Decent IT Certs Article

This is a decent article from network world. Gives a break down of a few certifications and things you should look for beyond certifications.

IT Certifications That Matter

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

earweed

Read the article earlier via the CompTIA smartbrief. One thing they did get wrong is by labeling the MCITP as entry level.

and the relatively entry-level Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP)..

Excellent1

earweed wrote: »

Read the article earlier via the CompTIA smartbrief. One thing they did get wrong is by labeling the MCITP as entry level.

Yeah, read that yesterday and got a chuckle out of it. The ol' MCITP is still not getting any love from HR or industry mags. Good times.

apena7

earweed wrote: »

Read the article earlier via the CompTIA smartbrief. One thing they did get wrong is by labeling the MCITP as entry level.

Well, you can become an MCITP by passing the 70-680 & 70-685, so that would be considered entry-level. But I think when we read MCITP, we automatically assume the MCITP:EA, which isn't entry-level of course

http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/mcitp.aspx#tab2

NinjaBoy

apena7 wrote: »

Well, you can become an MCITP by passing the 70-680 & 70-685, so that would be considered entry-level.

MCITP (Microsoft Certified IT Professional) | Training Courses for IT Professionals

Not really imo, the MCITP range of certs are aimed at IT Pro's with at least 1 year working/supporting that technology. The MTA range from MS is what would be entry level.

-Ken

powerfool

NinjaBoy wrote: »

Not really imo, the MCITP range of certs are aimed at IT Pro's with at least 1 year working/supporting that technology. The MTA range from MS is what would be entry level.

-Ken

One year seems rather entry-level, IMHO.

The article has several inaccuracies, though:

"The requirements for MCSE certification are one to two years of experience in designing, installing, configuring, and troubleshooting network systems, and a passing mark on an $875 test."

Notice anything wrong there? I can see a couple of things, at least.

However, reading the article, I don't see where MCITP is listed as entry-level. Here is what I read:

"For example, CompTIA says, businesses will typically pay a 10 percent premium for someone who has earned one of its entry-level certifications, and individuals with higher-level certifications can command a 40 percent mark-up."

Appears they were referring to CompTIA's entry-level certs... which I would consider all of CompTIA's certs as entry-level.

Excellent1

powerfool wrote: »

However, reading the article, I don't see where MCITP is listed as entry-level

On the first page, under the heading "Microsoft (MCSE, MCITP, MCTS)", the last sentence is what earweed quoted.

Regardless, it's all good. These kinds of articles are almost always subjective enough that it's just like any other opinion piece: you either agree with it, you don't, or you could give a flip less.

eansdad

Wait ... MCITP is entry level but MCTS isn't? Isn't the MCITP the new MCSA/MCSE level certs while MCTS is the new MCP? Were does having a Comptia cert get you an extra 40%? Then again the article is from PCWorld for what that is worth.

Bl8ckr0uter

Where are the SANS certs? What about Juniper, storage, Red Hat? IMO this article is pretty much BS (and feels like a part of the advertisement arm of the training programs for the mentioned companies). There are also still a bunch of HR folks who are old school and don't care about any certs. I am the only person in my IT department (development, administration and management) that has any certification. I am also the youngest so maybe it could be because of an age thing (when and how I came into IT).

RobertKaucher

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

Where are the SANS certs? What about Juniper, storage, Red Hat? IMO this article is pretty much BS (and feels like a part of the advertisement arm of the training programs for the mentioned companies). There are also still a bunch of HR folks who are old school and don't care about any certs. I am the only person in my IT department (development, administration and management) that has any certification. I am also the youngest so maybe it could be because of an age thing (when and how I came into IT).

No, certainly not the cause of that. Some people see the value in it, others do not. I am of two minds when it comes to certs. It holds a value to me as a means to direct and measure my learning. On a certain level it is a professional hobby. You could see that to some people this sort of thing would hold no value. I imagine you have a similar view to me: learn, improve, progress professionally (faster, better, stronger). I think most people just don't care. As long as they can do their jobs and do them well, they are happy. They figure they don't need a cert to tell them what they know. I started with certs because I needed something to get me noticed because I had little experience - now I'm hooked.

Bl8ckr0uter

RobertKaucher wrote: »

They figure they don't need a cert to tell them what they know. I started with certs because I needed something to get me noticed because I had little experience - now I'm hooked.

The 2 most senior guys (age and experience) here were having a conversation about certs (neither one know I have a few) and basically they said certs are stupid because A: You can **** them B: They don't prove you know anything because you could have just followed A and C: Aren't real world oriented. Idk, there was a post in the Cisco forum just a minute ago that makes me understand where they are coming from. Still I mean they matter. I have the least amount of experience and education here (and I am the youngest in the company) so I need an edge. I know certs helped me out. I have a few certs I need to get out of the way because they will help expand my widen my skill set or deepen it. IDK like maybe they aren't as valuable as they use to be but even if they have a little value that is still adding something vs not having any at all.

Excellent1

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

The 2 most senior guys (age and experience) here were having a conversation about certs (neither one know I have a few) and basically they said certs are stupid because A: You can **** them B: They don't prove you know anything because you could have just followed A and C: Aren't real world oriented. Idk, there was a post in the Cisco forum just a minute ago that makes me understand where they are coming from. Still I mean they matter. I have the least amount of experience and education here (and I am the youngest in the company) so I need an edge. I know certs helped me out. I have a few certs I need to get out of the way because they will help expand my widen my skill set or deepen it. IDK like maybe they aren't as valuable as they use to be but even if they have a little value that is still adding something vs not having any at all.

I think the most telling observation about the cert vs. no cert argument is that it's almost always (99.99%) of the time people without certs that downplay their importance or relevance. Once you have a few, you realize that while it may not be the huge game-changer it was in the 90's, it's still a way to quantify your educational progression in the IT world.

In any case, like I said above, these articles are always subjective in nature when comparing the relative value of some certifications vs. others. Comes down to opinion and individual circumstances more often than not.