Bachelor of Technology.

bjuarbe

I completed my associate in Dec. in Computer Network Operations, I have been job hunting since Dec. I have been on interviews and they all have went well but still no call backs. Im considering continuing my education at Briarcliffe College. They seem to have a nice degree program. Its Bachelor of Technology in Information Technology: Computer Networking and Telecommunications concentration - Specilization in Internet Security Systems. Thats a mouth full. Do you guys think I should go forth and get my bachelors or should I be patient and wait for a nice job? Altogether I have A+/NET+/INET+, A.O.S. Computer Network Operations and I do have some work experience... Any help and advice would be much appreciated.

/usr

If you want to...

You may find a job with what you have now and you may still have trouble finding a job with a Bachelors degree. It certainly won't hurt your chances of landing a job, however.

2lazybutsmart

I've got many friends out there who've spent most--all- of thier time pursuing degrees and never letting the thought of technical certifications go through their mind. They now spend most of their time writing resumes and never getting replies.

Each one of them drives home the same lesson --technical certifications are a must in the IT world. So make sure you try your best to get as many technical certifications as you can. The longer the list, the better the chances. And I'm not implying anything related to paper-certing your way through it.

A+ Net+ and the like are good, but don't expect to go out on the battefield with them and expect to win. Ok, I'm not saying you can't, but what I'm saying is you won't land a job that will earn you, say, 30K or 40K. You can get jobs paying less, but that's not exactly what you're looking for, I guess.

2lbs.

/usr

This is a neverending debate on these boards.


The general consensus seems to be that a combination of a degree, certifications, and experience is the best possible combination. If not all three are available, then get what you can. Certainly getting a job with only one of those three is possible, but it is more likely with a combination.

2lazybutsmart

debate is healthy -.. i mean healthy debate is healthy

keenon

jump in and get some experience b/c the first year your going to make **** .. so its best to get it over with

/usr

jump in and get some experience b/c the first year your going to make **** .. so its best to get it over with

garv221

keenon wrote:

jump in and get some experience b/c the first year your going to make **** .. so its best to get it over with

Very true & my own opnion is a cert with a + after it isn't going to make ****. Cancel out the extra work & get with Cisco & Microsoft program.

hc2ab

garv221 wrote:

Very true & my own opnion is a cert with a + after it isn't going to make ****. Cancel out the extra work & get with Cisco & Microsoft program.

Other than outdated materia like win95 and msdos.

most of the stuff you see in comptia exam you see in others too.

/usr

most of the stuff you see in comptia exam you see in others too.

That hardly means that CompTIA exams are worthless. They are meant to be vendor neutral, introduction exams.

Drakonblayde

The problem is that your work environments aren't vendor neutral It's a nice concept, but CompTIA's exams are way to generalized to be of much value in a real workplace.

/usr

It's a nice concept, but CompTIA's exams are way to generalized to be of much value in a real workplace.

The knowledge contained in A+ and Network+ aren't helpful for a beginner in IT?

I think you have the wrong idea about how useful these exams actually are.

Plantwiz

JUSToneBOBBY wrote:

I completed my associate in Dec. in Computer Network Operations, I have been job hunting since Dec. I have been on interviews and they all have went well but still no call backs.

When you interview, do YOU make the effort to follow-up? Or just hope they will contact you?

If you do the later, consider on your next interview consider this:

1. Write a follow-up thank you addressed to the person or people you spoke with (each one gets on if you spoke with more than one).

2. If you do find out you did not receive the job offer, ask if there were any qualities that the candidate who beat you out of the position had they you do not (they may not wish to say, so handle this as best you can and assure them you are not looking to sue them, you wish to learn what needs to improve. Experience and training - that's easy.

If you weren't old enough - only time will fix this, and they'll unlikely tell you this. Just observe that your mannerism and personality fit the environement you hope to work in.

**********

Keep trying. This is the most challenging part, but can be the most rewarding!

As I am not a believer in living on credit, at this stage, do you feel you can afford to continue with a full-time scholastic path? Or can you work and go to school part-time. This way you'll be gaining experience as well as completing additional education.

Also, if you do stay with school, you will have additional time to network with professors and peers who may be able to help you find a job that is desirable.

I like to pay as I go, so I'd try to afford to do both.

reloaded

It's a nice concept, but CompTIA's exams are way to generalized to be of much value in a real workplace.

I'd disagree very much with this. While they may add nothing to the resume, they offer UNDERSTANDING. This, coupled with work experience will allow yourself to become much more knowledgable and efficient in the workplace. Since I've started to go to college and focus on certifications, my knowledge has grown at least 10 fold. Don't let these guys say CompTIA stuff is worthless. Because it's not.

/usr

Don't let these guys say CompTIA stuff is worthless. Because it's not.

Well said.

Plantwiz

/usr wrote:

Don't let these guys say CompTIA stuff is worthless. Because it's not.

Well said.

If Comptia certs were 'worthless' none of us would hold any, but as it turns out, most of us have more than one

NPA24

CompTIA has great value and people still get them and will continue to get them because of the value they carry.

Drakonblayde

/usr wrote:

It's a nice concept, but CompTIA's exams are way to generalized to be of much value in a real workplace.

The knowledge contained in A+ and Network+ aren't helpful for a beginner in IT?

I think you have the wrong idea about how useful these exams actually are.

Maybe you should pay a little more attention to what I said

I did not say the knowledge needed for the exams was not useful for an IT beginner. Matter of fact that knowledge is essential, you have to have a foundation to start somewhere.

What I said was that the exams are much to generalized to be of much value in a real work environment. Your shops are *not* going to be vendor neutral. These days, it pays to specialize your knowledge because companies are alot more careful on the cash they fork out for IT staff. Even for simple bench tech jobs.

Again, CompTIA exams are a nice concept. It should cause people to be more open minded about candidates since they haven't locked down their thought processes to a certain product or series of products. But when your company is running on stuff that is quite vendor specific, you want someone who knows what they're doing with that vendors equipment and/or software.

My CompTIA exams are resume filler, and if I had the choice to take the Net+ again, I would not do so. I'd still take the A+, because for all of CompTIA's vendor neutralness, the A+ is quite slanted towards Microsoft and hardware that runs Microsoft products.

reloaded wrote:

I'd disagree very much with this. While they may add nothing to the resume, they offer UNDERSTANDING. This, coupled with work experience will allow yourself to become much more knowledgable and efficient in the workplace. Since I've started to go to college and focus on certifications, my knowledge has grown at least 10 fold. Don't let these guys say CompTIA stuff is worthless. Because it's not.

You're welcome to disagree with it all you want, and it's nice you're learning stuff in school. Been there, done that, got the certs and degree to prove it. Now, you mentioned the crux of it.... the certs AND experience. And I'd go so far as to say that demonstrable work experience is more valuable than the entry level CompTIA exams. The exams themselves do not guarentee competence with the equipment you're playing with. Take the Net+ for example. Ok, it's Networking 101. It tells you what an IP address is, what Ethernet is, blah blah blah. You think that knowledge alone qualifies you for more than to setup a SOHO? How many fulltime jobs you think are out there that need just that level of qualification? In the case of the A+, when it was on adaptive testing, it was a bloody joke. If I were ever in a position to hire someone, and I had a resume with just an A+ and Net+ on it and no work experience I would never hire that person because I know exactly what skillsets the A+ tests for.

Plantwiz wrote:

If Comptia certs were 'worthless' none of us would hold any, but as it turns out, most of us have more than one

/snort, by that theory, then Microsoft exams aren't worthless either.

Seriously, Microsoft exams are about as far from real world experience as you can possibly get, the exam authors live in their own private little world that has nothing to do with reality. And yet, if you want a job in a Microsoft shop, you *have* to have them. IT directors aren't stupid, they know an MCSE isn't going to really qualify someone to run their enterprise network, let alone make changes to it. But they do know that someone with an MCSE will at least know the terminology.

My point is that for some exams, the skills they test don't have any bearing on what you'll actually have to deal with in a workplace, and that means that they are *not* a substitute for experience. Unfortunately, with the flood of IT job candidates, *something* has to be used as a litmus test, and certification seems to be it. So learn the basics, take your CompTIA exams, because that part of the alphabet soup missing off your resume might be the difference between you or the next guy getting a second interview or job offer. But never make the mistake that you know everything you need to just because you can pass a standardized exam.

/usr

I don't think any certification is really meant to show that you know everything about a product. I certainly hope that someone with an MCSA doesn't think he will be able to jump right in as the admin of a network. However, having an MCSA will allow you to adapt much better and much faster than someone who doesn't have one.

hc2ab

/usr wrote:

That hardly means that CompTIA exams are worthless. They are meant to be vendor neutral, introduction exams.

That is why I say most of the stuff you see in Comptia you see in others anyway.

Alot of material overlap so it help studying your other exam.

strauchr

Drakonblayde wrote:

/snort, by that theory, then Microsoft exams aren't worthless either.

Seriously, Microsoft exams are about as far from real world experience as you can possibly get, the exam authors live in their own private little world that has nothing to do with reality. And yet, if you want a job in a Microsoft shop, you *have* to have them. IT directors aren't stupid, they know an MCSE isn't going to really qualify someone to run their enterprise network, let alone make changes to it. But they do know that someone with an MCSE will at least know the terminology.

I tend to disagree with that statement. Sure the MCSE won't make you a star network engineer or admin but it certainly does more than teach you terminology.

You learn what products are on offer and what they are capable of to the point you can make an informed decision regarding technologies, you leanr best practise methods for deploying the technologies, you have a good theoritical understanding of what is happening on your network and why and you learn how to do basic troubleshooting and support. No exam/s will ever make up for real world experience but to say an MCSE is worthless I think is completely wrong.

I do agree however that Comptias certs are virtually worthless. I have never been refused a job due to not having a Comptia cert. I think its not a bad place to start for beginners but those certs alone aren't really going to get you a great job. And if you decide to work in an MS shop or Cisco then you'll get those jobs from doing certs in those areas which is when Comptia certs become resume filler.

Plantwiz

Come on guys... only two people in this discussion do not have Comptia certs listed in their profile. There are a lot of MCP's listed as well.

If Comptia and MS were not good to have why do we all have them AND display that we have them?

Casually saying that a certification is Entry-Level is a good defense to the flooded market of A+/NET+ candidates. Telling them (and yourself) that Comptia certs are NO BIG DEAL, then the person responds "Well, I'm going for an MS certificate next" - leaving you to reply with "Well, that's entry-level too!" The real certifications are the CISCO Certifications - knowing full well that it's a safe way to elevate oneself from the masses.

We are competitive by nature and we strive to be different (and better) then someone else. Certifications do not make people experts....that's why br@indumps and cheats are so poorly looked upon! Those of us who have earned the certification through years of work and real time experience don't want to lose a job opportunity to someone who just holds the paper. COMPLETELY understandable.

However, Comptia exams are popular because they are general and cover broad subject matter. MS exams are popular because almost everyone USES MS products within their business and even at home. They both offer Good tests and they are relatively easy - BECAUSE there is an abundance of material to work with and it is relatively affordable for most people to setup a lab and practice.

CISCO items are more costly and many business don't have a need (they are just too small or the cost vs. the installation/maintain the CISCO products exceeds the usefulness of the network). Therefore the tests are more difficult - there is LESS product and fewer people using the product therefore you have fewer peers to learn from and troubleshoot with.

There is more of a need to educate people to only apply and sit for exams on technologies you use. I'm not as familiar with the requirements on the CISCO exams, but both MS and COMPTIA recommend the candidate WORKS with the product 6 months to a year prior to sitting for the exam.

So, stop saying these are entry-level certifications! Some are gateway certifications - meaning that once some earns a certificate, their job focus may place them in an area requiring further training. Sitting for exams for the sake of taking the exam and holding a certificate is useless - this is what is damaging!

reloaded

You're welcome to disagree with it all you want, and it's nice you're learning stuff in school. Been there, done that, got the certs and degree to prove it. Now, you mentioned the crux of it.... the certs AND experience. And I'd go so far as to say that demonstrable work experience is more valuable than the entry level CompTIA exams. The exams themselves do not guarentee competence with the equipment you're playing with. Take the Net+ for example. Ok, it's Networking 101. It tells you what an IP address is, what Ethernet is, blah blah blah. You think that knowledge alone qualifies you for more than to setup a SOHO? How many fulltime jobs you think are out there that need just that level of qualification? In the case of the A+, when it was on adaptive testing, it was a bloody joke. If I were ever in a position to hire someone, and I had a resume with just an A+ and Net+ on it and no work experience I would never hire that person because I know exactly what skillsets the A+ tests for.

Here's the deal. The more knowledge you have, the better position you will be in on the job. Everything you read, everything you get certified in...they're just one more step toward the human goal (or teenage goal) of knowing everything. If you don't work with it everyday, at least you have the knowledge and understanding and know how it works. That is the value of certification...it's proving your knowledge (at least that's what I think). Yeah, it might not do jack for you on the job, but you know, for some people it might. Depending on the job, it may be very useful.

You said something else regarding experience. Before I got certified, I had lots of experience, just not a full understanding. Now, yeah, I'm really getting this stuff, how it works and why we use it. Nobody told me why a CSU/DSU was used. They just told me where it was and how it connected to the router. What a bunch of crap. Now, I know exactly why. I could go on and on, but I'm too tired. You're fully justified when it comes to the experience part.

2lazybutsmart

Plantwiz wrote:

Casually saying that a certification is Entry-Level is a good defense to the flooded market of A+/NET+ candidates. Telling them (and yourself) that Comptia certs are NO BIG DEAL, then the person responds "Well, I'm going for an MS certificate next" - leaving you to reply with "Well, that's entry-level too!" The real certifications are the CISCO Certifications - knowing full well that it's a safe way to elevate oneself from the masses.

Well said. Actually that part about CISCO certs being the real thing is very true. I hear those comments almost everyday. I think if a person doesn't believe each and every piece of his accomplishments count (whether it's A+, N+, or a 3 day workshop, etc..), he's simply having a problem believing in himself. OK, nobody's going to drag himself on the floor, but imagine what a person with only an A+ will go through when folks with 10 or more certs from MS and Cisco bombard him with the same statement "Your stuff's no big deal." ??

I remember back in 1995 when my older brother got an A+ cert. Believe me folks, we thought, and he thought, he'd died and went to heaven. The thing was just so valuable back in the days. The reason certs are 'valueless' --if you want to put it that way--, is because the people who hold them today are not as 'valuable' as those who held them 10 years back.

There's this guy I know we call the biggest WACKO of all time. You should see what that guy has on display in his study. A+, N+, MCSE, MCSA, B.S, M.S...... he even has a Ph.D......and you guessed it right, he doesn't know a dime about any of these things. Pathetic!!!

Drakonblayde wrote:

You're welcome to disagree with it all you want, and it's nice you're learning stuff in school. Been there, done that, got the certs and degree to prove it. Now, you mentioned the crux of it.... the certs AND experience. And I'd go so far as to say that demonstrable work experience is more valuable than the entry level CompTIA exams. The exams themselves do not guarentee competence with the equipment you're playing with. Take the Net+ for example. Ok, it's Networking 101. It tells you what an IP address is, what Ethernet is, blah blah blah. You think that knowledge alone qualifies you for more than to setup a SOHO? How many fulltime jobs you think are out there that need just that level of qualification? In the case of the A+, when it was on adaptive testing, it was a bloody joke. If I were ever in a position to hire someone, and I had a resume with just an A+ and Net+ on it and no work experience I would never hire that person because I know exactly what skillsets the A+ tests for.

But on your level of sophistication, you don't need a person who doesn't have experience to touch your computers. On the same note, that big billion dollar company won't just take your MCSE's and MCSD's (PhD's and EhD's) without work experience pertinent to their specific needs. That guy's not supposed to carry A+ and N+ without their due experience anywayz. Nobody's supposed to be goofing around without experience. But the certs remain "certificates" of your knowledge, not your experience.

2lbs.

Drakonblayde

Plantwiz wrote:

Come on guys... only two people in this discussion do not have Comptia certs listed in their profile. There are a lot of MCP's listed as well.

If Comptia and MS were not good to have why do we all have them AND display that we have them?

Well, this being a certification board, displaying your certs is along the lines of bragging rights. As you say below, we're competitive by nature. And I agree that lots of us have CompTIA's and MCP's, because like I said before, you have to start somewhere, and unfortunately that's at the bottom.

Casually saying that a certification is Entry-Level is a good defense to the flooded market of A+/NET+ candidates. Telling them (and yourself) that Comptia certs are NO BIG DEAL, then the person responds "Well, I'm going for an MS certificate next" - leaving you to reply with "Well, that's entry-level too!" The real certifications are the CISCO Certifications - knowing full well that it's a safe way to elevate oneself from the masses.

See now that I agree with. For people who honestly passed a Cisco exam, say the CCNA, there's a pretty damned good chance that they *do* possess the knowledge they need. Hand a newly minted CCNA 10 routers and say you want them all linked in an ospf area, with a certain router being the DR, a default route defined and dynamically passed onto the others, with a couple access lists blocking and allowing specified traffic, and one router performing NAT for a private network just for good measures. Most folks will look at you like 'Well hell, is that all you want?'.

Hand a newly minted MCSE 10 boxes, tell them to properly define the DNS zone on the DC for inside and outside scopes, configure DHCP and DHCP relay for subnets without a DHCP server, properly configure a box with ISA server, setup an exchange server for the domain, tweak their domain GPO to make everything a little more secure, setup a terminal server in application mode, configure IIS for an internet reachable website and a private intranet, and just for the hell of it, setup a proxy server for the internal users browsing outside websites. That MCSE is going to go hunting for his reference material and google is going to become a close intimate friend. (Sure, maybe I'm being a little unfair to the MCSE folks, but you passed 7 tests for MS's highest certification, and those are all common tasks when playing with a network. The CCNA just passed a Cisco entry level exam and knows his material a hell of alot better than you do.... incidentally, I can do any of what I've mentioned above with a minimal of outside reference... ISA server is the only thing that really screws with me, I hate that bloody program)

The CISSP is like that too. It's bloody hard, bloody complicated, and anyone who has it, tends to know what they're doing. Think you can say the same about someone who just came out of school and got their Sec+? Or how about an RHCE? Those guys have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt they know their stuff. I'm sitting next to a Linux+ holder who doesn't have the slightest clue how to install Red Hat 9 without help (I'm not a Linux fan boy really, I much prefer OpenBSD for Unix flavors)

And while I'm mentioning the Sec+, it's probably the only one out of CompTIA's entire mix that actually is worth something. Given that Security is a relatively recent focus for most companies, most of your hires in that field are going to be entry-level without the years and years of experience. That'll be changing in years down the road, and it'll decline just like the A+ did. The A+ used to be very well regarded, and there were shops (and hell, retail chains like CompUSA) that wouldn't even look at you without one. Unfortunately, for the hardware side, it's gotten much easier (when was the last time you had to set a clock speed via a jumper on the motherboard? Resolve an IRQ conflict?) and for the software side, you're better of specializing

Plantwiz wrote:

However, Comptia exams are popular because they are general and cover broad subject matter.

Wrong, they're popular because they're easy, and because they're easy and they give new candidates a sense of accomplishment which will probably spur them on to better and more highly regarded certifications. Which is an ok goal in and of itself. But CompTIA exams are generic, and they're treated as such by employers. The very second I achieve my CCIE, my CompTIA exams are coming off my resume, and I may well pull them after my CCNP.

MS exams are popular because almost everyone USES MS products within their business and even at home. They both offer Good tests and they are relatively easy - BECAUSE there is an abundance of material to work with and it is relatively affordable for most people to setup a lab and practice.

You're right in that they're popular because Microsoft is such an infestation. And I wouldn't really have any issues with them if their exams were grounded a little bit more in reality. I mean, come on, look at the simple client exams. They go into how many different ways to install it? How many different ways to automate the installation? But do they cover the one topic that every IT professional who works with Microsoft products needs to know? (That topic being how to fix the bloody thing when it breaks, because it *will* break). Of course not. You have any idea how many MCSE's I've given a simple windows problem and they cannot tell me how to fix it? (My favorite being how do prevent the Windows Protection Error that sometimes crops up during an installation of 9

CISCO items are more costly and many business don't have a need (they are just too small or the cost vs. the installation/maintain the CISCO products exceeds the usefulness of the network). Therefore the tests are more difficult - there is LESS product and fewer people using the product therefore you have fewer peers to learn from and troubleshoot with.

Ok, I can tell you don't work with Cisco equipment First off, even the smallest office can afford the 1700 series routers, and they'll kick the snot out of anything you can buy off the shelf. Cisco products are very low maintenance, there's a hotel in Chattanooga who's 3 2600's have been running for 3 and a half years with no interruption. The last time they were interrupted was for a memory upgrade. And if you think there's less product, uhm, maybe you're not aware but virtually all traffic on the Internet passes through a Cisco router at some point. When it comes to networking hardware, Cisco is as widespread as Microsoft, and *that* is where there is such a demand for Cisco certification. Since they pretty much write the book on internetworking, and if you want to have a prayer of touching a company's WAN routers, you have to have Cisco certification. Unlike most of the others, Cisco certs actually *do* prepare you for the job you need to.

And if you seriously think there's less product and fewer people using that product... well, I'm sitting a couple hundred feet from a warehouse holding $20 million in Cisco equipment, and I've got sales people who did $100 million in sales in USED equipment last year who'd be happy to correct you on that point I don't have any idea what our services folks billed out aggregate last year, but I do know one guy billed out 7 times his salary in service calls last year (take a look at what a CCIE makes hehe)

There is more of a need to educate people to only apply and sit for exams on technologies you use. I'm not as familiar with the requirements on the CISCO exams, but both MS and COMPTIA recommend the candidate WORKS with the product 6 months to a year prior to sitting for the exam.

So, stop saying these are entry-level certifications! Some are gateway certifications - meaning that once some earns a certificate, their job focus may place them in an area requiring further training. Sitting for exams for the sake of taking the exam and holding a certificate is useless - this is what is damaging!

I'm not the ones who bills them as entry-level, CompTIA does that. I bill them as a resume filling money making scheme for CompTIA. Saying they're entry level would be implying they give you a shot at getting into a field, and they most certainly do not.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from learning or taking the exams, as I've said before, the basic knowledge is essential, especially if you're a new entrant into the field, changing careers, or whatever. I don't actually recommend taking the exams unless you feel like you've got something to prove to yourself, because that's basically all you're really doing.

reloaded wrote:

Here's the deal. The more knowledge you have, the better position you will be in on the job. Everything you read, everything you get certified in...they're just one more step toward the human goal (or teenage goal) of knowing everything. If you don't work with it everyday, at least you have the knowledge and understanding and know how it works. That is the value of certification...it's proving your knowledge (at least that's what I think). Yeah, it might not do jack for you on the job, but you know, for some people it might. Depending on the job, it may be very useful.

Ok, now that's just naive. The more knowledge you have that *pertains to your job* the better position you will be in on the job. While it's true that while companies are consolidating staff and IT professionals are being expected to wear more hats than they used to (ie, network administrators are now expected to secure their networks in addition to actually running them), extraneous knowledge may do you some good for your own satisfaction, or if you're looking to change fields. And as I've said, most certification does *not* prove knowledge or ability. It proves you can pass a test and memorize some things. Real life isn't quite that easy, or quite that cut and dry. Taking my own work environment for example... I'm one of the Cisco weenies. None of the other departments question my abilities when it comes to configure and running a network. I also happen to have 9 years experience as a bench tech and support technician. When I wander down to the Intel guys (who handle all of our HP/Compaq hardware) and offer to lend a hand, you think they're glad to see me? Despite the fact that I'm probably better at their jobs than they are, I'm regarded as an interloper. If I go wander over to the Sun guys, these guys are my boys. We hang at lunch, we talk shop while we're out back smoking, but if I enter their domain and dare to offer a suggestion that mayhaps something is wrong with that Sunblade...

I was hired for a very specific job. That job involves handling equipment that is worth more than my car on a daily basis, and that total is usually reached before lunch. Those guys were all hired for very specific jobs too. We each have our place, and we're expected to keep to it unless we're willing to make a committment to change teams.

Your problem is that you want to do and know everything. Find a small enough company, and they may actually let you do it. You will, of course, not be paid what you're worth, and you will end up hating going to work because of all the pressure and stress you have to deal with, but you'll know more than the average IT weenie, and that's what counts, right?

Unless you're managing to farm yourself out to various companies for various jobs, it doesn't pay to be a jack of all trades in this gig. At best, you'll get hired for a job where you're told to do your job and let everyone else do theirs. At worst, you're going to be exploited.

You said something else regarding experience. Before I got certified, I had lots of experience, just not a full understanding. Now, yeah, I'm really getting this stuff, how it works and why we use it. Nobody told me why a CSU/DSU was used. They just told me where it was and how it connected to the router. What a bunch of crap. Now, I know exactly why. I could go on and on, but I'm too tired. You're fully justified when it comes to the experience part.

I fully support education and learning, I think it's a wonderful thing. I think people should learn enough to decide what really interests them and then pursue that line of education full bore. And really, in your case, for most network admins, simply knowing how to connect the CSU/DSU and what it provides is enough. You're not going to be running your own T, so a more thorough understanding isn't required (but in that case, I recommend it.... whoever is providing that T that's hooked to your CSU/DSU, is going to assume you're a moron about anything beyond the demarc, and if a problem develops, especially during install, they're going to try and blame it on you. I *hate* the phone company.)

Alright, I'm done with this chapter of war and peace

Drakonblayde

2lazybutsmart wrote:

But on your level of sophistication, you don't need a person who doesn't have experience to touch your computers. On the same note, that big billion dollar company won't just take your MCSE's and MCSD's (PhD's and EhD's) without work experience pertinent to their specific needs. That guy's not supposed to carry A+ and N+ without their due experience anywayz. Nobody's supposed to be goofing around without experience. But the certs remain "certificates" of your knowledge, not your experience.

2lbs.

The problem is that CompTIA seems to think that their exams actually do measure experience.

Excerpted from CompTIA's A+ Page:

CompTIA A+ certification is an international industry credential that validates the knowledge of computer service technicians with the equivalent of 500 hours of hands-on experience

(For those who don't want to do the math, 500 hours is roughly 3 monhts of work experience, assuming a 40 hour work week)

Excerpted from CompTIA's Net+ Page:

The CompTIA Network+ certification is an international industry credential that validates the knowledge of networking professionals with at least nine months of experience in network support or administration



This is where my issue with CompTIA comes into play. Having them supposedly 'validates' an experience level. Nevermind if you've never worked a day in your life as a bench tech or network admin, pass this exam and you've got the equivalent.

Hogwash.

It's a blatant misrepresentation of the skills their exams actually test for, it hardly validates actual real world experience, and so many people buy into it, it's not funny. I feel sorry for anyone who does buy into it, because they're in for a rude awakening.

garv221

Ok, who knows a Network Engineer driving a BMW with only an A+ cert? **** is a joke. Why strain time & energy into it when you can go right for the certs they pay along with great knowledge. Cisco & MS. My Net+ was a dissapointment in & out in 20 min- like a robbery.

ajs1976

From my experience, Vendor certs (MS, Citrix, Novell, Cisco, etc) are more valuable to employers then vendor-neutral certs.

I am in no way saying that vendor-neutral are worthless.

ajs1976

garv221 wrote:

Ok, who knows a Network Engineer driving a BMW with only an A+ cert? **** is a joke. Why strain time & energy into it when you can go right for the certs they pay along with great knowledge. Cisco & MS. My Net+ was a dissapointment in & out in 20 min- like a robbery.

Did you take the Net+ before or after the Cisco & MS Certs?

2lazybutsmart

Drakonblayde wrote:

This is where my issue with CompTIA comes into play. Having them supposedly 'validates' an experience level. Nevermind if you've never worked a day in your life as a bench tech or network admin, pass this exam and you've got the equivalent.

Hogwash.

It's a blatant misrepresentation of the skills their exams actually test for, it hardly validates actual real world experience, and so many people buy into it, it's not funny. I feel sorry for anyone who does buy into it, because they're in for a rude awakening.

OK, you have CompTIA certs, do you feel sorry you did buy into it, when instead, you shouldn't have?

If you worked your ass off for those CompTIA certs you have, I'd have given you the same consideration then that I'll give you now that you have more valuable certs. That is simply because you worked hard, and you carry a certificate that proves your hard work. If on the other hand you got them without much effort (i.e. use of braindumps, etc.), then your possession of the cert in itself is detrimental to the integrity it will have for all those who take the cert after you.

It doesn't matter if the A+ and N+ give you 500 or 50 hours of work experience. The point is: do you qualify for the number of hours of experience you claim to have achieved by way of the cert?

I think you should look at the issue from the achievement level. An achievement can be either big, small, or somewhere in between. When your child gets his elementary certificate, that doesn't mean he's cert is worthless. Yet in the world out there, nobody really gives a damn to elementary certificates. But it's his accomplishment. It's small but he earned it with hard work; and that's the element you have to appreciate in your judgment.

2lbs.

garv221

Net+ was my first test & I didn't know what to expect. If I could do it over again, I would have taken an MCP exam.