Gentlemens, I'd like to hear your opinions regarding the following approach that came in my mind.
Assume, the ultimate goal of our vis-a-vis is expert-level knowledge in any given networking track available at Cisco. The main idea is: would it be better to learn each technology domain separately, one at a time and not earning any interim titles? For example, for R&S track, begin with L2 technologies and moving forward up to L7 IOS features?
The logic behind this - I'm against any imperfection in understanding what I learn. De facto, what is Cisco's officially recommended learning strategy is in nutshell? It is the way to give us infromation in small portions using buggys, instead of providing a full picture from the start. We also remember, that in old days the only exam was - yes, it is. Yeahh, it's a right and proper way for the Cisco to amplify revenue using hierarchical approach, but it's look like not geeky at all. Last updates in cert path like "CCENT and CCNA track" makes me laugh. Instead of strengthening existing statuses values, instead of investing funds into the war with dumping and improvement of testing software(simulations are looking like toys) they downgrade certification value. Sorry for offtopic there, I think it is very important. At least I think so.
In general, every newcomer to this field should think at least twice before taking every possible cert Cisco offers. There is always an alternative, I hope not suboptimal, path to the expertise - technology by technology, thus saving time and last, but not least, saving assets. Simple math follows: CCNA will cost you 250$, CCNP 4*150=600, total 850$, excluding study materials costs. Personally I would rather buy IE's excellent materials for even lesser cost(200+400+200) and would be on a half way to become very confident with technology.
As for approach of visiting CPLSes - I'm completely agree with Scott about this point, that ROI magnitude have tight relation with instructor's level of competency and teaching skills. I think everyone will agree that even mentor know a lot and have a great passion to teach the student, he or she can't give all of information to the student due to the constraints like own memory and physical conditions. In such best cases when instructor performs well, the racks gear is new and cool, every man will face own limit of how much new information he can absorb per hour/day/week. I think that CPLS-leaded courses are very intensive, thus reducing quality of training.
Anyway, I'm not against official courses, live communication is great and communication with real networker is even greater. But future students should expect that in regards to courses dreams not always come true. A typical attendee of any given course spends time equal to official timing afterpaty, and even much more if he wish to certify on learned technology.
I would add about quality of materials which tends to be going with each authorized course. Their quality is definitely not as smart as it should be and have many points woth in comparison with authored exemplars. They(official guides) are wrote on a machine language (probable by machines) targeting very(?) professional network operators. For the cost of ICND1/ICND2 courses it is posible to buy all Cisco Press titles, and authors have enough time, talent and materials to organize a book in a most learnable fashion.
This were my quick insights on the current state of things in the world of knowledge assessment.
I hope you'll comment on key points I illuminated.