MCITP:EA vs MCSE

asurania

I have my MCITP:EA, but i have noticed, that most job posting still state MCSE.

I don't think most employers are even aware of MCITP: EA / SA

Do you think its worth while to get MCSE 2003

Also how are the exams compare MCITP exams, are they any easier?

phantasm

Well one thing to keep in mind is that MCITP line of certifications is focused on newer technology such as Server 2008. The MCSE is focused on Server 2003 and earlier versions. Most enterprise organizations are still running Server 2003 so they want someone familiar with it. I don't think we'll see a lot of Server 2008 in the enterprise for a a few years, regardless I plan on pursuing an MCITP:EA.

Heck one of my old jobs still runs NT Server. lol.

TheShadow

asurania wrote: »

I have my MCITP:EA, but i have noticed, that most job posting still state MCSE.

I don't think most employers are even aware of MCITP: EA / SA

Do you think its worth while to get MCSE 2003

Also how are the exams compare MCITP exams, are they any easier?

My personal opinion is that until the economy turns around in the U.S. and Canada the demand for MCSE will remain quite high, at least two to three years. EA/SA are new installs and there does not seem to be much mass updating.

I have both MCSE and MCiTP:EA. I found the EA exams much easier but then I took update exams. I haven't done the SA, not sure it is worth doing. Win 7 was not an update and I found it trivial compared to what I remember about XP, 2K and 2K3. There are more exams and some of them are not called beast, beast 2 etc. for nothing. The exams were very wordy compared to the current crop.

Others milage may vary. Back to the rack

asurania

looks like it make sense to get the MCSE

yurkie

asurania wrote: »

looks like it make sense to get the MCSE

Maybe studying whole MCSE from the beginning at this point wouldn't be good idea anymore.. but if it's mostly done and missing just couple exams, then of course complete it first and then upgrade to MCITP: EA.

I was getting very frustrated when i knew that 2008 server and all those new techniques existed when i was still tied up to study 2003 server stuff.
I had to do it because MCSE was still incomplete at 2008. Whole MCSE took 4,5 years from me -but i had no suitable work experience so i really had to get buzy with virtual machines and practice labs. I read some of the books more than once or even twice.. . .

But if you are native english speaker (fast reader) and have good work experience from windows admin tasks, sure. Go for it! YOU propably get it done in a fraction of time what it took from me..


Another option would be to study both 2003 and 2008 materials at the same time and sit just some of the 2003 exams.
How about being MCP from 2003 Server (70-290) and MCTS from 2008 at first?

Then upgrading it to MCITP: Server Administrator and Enterprise Administrator later.
That should give impression that you know also 2003 server stuff but are more focused on new techniques found from 2008 server.

I bet that it should take some time and effort anyhow and after those nothing prevents from studying 2003 products again?

Maybe those exact topics that are needed at job, like ISA or Exchange Server etc..?
Except that there is new versions of both.
2010 Exchange would be much more usefull than 2003. And new ISA was.. hmm. Forefront?

Of course "all of them" is a correct answer.
Because learning skills that are needed for upgrading from earlier versions to 2010 are definitely not waste of time.

And then there is SCCM / vNEXT and other System Center family of products. One could even use all time and effort for "small" topics like PowerShell or knowing all about PKI.

There's just not enough time for everything.

ajs1976

Tough call, but I understand and is why i'm picking up the Exchange 2003 exam before moving onto Windows 2008 and Exchange 2010.

Instead heading straight for the MCSE, plan for the MCSA. It is 4 exams and you already have two of them. Windows 7 should count for the client requirement and Sec+ will count towards the Elective, so you only need 290 and 291.

After you get the MCSA 2003, so if companies have started to move on. If they have move onto something else, if not, finish the MCSE 2003.

za3bour

I don't honestly see a point in doing 7 exams and waste all the time and money in this while you can do something else (Cisco ?)

If you know 2008 well then 2003 will not be a problem, I think the different between two certificates is that 2008 doesn't contain Exchange (seperate cert) or ISA or SQL so you can fill what you're missing.

I recommend that you pursure another cert like Cisco or Exchange

spartangtr

Why not just do the MCITP:EA and on your resume put (MCSE 2008 ) in paranthesis like that after MCITP:EA so you still show up in searches?

ajs1976

spartangtr wrote: »

Why not just do the MCITP:EA and on your resume put (MCSE 2008 ) in paranthesis like that after MCITP:EA so you still show up in searches?

because when someone actually reads the resume and sees a made up cert, it is probably going in the garbage.

spartangtr

ajs1976 wrote: »

because when someone actually reads the resume and sees a made up cert, it is probably going in the garbage.

I only say that because I know people who have actually done that.

ajs1976

spartangtr wrote: »

I only say that because I know people who have actually done that.

did it help them get a job?

ipconfig.all

Most employers do not know what MCITP EA is or the difference.

[Deleted User]

I think going after some of the other MS certs may help you to get a better understanding of those technologies. I can't imagine that most employers are passing on you just because you have your EA instead of MCSE.

Devilsbane

za3bour wrote: »

I don't honestly see a point in doing 7 exams and waste all the time and money in this while you can do something else (Cisco ?)

As you pointed out, 7 exams take more time, more effort, and more money than 4 exams. Employers know this, which is why someone with an MCSE likely (but not always) put in more work and thus has a better understanding of the material.

Many more employers are using 2003 than 2008.

And as someone else mentioned, HR folks (and even some IT professionals that don't keep up on certifications) don't know what the MCITP is.

Plus, some people want both. If you want both, you better get MCSE now because it will likely be retired before the MCITP is.

xmalachi wrote: »

I think going after some of the other MS certs may help you to get a better understanding of those technologies. I can't imagine that most employers are passing on you just because you have your EA instead of MCSE.

The will if they don't know what an MCITP is. Consider the HR rep that is reviewing resumes. Yours comes in and says MCITP (which means nothing to them, it could be a Cisco or Novell certification for all they know). Mine has MCSE on it, which they have seen a thousand times and has been beaten into their head as the Windows administration certification. Whose resume is going in the trash?

Some people try to get around this by spelling out the certification, in hopes that they will see Microsoft Certified IT Professional: Enterprise Administrator and the lightbulb will go on.

it_consultant

You should always spell out abbreviations at least once in formal writing. Never assume that someone understands an abbreviation. You can get around this like this:

"Microsoft Certified Information Technology Professional: Enterprise Administrator (MCITP:EA)"

Later on in the same document "MCITP:EA" can be used.

garydrumm

Putting MCITP:EA (MCSE 200 is not a bad idea. Many HR people don't know what the MCITP is, so they skip right over it. And, sadly, most resumes are simply database keyword searches now, so if you don't have MCSE in there somewhere and that's what the req calls for, then you won't show up in the results.

Many IT professional, however; do know what the MCITP is, and they are perfectly willing to accept that in place of the MCSE. Get MSITP and CCNA and no one will question whether or not you have the qualifications from a certification standpoint, and if they do, then it's probably not a company you'd really want to work for anyway.

It should nver be about getting "a job", it should be about getting the right position to further your career. Just my thoughts.