Thanks for the responses, everyone.
The question is not whether the exam is easier or harder. The question is whether the CISSP will have the same perceived value to other IT pros, IT security pros, and hiring managers now that it's a shorter exam?
Anyone who has a CISSP will know that the exam is still very hard. Years of experience and knowledge are necessary. It also takes many months to study for the exam. You have to be endorsed, etc.
But people who are not yet familiar or as familiar with the CISSP may wonder why it stands out since it's not much longer than other exams. In fact, one of my colleagues who expressed interest it in said it looks a little harder than Security+ but not by much. I don't want the CISSP lumped in with Security+.
Again, I'm concerned the CISSP may just be another cert in five years, not the premier IT security certification.
No. What devalues the CISSP is the people who have it, take a title of cybersecurity engineer, and then do not do any engineering work.
My personal opinion is adaptive exams are harder. Someone sitting for that test pretty much has to be mistake free. In the previous test, one could miss a question and recover. In adaptive exams, you miss a question and you're going to see more of the same material. 2 thumbs up to people who pass (any) adaptive exams!
In general, I don't think comparing old version to the new version's question count or their duration and somehow equating that to a degree of difficulty is applicable or productive to the community.
I have witnessed in the past, people throw shade at others because their CISSP number is too high -- the assumption is they got into the game late or just because of the gov't and therefore aren't a real CISSP. To me, I interpret some of this old test/new test thing as a continuation of the "your number is too high" silliness. Adaptive tests are no joke.
I don't feel like it devalues it. Adaptive tests are supposed to ask progressively harder questions, so if you know about encryption and it's correct application to a certain situation, whether you get asked 3 questions or 30 doesn't necessarily make you more knowledgeable in that situation.
ISC(2) doesn't publish the pass rate so their is no way of understanding if the test is easier, harder or about the same. We simply don't have enough information to make that claim one way or another. I will direct our readership to the one clue we do have access - exam numbers.
This will be a bit controversial so if your easily offended please pass on reading below this line.
Consider the year and month you received your official membership number and the number of exams taken by all candidates before. This will become your baseline. Now advance a few years and think about those resumes with membership numbers from more recent members. Those numbers go up not down. If you have a really low number say in the 50,000s from 200x and compare to a very recent member with a membership over three-quarters of a million. Well, you can compile a pretty rational idea as to if people are passing more frequently than in the past.
Its just maths and some observation skill but I have confidence you can make an argument either way.
We have over 125,000 members and can remember when we hit 50,000. The later being a huge relief and celebratory moment for the organization.
I wonder about that too.
The exam was difficult for me. Not due to the difficulty of the questions, I was well prepared by the time I took the exam, I answered the vast majority of them with a high degree of confidence. I didn't rush, I read every question carefully, weighed each answer and came to a conclusion I was happy with. After answering each one at a time I had 11 minutes left on the clock. I didn't go back to review my answers, I was too tired, and I was reasonably sure that a review wouldn't turn up any better answers.
I felt like a ran a mental marathon, I certainly had the knowledge to pass but there was no getting around 6 hours of testing. That was the hardest part. I feel like a CAT test would've been a breeze for me or anyone else who was well prepared.