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

I'm really dissapointed with this notice...

Thought that the main goal was getting real certified people (and not those
buying exams or cheating)...and we find that i'ts only a business decision.
If you want to skip a section, come and buy my material. Is that fair?
I'm sorry, but I'll keep pushing and buying the material that I consider
that will improve my skills and not an exam section...by the time 360: is
not in my plans.

In the meantime I'll have to update my policy...

G(config)#access-list 101 pemit study any any eq ccie time-range ALLDAY
G(config)#access-list 101 pemit sex me wife time-range ALLNIGHT
G(config)#access-list 101 deny work boss me time-range WEEK
G(config)#*access-list 101 deny buy CCIE360 me time-range DAILY*
G(config)#access-list 101 permit any any
G(config)#class-map GUI
G(config-cmap)#match access-group 101
G(config-pmap-c)#class GUI
G(config-pmap-c)#police cir percent 90 conform-action transmit exceed-action
drop
G(config-pmap-c)#int s0/0
G(config-if)#max-reserved-bandwidth 90
G(config-if)#service-policy out PGU

2010/3/16 Patrick Galligan <pgalligan_at_gmail.com>

> I doubt it has much to do with Cisco trying to make more money out of
> training. The CCIE program is a tiny drop in the bucket of their total
> revenue.
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:12 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
G.Ruiz
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net