applicants and every one
of them was given a technical grilling of thehighest order. They want to
know if you can get their network up and going again. I am Steve,
networking engineer and NOT Steve ccie.
No offence to anyone - just opinion.
"Stuart Robinson" <Stuartr@nospam.please> wrote in message
news:memo.20030423074843.980E@srnet.compulink.co.uk...
> > Exploding numbers of certified people are just a symptom of the real
> > problem - namely, lowered standards.
>
> In that case would you contend that the exams have got steadily easier ?
>
>
> Stuart.
| |
| Stuart Robinson 2003-04-23, 4:24 am |
| > Absolutley not. Standards have got higher as a general rule.
That the impression I have too, from reading the comment about changes in
the Cisco exams, that the exams have got harder.
I dont have any experience of the Cisco exams (yet) but several years ago
I did all the CNE exams and there was at the time a similar view around in
the Novell world, that many CNEs were 'paper CNEs'. I have taken a look at
the samples of the CNE 5 and 6 upgrade exams, and would say that the
standards of the exams has certainly not fallen and they have probably got
harder.
It might well be true that the average standard\quality of those passing
certifications has fallen, but whereas several years ago only a few
experienced specialists bothered to take exams, these days a lot more
people see the advantage of certification.
I dont think certifications can ever eliminate the need for an employer to
check the experience and competence of a candidate for themselves.
Stuart.
| |
|
|
"Stuart Robinson" <Stuartr@nospam.please> wrote in message
news:memo.20030423074843.980E@srnet.compulink.co.uk...
> > Exploding numbers of certified people are just a symptom of the real
> > problem - namely, lowered standards.
>
> In that case would you contend that the exams have got steadily easier ?
I think it has more to do with the fact that there are simply more
bootcamps, braindumps, and other such things floating around. This is
particularly true of the CCIE lab exam. The fact is, the CCIE got much of
its vaunted reputation because in the early days, the exam was cloaked with
mystery. Nowadays, anybody who does a little investigation can pretty much
figure out the topology of the test, that certain questions always seem to
appear on every version test, with only minor variants (those who've gone
through the test will know EXACTLY what I'm talking about), and other such
things. It's become banal.
The net effect is that you have newbie network engineers who've been trained
specifically to the test, and entire schools who do nothing but teach to the
test. Surely you would agree that it's easier to prepare for a test when
you can attend a class that will give you a carbon-copy experience of what
the test will be like, an advantage that the old-timers simply didn't enjoy.
It's basically an entirely different testing environment, and hence,
contributes to a general lowering of standards. Therefore, to compensate,
the test should be made more difficult if you want to maintain the same
overall standards.
Otherwise, you end up with the situation we have now - where, let's be
honest, the newer CCIE's are on average not as good as the older ones. Why?
Because the older ones couldn't 'study to the test' (because no such study
materials were available), and therefore had to rely on sheer networking
know-how to pass, whereas the newer ones can study to the test and rely less
on knowhow than he is on "test familiarity". Now obviously some of the new
ones are very good, but on average, it's clear that the quality has
declined.
One thing that could solve this problem is an idea I've been pushing for a
while - relative scoring. It goes something like this. Out of every X
candidates, the guys with the top Y scores pass, and everybody else fails.
Such a test would automatically adjust to the level of the test-takers.
Therefore as the supporting infrastructure of schools and study materials
grow, the difficulty of the test automatically adjusts accordingly. I think
this would go a long way towards maintaining the standards of the test.
>
>
> Stuart.
| |
| Stuart Robinson 2003-04-23, 5:24 am |
| > Surely you would agree that it's easier to prepare for a test when
> you can attend a class that will give you a carbon-copy experience of
> what
> the test will be like, an advantage that the old-timers simply didn't
> enjoy.
I would agree.
> Otherwise, you end up with the situation we have now - where, let's be
> honest, the newer CCIE's are on average not as good as the older ones.
> Why?
I cant comment about the Cisco world in particular, but the same argument
is applied in the Novell world (about CNEs) so I guess its the same with
Cisco.
The issue it seems to me is with the expectations of employers. Employers
want Cisco (or Novell) to their recruiting job for them.
Why do employers complain that the relative competence of those with
certifications is falling ? If they did the recruiting job properly,
including assessing those with experience but no certifications, they
would get the right people for the job.
My own opinion is that certifications are useful as only a minor
indication of competence and thats the way employers should treat them.
Stuart.
| |
|
|
"Karate-Kid MC" <Doo-Daa@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b85jqp$6m4u9$1@ID-179018.news.dfncis.de...
> Absolutley not. Standards have got higher as a general rule.
I don't see how that is the case. If this were true, then ask yourself, why
is it that employers and recruiters are starting to ask for the
'lower-numbered' CCIE's? You might say that it's because those
lower-numbered CCIE's have more experience (obviously) and that would seem
plausible until you discover that the preference is for the lower-numbered
CCIE apart from experience (meaning that a guy with x years experience and a
lower number is considered by recruiters to be more valuable than a guy with
the same years of experience, but a higher CCIE number).
Only 2 possible explanations exist. #1 is that somehow the employment and
recruiting community have all gotten together and decided to intentionally
screw over the higher-numbered CCIE's. I dismiss this explanation as being
needlessly conspiratorial and paranoid (if you believe this, might as well
believe in Bigfoot and in the alien autopsy). #2 is more logically likely -
that employers (and by extension, recruiters) have figured out that overall
standards have dropped, and one way to avoid this dropping of standards is
to get the lower-numbered CCIE (those who obtained the cert )before the
standards dropped too much).
>Networking
> and computing have matured, have been around for longer and more and more
> people now have the skills and knowledge - much more so than even five
years
> ago.
Perhaps the problem is what a 'standard' really is.
The fact is, while a standard might seem to be static, it in fact inherently
changes according to the times. What makes you an expert today may not make
you an expert tomorrow. Back 20 years ago, an expert in IP was basically
somebody who knew what IP stood for. Nowadays, it is understood that an
expert in IP must know a great deal indeed about IP.
Therefore, any designation that wants to remain useful must therefore also
change according with the times, and at the same rate. If the average
person in the industry gets better, then the certification must get more
difficult to accomodate that.
Consider this. Doctors of today must know far more than doctors of 200
years ago. Medical schools dare not reward MD's merely because a medical
student demonstrates the level of knowledge of a doctor from 200 years ago.
For the designation of "MD" to remain meaningful, it must inherently convey
that a person understands a high level of medicine commensurate to that
particular time.
The CCIE must do the same - as the level of networking progresses higher, so
should the level of knowledge necessary to obtain the CCIE. Otherwise, you
will wind up with an inevitable cheapening of the certification. Would you
trust a guy who earned an MD if you realized that the medical school who
awarded that designation was using criteria from 200 years ago? No, of
course not.
Again, all this could be solved fairly easily with my idea of relative
scoring, which encompasses an inherent "floating standard" (a seeming
oxymoron, but entirely logical when you think about it).
>This means CCIE will now pay less? So be it IMO - I am not greedy. I
> do not think the world should think I am wonderful for passing a couple of
> exams. I just do as my employer tells me, even though I am proud to have
> passed. What I do know is that I AM more knowledgeable for the experience
> and that is the point of it all surely?
Indeed. You have a good attitude.
>
> I do not deny there hasn't been some element of getting the certifications
> for it's own sake. However, who can blame a person who worked in, lets
say,
> ship building and now finds that trade to be redundant? They need to do
> something else. A more real world example. The British government (just
> like the US government for ex armed forces personnel) pumped many tens of
> millions of pounds into the IT development of the unemployed two years
ago.
> These guys learned about computers and networks etc and suddenly caught
onto
> this certification craze - quite rightly thinking that these were going to
> be essential resume items. My question is who the hell can blame them? I
> do not think to myself "they are diluting my certification" I think to
> myself Good luck to them !!
>
> I agree that when anything becomes more mainstream the "uniqueness" of
that
> skill steadily decreases with an appropriate salary adjustment. However,
> that principle can be applied to anything. If many of us could fly jet
> airliners then there would be a corresponding drop in the salary of that
> profession. Well, many more of us CAN now understand IT networks and
> computer systems so there has been a drop here too.
>
> Of course, only an idiot would deny there isn't a brain dumping culture.
> However, that is missing the point completely. If they want to brain dump
> then let them ! If they think that they can land a nice job with their
> brain dumped skills and no real world experience then best of luck to them
!
> Meanwhile the rest of us REAL engineers don't have a problem do we? We
are
> supposed to understand the material aren't we? We are experienced aren't
> we? The idea of the certs is just a badge to prove you have sat the exam
> and have some measure of exposure and understanding of the technology -
just
> like a driving license says you passed the driving test though you need
more
> experience . People will judge me as a driver by how I drive, not by the
> fact that I have a driving license and passed the driving test. People
will
> judge you on what you can do, not what a piece of paper says you can do.
> This has always been my experience with hundreds of customers. They do
not
> care a damn about what certs you have. Let me catagorically assure you
that
> we recently interviewed for two CCIE's. We had 40 applicants and every
one
> of them was given a technical grilling of thehighest order. They want to
> know if you can get their network up and going again. I am Steve,
> networking engineer and NOT Steve ccie.
In a perfect world, what you would say is true. But the fact is, obviously
the CCIE meant something to you - otherwise, why do it? After all, you said
it yourself, you are Steve the network engineer, not Steve the ccie. You
could have obtained the same knowledge by reading the same books and
practicing on the same lab, but saved yourself $1250 by simply not sitting
the test. It was the studying and learning beforehand that improved your
knowledge. But the act of sitting the exam did not improve your knowledge.
It in fact, hurt your wallet. So why do it? Obviously by your mere actions
you are conceding that there is something a little beyond just pure
knowledge that you were interested in more than just gaining knowledge,
because if all you really cared about was pure knowledge, then it would not
have been necessary for you to actually take the exam (do everything else,
just don't do the exam). Actions speak louder than words.
Or, let me put it to you another way. Does cheating bother you? And not
just on this test, but all the tests you had in school. The answer should
be 'no', right? After all, to follow your logic, anybody who cheats is only
hurting himself, so therefore it doesn't matter if people cheat, right?
Then let me present to you the extreme situation - would you have no
problem in losing out for a job to somebody who presented a resume of pure
fiction? While you might say that that guy will inevitably be caught,
that's cold comfort if he's drawing a paycheck while you're still drawing
unemployment. Or let me give you another example. Let's say your kid and
another kid both want to go to Yale, and your kid is rejected, and you find
out that the other kid got admitted because he presented forged credentials.
That other kid may or may not be discovered later and expelled, but that
still doesn't exactly erase the pain that your kid felt (if and when Yale
dismisses that other kid, they're not going to turn around and accept your
kid - what's done is done). The fact is, cheating has real-world
consequences in that it screws over the honest, and even if the cheaters are
caught, the honest are still almost never 'made whole'.
>
> No offence to anyone - just opinion.
>
>
> "Stuart Robinson" <Stuartr@nospam.please> wrote in message
> news:memo.20030423074843.980E@srnet.compulink.co.uk...
> > > Exploding numbers of certified people are just a symptom of the real
> > > problem - namely, lowered standards.
> >
> > In that case would you contend that the exams have got steadily easier ?
> >
> >
> > Stuart.
>
>
| |
|
|
"Stuart Robinson" <Stuartr@nospam.please> wrote in message
news:memo.20030423110633.1036A@srnet.compulink.co.uk...
> > Surely you would agree that it's easier to prepare for a test when
> > you can attend a class that will give you a carbon-copy experience of
> > what
> > the test will be like, an advantage that the old-timers simply didn't
> > enjoy.
>
> I would agree.
>
> > Otherwise, you end up with the situation we have now - where, let's be
> > honest, the newer CCIE's are on average not as good as the older ones.
> > Why?
>
> I cant comment about the Cisco world in particular, but the same argument
> is applied in the Novell world (about CNEs) so I guess its the same with
> Cisco.
>
> The issue it seems to me is with the expectations of employers. Employers
> want Cisco (or Novell) to their recruiting job for them.
>
> Why do employers complain that the relative competence of those with
> certifications is falling ? If they did the recruiting job properly,
> including assessing those with experience but no certifications, they
> would get the right people for the job.
>
> My own opinion is that certifications are useful as only a minor
> indication of competence and thats the way employers should treat them.
>
Well, you know how it is. The fact is, every company - yours, mine,
everybody's - wants to do things in the most efficient manner possible.
Let's face it, there isn't a single company in the world that doesn't want
to cut costs.
Companies therefore are always looking for some kind of standard. It's nice
to say that companies should be looking more at experience, but the simple
fact is that it's painstaking to do so, meaning that it costs money. It's
notoriously difficult to judge the quality of somebody's experience. Is
candidate A's 5 years of experience doing help-desk at a very large company
as good as candidate B's 2 years of experience doing network management at a
very small company? Very tough to make that call.
It also presumes that companies have the expertise to make that kind of
decision properly. Consider this. If I started a company, I would need to
hire an finance guy. The problem is, I know nothing about finance. So who
am I to judge whether one finance guy's experience and knowledge is better
than another's, when I myself know nothing about finance? (Some people
would say that I should just hire a finance consultant to do the hiring, but
that obviously leaves the open question of how do I know that consultant is
any good?). Having some kind of standard (i.e. the guy must be a graduate
from the Wharton School of Business) is therefore necessary when you don't
know enough to do a proper assessment. But in that case, it is important
that the standard be a strong one. For example, if the Wharton School was
known for producing an unusually large number of poor graduates, then people
would figure out that using them as a standard is a bad idea.
>
> Stuart.
| |
| Stuart Robinson 2003-04-23, 8:24 am |
| > The fact is, every company - yours, mine,
> everybody's - wants to do things in the most efficient manner possible.
> Let's face it, there isn't a single company in the world that doesn't
> want
> to cut costs.
How true, employing the wrong person for the job can be very expensive.
However hard you make certifications they can never test genuine
experience, and employers are wrong to expect it.
Stuart.
| |
| Hansang Bae 2003-04-23, 7:24 pm |
| In article <Ieqpa.53778$gK.161237@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
noglikirf@hotmail.com says...
[snip]
> the Superbowl such a big deal. Same can be said for any kind of major
> sports championship - the World Cup, the Olympics, the World Series, etc.
> Everybody wants it, only 1 gets to have it, therefore it's special.
World Cup *IS* a world event. World Series is really a North Amerca
Series. You can't call it a "World" series if only the teams in US and
two token teams in Canada participate. Just a pet peeve of mine.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Hansang Bae 2003-04-23, 7:24 pm |
| In article <d5vpa.582079$L1.168625@sccrnsc02>, noglikirf@hotmail.com
says...
> I don't see how that is the case. If this were true, then ask yourself, why
> is it that employers and recruiters are starting to ask for the
> 'lower-numbered' CCIE's? You might say that it's because those
> lower-numbered CCIE's have more experience (obviously) and that would seem
> plausible until you discover that the preference is for the lower-numbered
> CCIE apart from experience (meaning that a guy with x years experience and a
> lower number is considered by recruiters to be more valuable than a guy with
> the same years of experience, but a higher CCIE number).
Minor quibble. Lowered numbered CCIEs who have kept up with technology.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Bernie 2003-04-23, 8:24 pm |
| On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:07 +0100 (BST), Stuartr@nospam.please (Stuart
Robinson) wrote:
>> Absolutley not. Standards have got higher as a general rule.
>
>That the impression I have too, from reading the comment about changes in
>the Cisco exams, that the exams have got harder.
I'm not sure which comments you have read, but I haven't heard a
single CCIE that truly believes the exam has been made harder to pass
over time. The simple version of the evidence is that Cisco shortened
the CCIE by an entire day, and removed the section that was the killer
for most people, i.e. troubleshooting. Now they may have crammed a
little more into one day to compensate, but I don't see how anyone can
say it is more difficult, when the most difficult section (the half
day of troubleshooting) has been removed entirely, the section which I
might add is the only section that arguably tests real world
experience. Now Cisco swears they made it more difficult in the
process of making these changes, but if anyone truly believes that,
then why would someone like Hansang rush to take the old formatted
exam before it expired? He was skeptical enough of the possible
blacklisting of "one-day" cheaper CCIEs, that he wanted to make sure
he took the old format (I think I remember him expessing something to
that degree).
>I dont have any experience of the Cisco exams (yet) but several years ago
>I did all the CNE exams and there was at the time a similar view around in
>the Novell world, that many CNEs were 'paper CNEs'. I have taken a look at
>the samples of the CNE 5 and 6 upgrade exams, and would say that the
>standards of the exams has certainly not fallen and they have probably got
>harder.
>
>It might well be true that the average standard\quality of those passing
>certifications has fallen, but whereas several years ago only a few
>experienced specialists bothered to take exams, these days a lot more
>people see the advantage of certification.
>
>I dont think certifications can ever eliminate the need for an employer to
>check the experience and competence of a candidate for themselves.
>
>Stuart.
--Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2003-04-23, 8:24 pm |
| On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:29 GMT, Hansang Bae <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote:
>In article <Ieqpa.53778$gK.161237@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
>noglikirf@hotmail.com says...
>[snip]
>> the Superbowl such a big deal. Same can be said for any kind of major
>> sports championship - the World Cup, the Olympics, the World Series, etc.
>> Everybody wants it, only 1 gets to have it, therefore it's special.
>
>World Cup *IS* a world event. World Series is really a North Amerca
>Series. You can't call it a "World" series if only the teams in US and
>two token teams in Canada participate. Just a pet peeve of mine.
Except that arguably the best players from around the world play in
MLB rather than for their own home town team in whatever league exists
in their part of the world. Really, MLB is the creme-de-la-creme of
baseball talent from around the world, so the best team can be argued
to be the best in the world by extension. Of course NYY is not
composed entirely of New Yorkers so maybe you mean to say that NY
can't lay personal claim to their team's victories when they win. But
on the other hand, I don't really think anyone could seriously claim
that another team from somewhere else in the world, like Spain, could
beat the World Series champion team, hence, I don't have too big of a
problem with the title "World Champs" for MLB.
--Bernie
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:61034FC389F45012.4692132C88C0353B.DD9BBDCC001354E9@lp.airnews.net...
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:53:29 GMT, Hansang Bae <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote:
>
> >In article <Ieqpa.53778$gK.161237@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
> >noglikirf@hotmail.com says...
> >[snip]
> >> the Superbowl such a big deal. Same can be said for any kind of major
> >> sports championship - the World Cup, the Olympics, the World Series,
etc. [colo
r=darkred]
> >> Everybody wants it, only 1 gets to have it, therefore it's special.
> >
> >World Cup *IS* a world event. World Series is really a North Amerca
> >Series. You can't call it a "World" series if only the teams in US and
> >two token teams in Canada participate. Just a pet peeve of mine.
>
> Except that arguably the best players from around the world play in
> MLB rather than for their own home town team in whatever league exists
> in their part of the world. Really, MLB is the creme-de-la-creme of
> baseball talent from around the world, so the best team can be argued
> to be the best in the world by extension. Of course NYY is not
> composed entirely of New Yorkers so maybe you mean to say that NY
> can't lay personal claim to their team's victories when they win. But
> on the other hand, I don't really think anyone could seriously claim
> that another team from somewhere else in the world, like Spain, could
> beat the World Series champion team, hence, I don't have too big of a
> problem with the title "World Champs" for MLB.[/color]
Exactly right. The best baseball player of Japan, a certain Mr. Ichiro
Suzuki, plays for Seattle. Yet you don't see Barry Bonds going to play for
Tokyo, why not? The best Dominican-born player, Sammy Sosa, plays for
Chicago, yet you don't see Alex Rodriguez (an American citizen of Dominican
descent) playing for the DR, why not?
>
> --Bernie
| |
|
|
"Stuart Robinson" <Stuartr@nospam.please> wrote in message
news:memo.20030423134122.1004F@srnet.compulink.co.uk...
> > The fact is, every company - yours, mine,
> > everybody's - wants to do things in the most efficient manner possible.
> > Let's face it, there isn't a single company in the world that doesn't
> > want
> > to cut costs.
>
> How true, employing the wrong person for the job can be very expensive.
>
> However hard you make certifications they can never test genuine
> experience, and employers are wrong to expect it.
Yet as always, the free market will adjust. Back in the old days of the
CCIE, it was pretty safe to assume that anybody who obtained the CCIE really
was a guy with a lot of high-quality experience. Companies then naturally
began to cherry-pick those guys. Now, you can no longer safely assume that
a CCIE has a lot, or even any experience. Companies have therefore reacted
accordingly. First, they are showing preference to the lower-number CCIE's,
where cherry-picking is still an effective strategy. Second, they are
beginning to heavily scrutinize the later-CCIE's for experience and grill
them for true technical expertise above and beyond a lab environment.
>
>
> Stuart.
| |
| Hansang Bae 2003-04-23, 9:24 pm |
| In article <rEGpa.617863$S_4.666250@rwcrnsc53>, noglikirf@hotmail.com
> Exactly right. The best baseball player of Japan, a certain Mr. Ichiro
> Suzuki, plays for Seattle. Yet you don't see Barry Bonds going to play for
> Tokyo, why not? The best Dominican-born player, Sammy Sosa, plays for
> Chicago, yet you don't see Alex Rodriguez (an American citizen of Dominican
> descent) playing for the DR, why not?
What if all South American players (including DR, Cuba etc.) decided to
play together? Then what?
Also, if DR could pay $150M per player, you'd see every whore urrr I
mean ball players going over there to play - except perhaps Griffey Jr.
I will agree that Baskteball and American football are the two sports
where no other country can compete with the US, but I don't think that's
the case with hockey and baseball.
Besides, it's just presumptuous to call it a "WORLD SERIES" when there
is absolutely no "WORLD" in world series. Like I said, just a pet peeve
of mine. That and everyone calling people "HEROES" when they clearly are
*NOT* heros. When you do your job - however dangerous, you're not a
hero, or so it seems to me. Average Joe who runs into a burning
building to save a baby is a hero. A fireman who runs into the same
building is brave but not a hero. A pilot who gets shot down and then
picked up is *not* a hero. A cop who gets shot in the line of duty is
not a hero. He's brave for putting himself in that position and I
respect that. But if your job duty clearly says "people will shoot
you" and you sign up, you're not a hero. You're a brave person doing
your job. Soldiers who die are not heroes. They are doing their job.
It may sound harsh, but I don't mean to be. But there *IS* a difference
between a brave person and a person who's hero.
How do I get myself into these threads?? 
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
|
|
"Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
news:MPG.19110a7dc0d16a0d98996b@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <rEGpa.617863$S_4.666250@rwcrnsc53>, noglikirf@hotmail.com
> > Exactly right. The best baseball player of Japan, a certain Mr. Ichiro
> > Suzuki, plays for Seattle. Yet you don't see Barry Bonds going to play
for
> > Tokyo, why not? The best Dominican-born player, Sammy Sosa, plays for
> > Chicago, yet you don't see Alex Rodriguez (an American citizen of
Dominican
> > descent) playing for the DR, why not?
>
> What if all South American players (including DR, Cuba etc.) decided to
> play together? Then what?
Then we would indeed have a situation where the best players weren't playing
in the US, and therefore the claim that the World Series is really about the
best players in the world would then be presumptuous. But that is not the
situation now. The fact is, the best aggregate group of baseball players in
the world, no matter where they're from, really do play here whether because
they were born here or whether because a MLB team discovers them and figures
out a way to get them over here.
>
> Also, if DR could pay $150M per player, you'd see every whore urrr I
> mean ball players going over there to play - except perhaps Griffey Jr.
Obviously it's because of the money. But that's really neither here nor
there. Right now, the best baseball players in the world play here. Hence
the claim of 'World'.
I do agree with you that the claim of 'World' would be strengthened (heck,
it would be perfect) if there really were a lot of teams in other countries
and they all competed against each other like the World Cup. But that claim
of World right now, while presumptuous, is not entirely without merit. The
best aggregate group of baseball players in the world really are in MLB, as
evidenced by the fact that the best baseball players from Japan, Korea, and
Latin American come play for MLB, but never the other way around (it's only
the also-rans, not the superstars, who go play for Japan).
>
> I will agree that Baskteball and American football are the two sports
> where no other country can compete with the US, but I don't think that's
> the case with hockey and baseball.
Well, in the case of hockey, clearly the best aggregate group of players are
not Americans, but Canadians. I don't think any American is seriously
claiming that they are the best in hockey, Lake Placid miracles
notwithstanding.
But baseball is another matter. I think there is a significant gap between
the Americans and any other nation. For example, Ichiro was a huge
superstar in Japan, and he is very good, but he's not Barry Bonds.
>
> Besides, it's just presumptuous to call it a "WORLD SERIES" when there
> is absolutely no "WORLD" in world series. Like I said, just a pet peeve
> of mine. That and everyone calling people "HEROES" when they clearly are
> *NOT* heros. When you do your job - however dangerous, you're not a
> hero, or so it seems to me. Average Joe who runs into a burning
> building to save a baby is a hero. A fireman who runs into the same
> building is brave but not a hero. A pilot who gets shot down and then
> picked up is *not* a hero. A cop who gets shot in the line of duty is
> not a hero. He's brave for putting himself in that position and I
> respect that. But if your job duty clearly says "people will shoot
> you" and you sign up, you're not a hero. You're a brave person doing
> your job. Soldiers who die are not heroes. They are doing their job.
> It may sound harsh, but I don't mean to be. But there *IS* a difference
> between a brave person and a person who's hero.
First of all, I would dispute your notion of complete 'free choice', as in
the case of a soldier who signed up and then did something heroic/brave. In
most instances in world history, that soldier did not actually 'sign up',
but was conscripted/drafted and therefore forced to fight on pain of
imprisonment or even torture/death. He did not choose to be a soldier,
somebody else chose that he be a soldier. So if that person then dies,
particularly if he dies trying to do something extraordinary like charge a
pillbox, then he's probably a hero.
Furthermore, I would argue that any soldier, whether a draftee or a
volunteer, who does something extraordinary, is a hero. A soldier who gets
shot in the butt doing a patrol is probably not a hero. That guy didn't do
anything particularly above the call of duty. But a guy who crawls up a
slope to destroy a 2 machinegun nests, gets shot by a sniper but continues
to fight the enemy, then has him arm completely shattered by a grenade to
the point where his arm is connected to the rest of his body only by a few
strands of tendon and skin, and continues to fight in a forward position
until the enemy surrenders is probably a hero because nobody could
reasonably expect that level of commitment out of a soldier, even if he did
volunteer. (By the way, that account was of 2nd Lt. Daniel Inouye, now
Senator Daniel Inuoye of Hawaii, in 1945, and won Inouye the Congressional
Medal of Honor).
>
> How do I get myself into these threads??
>
> --
>
> hsb
>
> "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
> *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
> ******************************
******************************
********
> Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
> reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> ******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Bernie 2003-04-23, 11:24 pm |
| On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:35:14 GMT, Hansang Bae <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote:
>In article <rEGpa.617863$S_4.666250@rwcrnsc53>, noglikirf@hotmail.com
>> Exactly right. The best baseball player of Japan, a certain Mr. Ichiro
>> Suzuki, plays for Seattle. Yet you don't see Barry Bonds going to play for
>> Tokyo, why not? The best Dominican-born player, Sammy Sosa, plays for
>> Chicago, yet you don't see Alex Rodriguez (an American citizen of Dominican
>> descent) playing for the DR, why not?
>
>What if all South American players (including DR, Cuba etc.) decided to
>play together? Then what?
Well, then maybe they could be the best team in the world. But we
aren't talking about what-ifs. I am simply saying that there isn't
another team out there that could have beaten Anaheim last year,
because the world's collection of talent is within MLB. So even
though Anaheim is a multi-cultural team, they still are the best in
the world, because MLB is essentially a world's all-star league to
begin with.
Alternatively, you could have asked if all the South American players
got together and played for Toledo. Then I guess Toledo would be home
of the World Champs, lol.
I'm just saying that from one point of view it is an entirely true
statement that such-and-such MLB team is the best baseball team in the
world, i.e. "World Champs."
>Also, if DR could pay $150M per player, you'd see every whore urrr I
>mean ball players going over there to play - except perhaps Griffey Jr.
Different discussion. I am starting with the fact that they are here.
How they got here is a different issue. But even if DR had a team, it
would end up with Americans on it too because of free agency. Do the
teams have to be national in nature to be a World event? And even if
it was DR, US, Canada and a smattering of other countries
participating in MLB, one could still use your argument about it not
being a World Series when 90% of the World doesn't have teams in the
league. When does it stop? 50% representation? 85%?
>I will agree that Baskteball and American football are the two sports
>where no other country can compete with the US, but I don't think that's
>the case with hockey and baseball.
First, I totally admit that the title "World Series" or "World Champ"
is more marketing than anything, but at the same time, if the world's
best players happen to play in the NHL, then it stands to reason that
the team that wins the Stanley Cup is the best hockey team in the
world. I just don't think that they have to go around beating
Lichtenstein, Thailand, and Ivory Coast before they are allowed to don
the title "world champs," since it is a foregone conclusion who would
win.
Correct me if I am wrong, but not every country in the world that has
a soccer team goes to the World Cup do they? I thought that the teams
that essentially have no shot of winning are weeded out before the
actual event called the "World Cup."
>Besides, it's just presumptuous to call it a "WORLD SERIES" when there
>is absolutely no "WORLD" in world series. Like I said, just a pet peeve
>of mine. That and everyone calling people "HEROES" when they clearly are
>*NOT* heros. When you do your job - however dangerous, you're not a
>hero, or so it seems to me. Average Joe who runs into a burning
>building to save a baby is a hero. A fireman who runs into the same
>building is brave but not a hero. A pilot who gets shot down and then
>picked up is *not* a hero. A cop who gets shot in the line of duty is
>not a hero. He's brave for putting himself in that position and I
>respect that. But if your job duty clearly says "people will shoot
>you" and you sign up, you're not a hero. You're a brave person doing
>your job. Soldiers who die are not heroes. They are doing their job.
>It may sound harsh, but I don't mean to be. But there *IS* a difference
>between a brave person and a person who's hero.
>
>How do I get myself into these threads??
The same way we do, lol ;-)
--Bernie
| |
| Karate-Kid MC 2003-04-24, 12:24 pm |
|
> > ago.
>
> snip
> In a perfect world, what you would say is true. But the fact is,
obviously
> the CCIE meant something to you - otherwise, why do it? After all, you
said
> it yourself, you are Steve the network engineer, not Steve the ccie. You
> could have obtained the same knowledge by reading the same books and
> practicing on the same lab, but saved yourself $1250 by simply not sitting
> the test. It was the studying and learning beforehand that improved your
> knowledge. But the act of sitting the exam did not improve your
knowledge.
> It in fact, hurt your wallet. So why do it? Obviously by your mere
actions
> you are conceding that there is something a little beyond just pure
> knowledge that you were interested in more than just gaining knowledge,
> because if all you really cared about was pure knowledge, then it would
not
> have been necessary for you to actually take the exam (do everything else,
> just don't do the exam). Actions speak louder than words.
You are missing my point. The original sentiment of this thread was a worry
that there are becoming too many cisco certified people. That does not mean
that I renounce Cisco qualifications !! Far from it. However, the certs
are not the be all and end all. Just because I have a qualification like
this does not mean that I do not value it. Far from it. My point was that
folks should be judged by what they do and not what they say they can do by
means of certifications - I sure as hell hope that people judge me by my
work. I did this qualification because my employer wanted me to be a ccie
for his gold partner status since he was getting dangerously low of ccie
staff. I would have been quite happy as a CCNP/DP and would have kept a few
more girlfriends too.
I said above, I don't care if there are half a million cisco certified
people. Certification is a badge to me - a badge I need admitedly - but a
badge all the same.
>
> Or, let me put it to you another way. Does cheating bother you
> just on this test, but all the tests you had in school. The answer should
> be 'no', right? After all, to follow your logic, anybody who cheats is
only
> hurting himself, so therefore it doesn't matter if people cheat, right?
> Then let me present to you the extreme situation - would you have no
> problem in losing out for a job to somebody who presented a resume of pure
> fiction? While you might say that that guy will inevitably be caught,
> that's cold comfort if he's drawing a paycheck while you're still drawing
> unemployment. Or let me give you another example. Let's say your kid and
> another kid both want to go to Yale, and your kid is rejected, and you
find
> out that the other kid got admitted because he presented forged
credentials.
> That other kid may or may not be discovered later and expelled, but that
> still doesn't exactly erase the pain that your kid felt (if and when Yale
> dismisses that other kid, they're not going to turn around and accept your
> kid - what's done is done). The fact is, cheating has real-world
> consequences in that it screws over the honest, and even if the cheaters
are
> caught, the honest are still almost never 'made whole'.
Quite true. However, you are trying to condemn what is fundamental human
nature, and a nature shared not just us but every other creature - looking
after your own first and foremost. 99.999% of people, in this situation you
describe will always look after number one. If it's my wife and kids
starving or yours then I am sorry but I come first - to me. In your case,
YOU come first. If its my daughter or your's trying to get into that school
then, I'd do everything I could to make sure it's mine. I would not try to
hurt you or rob you to do this; however, I would do everything that I
legally could to make sure it's my familiy/career first. This is not nice,
it is not pleasant. However it is fact. People will do whatever they have
to do to get the things (jobs, food, house, women etc) that they want. I
agree with you that some of the brain dumpers have runined the spirit of
what certification schemes are all about. However, back in the real world,
people will do whatever they have to to get a job to keep the roof over
their head and put shoes on their kids feet.. I do not blame them. The
system itself is at fault - hence you should judge people by what they CAN
do and not what a piece of paper says they can. That does not mean to say
that I don't want that piece of paper too; I am part of society too and I
need these things on my resume. However, as I keep saying, the
certification should be a little bit of the icing on top of the cake - not
the cake (or even 90% of the icing) itself.
>
>
> >
> > No offence to anyone - just opinion.
> >
> >
> > "Stuart Robinson" <Stuartr@nospam.please> wrote in message
> > news:memo.20030423074843.980E@srnet.compulink.co.uk...
> > > > Exploding numbers of certified people are just a symptom of the real
> > > > problem - namely, lowered standards.
> > >
> > > In that case would you contend that the exams have got steadily easier
? [colo
r=darkred]
> > >
> > >
> > > Stuart.
> >
> >
>
>[/color]
| |
| vladimir 2003-04-24, 6:24 pm |
|
"nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lXspa.52634$Si4.39774@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> "Stuart Robinson" <Stuartr@nospam.please> wrote in message
> news:memo.20030423074843.980E@srnet.compulink.co.uk...
> > > Exploding numbers of certified people are just a symptom of the real
> > > problem - namely, lowered standards.
> >
> > In that case would you contend that the exams have got steadily easier ?
>
>
> I think it has more to do with the fact that there are simply more
> bootcamps, braindumps, and other such things floating around. This is
> particularly true of the CCIE lab exam. The fact is, the CCIE got much of
> its vaunted reputation because in the early days, the exam was cloaked
with
> mystery. Nowadays, anybody who does a little investigation can pretty
much
> figure out the topology of the test, that certain questions always seem to
> appear on every version test, with only minor variants (those who've gone
> through the test will know EXACTLY what I'm talking about), and other such
> things. It's become banal.
>
> The net effect is that you have newbie network engineers who've been
trained
> specifically to the test, and entire schools who do nothing but teach to
the
> test. Surely you would agree that it's easier to prepare for a test when
> you can attend a class that will give you a carbon-copy experience of what
> the test will be like, an advantage that the old-timers simply didn't
enjoy.
> It's basically an entirely different testing environment, and hence,
> contributes to a general lowering of standards. Therefore, to compensate,
> the test should be made more difficult if you want to maintain the same
> overall standards.
>
> Otherwise, you end up with the situation we have now - where, let's be
> honest, the newer CCIE's are on average not as good as the older ones.
Why?
> Because the older ones couldn't 'study to the test' (because no such study
> materials were available), and therefore had to rely on sheer networking
> know-how to pass, whereas the newer ones can study to the test and rely
less
> on knowhow than he is on "test familiarity". Now obviously some of the
new
> ones are very good, but on average, it's clear that the quality has
> declined.
I can't believe I am going to answer this but for the last time in this
thread. You say that people who are certified now are not as good as those
certified before. What a great perspective I am sure it makes your ego feel
good. Your reasons
why? because they couldn't study for it, so does that mean they woke up one
day and went for it the next. Does that mean my college degree that I
studied for is useless because I studied for it? But on the subject of the
ccie cert that you talk about , fill me in here because I am not aware, 5 or
even 10 years ago did people have access to the internet and all the stuff
on cisco.com where you can find everything and anything relating to cisco
and networking. Did they use cd in the ccie lab with all of configs. Is that
cheating? I am sure you'll argue that some were born with it.
I am not even going to discuss the stuff tested then and now since most of
it is foreign stuff to me but I'll bet you that it's a lot different now if
not harder. Since you said that you can find cheat your way through the
exams, please tell me how to do it cause I feel I am missing something.
While technically your point that someone passing today has been preparing
for the test is valid and might not have experienced all the technologies in
different situations, it can also be said that those who passed before may
not have experience in the newer or even older deprecated technologies or
worse yet choose to implement rip or igrp instead of ospf, or still route
ipx instead of ip in their network, in other words bad habits die hard.
While someone can have technical experience , the employers are looking for
the whole package along with technical experience , personality, leadership
, life experience and perhaps more. I am sure I'll add more to this argument
later.
>
> One thing that could solve this problem is an idea I've been pushing for a
> while - relative scoring. It goes something like this. Out of every X
> candidates, the guys with the top Y scores pass, and everybody else fails.
> Such a test would automatically adjust to the level of the test-takers.
> Therefore as the supporting infrastructure of schools and study materials
> grow, the difficulty of the test automatically adjusts accordingly. I
think
> this would go a long way towards maintaining the standards of the test.
I wonder why cisco doesn't do this. You must be a genious to concoct this
testing process. Certification means
being able to do a job and it doesn't mean you are better than anybody.
Perhaps you should figure that one about now.
>
> >
> >
> > Stuart.
>
>
| |
|
|
"Karate-Kid MC" <Doo-Daa@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b895g5$7enrc$1@ID-179018.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > ago.
> >
> > snip
> > In a perfect world, what you would say is true. But the fact is,
> obviously
> > the CCIE meant something to you - otherwise, why do it? After all, you
> said
> > it yourself, you are Steve the network engineer, not Steve the ccie.
You
> > could have obtained the same knowledge by reading the same books and
> > practicing on the same lab, but saved yourself $1250 by simply not
sitting
> > the test. It was the studying and learning beforehand that improved
your
> > knowledge. But the act of sitting the exam did not improve your
> knowledge.
> > It in fact, hurt your wallet. So why do it? Obviously by your mere
> actions
> > you are conceding that there is something a little beyond just pure
> > knowledge that you were interested in more than just gaining knowledge,
> > because if all you really cared about was pure knowledge, then it would
> not
> > have been necessary for you to actually take the exam (do everything
else,
> > just don't do the exam). Actions speak louder than words.
>
> You are missing my point. The original sentiment of this thread was a
worry
> that there are becoming too many cisco certified people. That does not
mean
> that I renounce Cisco qualifications !! Far from it. However, the certs
> are not the be all and end all. Just because I have a qualification like
> this does not mean that I do not value it. Far from it. My point was that
> folks should be judged by what they do and not what they say they can do
by
> means of certifications - I sure as hell hope that people judge me by my
> work. I did this qualification because my employer wanted me to be a ccie
> for his gold partner status since he was getting dangerously low of ccie
> staff. I would have been quite happy as a CCNP/DP and would have kept a
few
> more girlfriends too.
> I said above, I don't care if there are half a million cisco certified
> people. Certification is a badge to me - a badge I need admitedly - but a
> badge all the same.
You touch upon something that I have always found as crude and transparent -
namely the use of certified people to gain/maintain partnership status.
Certification should ideally be something that people undergo because they
are interested in demonstrating their knowledge, not because Cisco requires
them as part of partnership.
For those who don't know what I'm talking about, let me put it to you this
way. What if there was some big company out there that had a rule that said
that if you want to do business with us, you must always have X number of
Harvard graduates on your payroll at all times? Or a government agency says
that if you want to sell anything to us, your company must have X number of
MIT graduates. Surely you would agree that that seems a bit sleazy
I personally think that partnership requirements should be based on revenue
and on customer sat. It seems rather artificial to also force partners to
hire/maintain certified people.
>
> >
> > Or, let me put it to you another way. Does cheating bother you
> > just on this test, but all the tests you had in school. The answer
should
> > be 'no', right? After all, to follow your logic, anybody who cheats is
> only
> > hurting himself, so therefore it doesn't matter if people cheat, right?
> > Then let me present to you the extreme situation - would you have no
> > problem in losing out for a job to somebody who presented a resume of
pure
> > fiction? While you might say that that guy will inevitably be caught,
> > that's cold comfort if he's drawing a paycheck while you're still
drawing
> > unemployment. Or let me give you another example. Let's say your kid
and
> > another kid both want to go to Yale, and your kid is rejected, and you
> find
> > out that the other kid got admitted because he presented forged
> credentials.
> > That other kid may or may not be discovered later and expelled, but that
> > still doesn't exactly erase the pain that your kid felt (if and when
Yale
> > dismisses that other kid, they're not going to turn around and accept
your
> > kid - what's done is done). The fact is, cheating has real-world
> > consequences in that it screws over the honest, and even if the cheaters
> are
> > caught, the honest are still almost never 'made whole'.
>
> Quite true. However, you are trying to condemn what is fundamental human
> nature, and a nature shared not just us but every other creature -
looking
> after your own first and foremost. 99.999% of people, in this situation
you
> describe will always look after number one. If it's my wife and kids
> starving or yours then I am sorry but I come first - to me. In your case,
> YOU come first. If its my daughter or your's trying to get into that
school
> then, I'd do everything I could to make sure it's mine. I would not try
to
> hurt you or rob you to do this; however, I would do everything that I
> legally could to make sure it's my familiy/career first. This is not
nice,
> it is not pleasant. However it is fact. People will do whatever they
have
> to do to get the things (jobs, food, house, women etc) that they want. I
> agree with you that some of the brain dumpers have runined the spirit of
> what certification schemes are all about. However, back in the real
world,
> people will do whatever they have to to get a job to keep the roof over
> their head and put shoes on their kids feet.. I do not blame them.
>The
> system itself is at fault - hence you should judge people by what they CAN
> do and not what a piece of paper says they can.
I respectfully disagree. While I agree that everybody is looking to better
themselves, in a civilized and healthy society, there are supposed to be
rules to check this. You said it yourself - you're not supposed to murder
or rob somebody at gunpoint to get what you want. But hey, if everybody is
out to do what they gotta do to help themselves, then the logical extension
of that is that they should be allowed to kill and rape and whatever in
order to get what they want, right?
I would also add this. Corruption is something that can be controlled by
the people. The 'system', as you call it, is not a concept that exists in a
vacuum, but in fact is a reflection of the culture of the people at large,
and if the people decide they want to change it, they can.
I would leave you with some historical tidbits. Nations that tend to be
corrupt tend to be backwards and economically weak whereas nations that are
less corrupt tend to be more advanced and economically robust. Bribery of
government officials is a fact of life for business success in mainland
China, Vietnam, and the Philippines but is considered a major faux-paus in
Japan and Singapore. Coincidentally, which places are more economically
advanced? Furthermore, it didn't always used to be this way. 150 years
ago, Japan was just as corrupt as any other nation, but as part of their
development into a modern nation, the Japanese changed their culture to make
bribery less acceptable (still happens, but nowhere on the scale of, say,
China). But in either case, government officials are people too, so
shouldn't they always be looking for a kickback? People's culture can
change to mark certain behavior (murder, robbery, and bribery) as
undesirable. Therefore, we are not just slaves to the system, we are part
of the system.
>That does not mean to say
> that I don't want that piece of paper too; I am part of society too and I
> need these things on my resume. However, as I keep saying, the
> certification should be a little bit of the icing on top of the cake - not
> the cake (or even 90% of the icing) itself.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > No offence to anyone - just opinion.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Stuart Robinson" <Stuartr@nospam.please> wrote in message
> > > news:memo.20030423074843.980E@srnet.compulink.co.uk...
> > > > > Exploding numbers of certified people are just a symptom of the
real[
color=darkred]
> > > > > problem - namely, lowered standards.
> > > >
> > > > In that case would you contend that the exams have got steadily[/color]
easier
> ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Stuart.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
| |
|
|
"vladimir" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PtZpa.165141$Vzu.108790@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> "nrf" <noglikirf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lXspa.52634$Si4.39774@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "Stuart Robinson" <Stuartr@nospam.please> wrote in message
> > news:memo.20030423074843.980E@srnet.compulink.co.uk...
> > > > Exploding numbers of certified people are just a symptom of the real
> > > > problem - namely, lowered standards.
> > >
> > > In that case would you contend that the exams have got steadily easier
?
> >
> >
> > I think it has more to do with the fact that there are simply more
> > bootcamps, braindumps, and other such things floating around. This is
> > particularly true of the CCIE lab exam. The fact is, the CCIE got much
of
> > its vaunted reputation because in the early days, the exam was cloaked
> with
> > mystery. Nowadays, anybody who does a little investigation can pretty
> much
> > figure out the topology of the test, that certain questions always seem
to
> > appear on every version test, with only minor variants (those who've
gone
> > through the test will know EXACTLY what I'm talking about), and other
such
> > things. It's become banal.
> >
> > The net effect is that you have newbie network engineers who've been
> trained
> > specifically to the test, and entire schools who do nothing but teach to
> the
> > test. Surely you would agree that it's easier to prepare for a test
when
> > you can attend a class that will give you a carbon-copy experience of
what
> > the test will be like, an advantage that the old-timers simply didn't
> enjoy.
> > It's basically an entirely different testing environment, and hence,
> > contributes to a general lowering of standards. Therefore, to
compensate,
> > the test should be made more difficult if you want to maintain the same
> > overall standards.
> >
> > Otherwise, you end up with the situation we have now - where, let's be
> > honest, the newer CCIE's are on average not as good as the older ones.
> Why?
> > Because the older ones couldn't 'study to the test' (because no such
study
> > materials were available), and therefore had to rely on sheer networking
> > know-how to pass, whereas the newer ones can study to the test and rely
> less
> > on knowhow than he is on "test familiarity". Now obviously some of the
> new
> > ones are very good, but on average, it's clear that the quality has
> > declined.
>
> I can't believe I am going to answer this but for the last time in this
> thread.
>You say that people who are certified now are not as good as those
> certified before. What a great perspective I am sure it makes your ego
feel
> good
> Your reasons
> why? because they couldn't study for it, so does that mean they woke up
one
> day and went for it the next.
Did I say that people in the past didn't study? What I said was that there
wasn't such a proliferation of study materials that there is today. Now, is
that proliferation such a bad thing? Not necessarily - but it means that
you have to constantly raise the bar of the e | | |