MCSE 2000 vs. MCSE 2003 (HR point of view)

Gabe7055

In my honest opinion I don't think there is that much difference in Windows Server 2000 and Windows Server 2003. I am MCSE in 2000 and I now work with 2003 and have no issues at all just by applying what I learned from 2000. Anyway my question is do you take employers look people over that are MCSE 2000 but not MCSE 2003 or do you think that they realize that the differences are marginal and not worth not hiring someone if there are a good prospect?

The reason I ask is with Vista server coming down the pipe (one day anyway) I am sure an entirely new track will come along with it and right now I rather just wait for the new track to come out, take the core exams, and really learn the material instead of trying to upgrade my MCSE 2000 to 2003.

Thanks in advance for the advice.

strauchr

I think your statement sums up why employers look for MCSE 2003 people over MCSE 2000. You must need to know the differences and how they can affect the operation of an infrastructure.

If you only have a couple of 2003 servers in a mainly 2000 environment then you probably won't notice a difference. Althought the basics are the same the features, security and benefits of 2003 can make a big difference. Knowing these things means you can be more valuable to an employers.

Webmaster

There won't be an MCSE track for a Windows 'vista' as Microsoft recently announced they will create a whole new line of certs. Surely something for Vista as well though.

There differences between 2000 and 2003 are not marginal, but for small to medium sized environments you could say they are. HR in general won't consider it marginal either. If they have a 2003 network, and need a system admin, your MCSE 2000 is only valuable if you have a MCSE 2003 to go with it (showing past knowledge and experience). Unless the demand is so high they cannot find an MCSE 2003, because most will realize the value of an MCSE 2000, but certainly will assume a major difference with 2003 (even if they don't know or think there is).

Gabe7055

Maybe I should have worded my statement a little differently. I guess what I meant to say is that in what I do (manage a Windows 2003 network for a small to medium size company) the differences are marginal for me.

I do agree that a lot of improvements were made in 2003, the advancements in Active Directory alone are worth the price of admission.

I guess I am just a little frustrated that I put a great deal of effort into getting MCSE and now it seems like it's almost sub par just because it's not 2003 especially considering the fact that I work with 2003 and consider myself knowledgeable on it.

Thanks for the opinions, I wonder when Microsoft will unveil it's plans for the future of MCSE?

skully93

I hate to sound unethical, but you could either lie and say you upgraded your MCSE, or just put in there that though you haven't updated it, you work with the '03 material daily.

If a potential employer asks, you just say "Hey, I got my MCSE and keep my knowledge up to date, but the exams and material are too expensive just to retake them every generation."

If you can get the interview you should be able to justify it.

Webmaster

Gabe7055 wrote:

I guess I am just a little frustrated that I put a great deal of effort into getting MCSE and now it seems like it's almost sub par just because it's not 2003 especially considering the fact that I work with 2003 and consider myself knowledgeable on it.

In that case you could look at it a more positive way: you're only two exam (292+296) from being an MCSE 2000 'and' MCSE 2003.

12thlevelwarrior

You can't look back and think about the amount of work you put into the cert, you just have to look forward and concentrate on the amount of work you will have to continually do to stay competitive. It is a never ending journey of learning. In IT, knowledge will always fade, you just have to know it served you well and is gone and forge ahead into the territory of new knowledge.