Re: OEQ Waiver program! No MORE OEQ for Cisco 360 students.

Spoken like a true teacher!! GJ Scott!!

Tony

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Scott Morris <smorris_at_ine.com> wrote:

> My opinion... Hmmmm... Well, I've been spending a lot of time last
> night and this morning reading the different responses and laughing at
> different parts and pieces along the way.
>
> What do I think about the waiver? Stupid business decision. I
> understand what the intent was, and find it kind of amusing. However, I
> think that it wasn't a very well thought out plan of attack.
>
> What is interesting about many of the responses that have been going on
> for the last 13 hours or so is that there is a good mix of both personal
> opinions and business opinions. Personal opinions will always get
> people up in arms. You can like something, I may not like it, or vice
> versa... it is what it is. Business opinions though may tend to be a
> little different. Understanding motivation (generally $$) is a good
> starting point to get to the thinking behind a decision.
>
> If Brad really came up with this idea, I ABSOLUTELY understand why. It
> clearly serves his marketing goals quite well, and he has no skin in the
> game from a legal standpoint. That (along with the registration of the
> domain name) I can sit back and laugh at. Good marketing, have fun with
> that!
>
> Cisco, on the other hand, I really have to try to figure out where the
> thought process was going. High level, same as Brad's view, I
> understand. But they have more to think about, and that's why (in MY
> opinion) I think it wasn't fully baked.
>
> Will it have an effect on anything in the long-run? Who knows. I don't
> think it will bring about the end of the world one way or the other. If
> it makes some paranoid people run a particular direction because of it,
> then that's what happens... But if nothing else, it does highlight the
> idea of exactly WHERE the thinking happens to be. (See $$ above)
>
> Am I worried about it? Nope. Am I going to run off to join the 30
> program since someone told me resistance was futile? Nope. Am I
> worried about any of my students passing the OEQs? Nope.
>
> IMHO, it's a non-issue. But it is highly entertaining to sit back and
> watch. Like anything, give it a while and see what else develops.
>
> Scott
>
> PS. Just the standard disclaimer stuff, I haven't discussed my opinions
> with anyone else at INE, so I have no idea whether anyone agrees with me
> or not (nor do I care). So if I irritate you, just take it out on me,
> not them! ;)
>
>
> Jones wrote:
> > What's your opinion on this Scott?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Scott Morris
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:03 AM
> > To: Narbik Kocharians
> > Cc: Shaughn Smith; Rob Phillips; Brad Ellis; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Re: OEQ Waiver program! No MORE OEQ for Cisco 360 students.
> >
> > May I take that as an official position from a Cisco 360 Learning
> > Partner?
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > Narbik Kocharians wrote:
> >
> > You guys can bypass the OEQs by attending a 360 program, we have added
> > bunch
> > of stuff to the 360 program, and if the students complete the labs they
> > can
> > bypass the OEQs. I think its NOT bad, since they know whats going to be
> > covered in these classes. Our students go through the 360 material +
> all
> > the
> > materials that we have added to the program as supplemental materials
> > (roughly around 3500 + pages), and if anyone goes through this program,
> > they
> > can BYPASS the OEQ section.
> >
> > But why fight it? It's NOT that you will get anywhere, we saw a
> > similar fight and bitterness when they introduced the OEQs, now they
> are
> > giving the students a chance NOT to do the OEQs.
> >
> > Before OEQs everyone was complaining about the pass4sures and stuff
> llike
> > that, so they added the OEQs, then, everyone started complaining about
> the
> > OEQs, NOW they are giving the students a chance NOT to go through the
> > OEQs,
> > now some are still complaining.
> >
> > Don't let things like this poison your blood, just go with the flow,
> > specially when you have NO other option.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Shaughn Smith <maniac.smg_at_gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > Couldn't have worded it better myself. As a qualified Commercial
> pilot I
> > know where you are coming from. I am also truly disappointed at
> Cisco's
> > decision on this.
> >
> > CCIE # 23962
> >
> > On Mar 16, 2010 3:26 PM, "Rob Phillips" <rrphillips_at_swankav.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Brad,
> >
> > I am a Pilot who did his training in a 141 school from Private all
> the
> > way through my Commercial, Instrument, Multi-engine. The one thing
> you
> > forgot or just never looked into is that at the end of the training
> > EVERYONE still must pass their checkride with an examiner who should
> be
> > using 1 set of guidelines. The checkride as published guidelines
> that
> > EVERYONE must meet no matter if you are part 61 or 141. When I took
> my
> > Multi-engine ride my 141 had lost their examiner so the final ride
> was
> > done by an outside source. That ride was no different than any other
> > ride. The examiner as me several oral questions before walking out to
> > the plan (OEQ), During the flight he simulated emergencies
> > (Troubleshooting) and I had to fly meeting other standards of regular
> > flight in different configurations (config section).
> >
> > I believe the 141 as compared to part 61 is more structured, however
> it
> > all comes down to the checkride. You publish ONE and only ONE
> standard.
> > Everyone must meet that same standard. If you know a flight school
> > that has an examiner who skips this practice then please let me know.
> I
> > will gladly report them to the FAA. I do not want to share the skies
> > with someone who learned something just long enough to make it past a
> > section of an approved course. I want to fly with guys who LEARNED
> it
> > so that they remember for a lifetime instead of just a few weeks.
> >
> > I agree with many others on this list. If you know it then you
> should
> > be fine with the OEQ. How long does it really take to answer 4
> > questions that are just a few words long. If Cisco thinks that this
> is
> > a plus to a student then they should sit back and look at the whole
> idea
> > of OEQ. Why would that be a plus? Is Cisco admitting that some of
> the
> > OEQ are just plain bad that by having a student go the 360 route then
> > they don't have to play the "how hard of a OEQ" lottery?
> >
> > To sum it up, I feel very disappointed with Cisco that they would
> ever
> > have two different standard when it comes to the lab exam. I know I
> > will feel proud when I get my numbers that I did to the HIGHEST
> > standard.
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com
> [mailto:
> > nobody_at_groupstudy.com ] On Behalf Of
> >
> > Brad Ellis Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:36 AM To:
> > ccielab_at_groupstudy.comSubject: RE: OEQ Waiver ...
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Mar 16 2010 - 08:42:40 ART