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

Let's see if we all laugh after April 1st ;-)

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 17:03, Elias Chari <elias.chari_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I really can not believe that Cisco has adopted such a policy!
>
> It is not fair on non-360 students and vendors and casts doubts on the value
> of the CCIE certification. Like many people on the list I invested a lot of
> money and time to obtain my ccie and was very proud when I achieved it, but
> I am saddened and angered by such announcements. All I have to say to Cisco
> and the vendors who support it, whilst you may gain some competitive
> advantage in the short term, if you continue like this, no one will care
> about ccie certifications in the future.
>
> Policies like this make me think that may be I should not put all my eggs in
> one basket and instead I will be doing my JNCIE next as opposed to another
> CCIE cert.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Elias
> CCIE#17354 (R&S)
>
>
> On 16 March 2010 15:29, Patrick Galligan <pgalligan_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
> 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 - 17:14:50 ART