So a little birdie told me about a new MS at WGU

Zartanasaurus

erpadmin wrote: »

So.....rather than do a Masters, one should recertify a CCN(x), and other certs?

I can do both, as I may opt for the PMP in the forseeable future, and maybe a SSCP/CISSP. However, I think the Masters is the way to go for (at least) my career path and I'd shoot for that first.

Sure. It's dependant on the person. If you want to get into certain jobs, you have to get a Master's. If you don't want those jobs, the ROI would might be better with certs.

Not knocking one or the other, just making a counterpoint.

Zartanasaurus

jmasterj206 wrote: »

I really doubt it is going to be high level Cisco certs. It will probably just be CCNA and maybe CCNA wireless and security. Probably will be mixed in with a MCITP:SA.

I've looked at Masters programs in Networking from other colleges and I'd say a good portion of them are CCIP/CCNP type material.

demonfurbie

some people have no interest in cisco or juniper stuff so im looking forward to seeing what parts of microsoft they put in

Forsaken_GA

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

Sure. It's dependant on the person. If you want to get into certain jobs, you have to get a Master's. If you don't want those jobs, the ROI would might be better with certs.

Not knocking one or the other, just making a counterpoint.

Yup, it's like most things, it all depends on what you want to do. If there was only the One True Path, this argument would never come up. You need to look at what you want to be, then look at the qualifications that the typical holder of that position has. Then you devise a plan to go get those skills. If the position you want doesn't typically require a master's degree, but a CCIE/JNCIE is well received, then it should be obvious which path you follow.

Forsaken_GA

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

I've looked at Masters programs from other colleges in Networking, and I'd say a good portion of them are CCIP/CCNP type material.

Which hopefully means that when I get around to it, the CCIE will be enough to let me exempt all that crap instead of rehashing it.

networker050184

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Yup, it's like most things, it all depends on what you want to do. If there was only the One True Path, this argument would never come up. You need to look at what you want to be, then look at the qualifications that the typical holder of that position has. Then you devise a plan to go get those skills. If the position you want doesn't typically require a master's degree, but a CCIE/JNCIE is well received, then it should be obvious which path you follow.

Pretty much sums this whole debate up. Good post.

ITdude

Amen, to that!

erpadmin

NOC-Ninja wrote: »

I actually dont when it comes to CCIE. However, I have evidence that CCNP's with a year experience gets a Network Engineer position. I've even seen CCNA that has a year experience gets a Network Engineering job.

A guy with MS will have more opportunities? Well, I cant debate on that since I am not a MS guy but my co workers are MS guys and I dont see them rolling in a nice car or having a nice house. They actually work long hours trying to fix servers and VMs, long hours than me, and they get paid salary. Also, I know they dont get paid as much as me since they told me their salaries.

There's more into it than just learning the CLI syntax. Its going to be too long to get my point across if I go step by step. I think Forsaken post a lil piece of the big pie.

I'm sure most of the people here in TE have the right aptitude but how come only a few are CCIE or JNCIE's?

I meant a Masters (of Science), and not Microsoft. (My apologies for the confusion.)

jmasterj206

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

I've looked at Masters programs in Networking from other colleges and I'd say a good portion of them are CCIP/CCNP type material.

I can understand that, but I go to WGU and if you look at their other M.S. degree they aren't a high level. I could be wrong though. I'm just guessing.

Back to the Master's degree. I would like a Master's degree so I can either get into management or get into teaching in Tech and Community colleges. I certainly don't want to be on call for the rest of my life. Sure it is nice to make a lot of money, but it is nice to have a life as well.

erpadmin

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Well, I'm not a CCIE yet, though I'm in fullblown preparation for the lab. The CCIE is more than CLI syntax and running show commands, you have to know how all the pieces fit together. The different technologies don't exist in a vacuum, and the Law of Unintended Consequences is pretty easy to invoke. For example, if I make a simple change on a switch at layer 2, it could potentially effect my IGP, which could then in turn effect my BGP sessions, and all of a sudden, I'm routing traffic out the circuit that costs $100/mbit instead of the one that costs $5/mbit. This would be Bad, especially if I didn't catch it until the next bill came in.

So basically the CCIE needs to have a jedi-like sense of what's going on in their network. People with that level of drive and ability tend to do quite well in the workplace.

That is why CCIEs are respected...they're the ones who are going to have that aptitude to work on a network at such a high (and sometimes low) level.

My fear is that folks are going to chase after the CCIE dream where such an aptitude may not even exist, because of everything else: the promise of more money! People who want to do CCIE should be folks who are quite knowledgable of networks. People who want to do CCIE should also want to devote that much time into doing it...I am proud to say that I do not have that kind of time (nor would I want to.) My time is better spent on pursuing other avenues where I'd put in my time, but still have time to spend with my family and friends. Reading those CCIE blogs....I see that a terrible amount of time is needed to earn that.

I don't knock anyone wishing to pursue a CCIE, but if they're going to do it, they should do it because they have a passion for it AND the aptitude. Not just for the $$$$$.

Forsaken_GA

erpadmin wrote: »

That is why CCIEs are respected...they're the ones who are going to have that aptitude to work on a network at such a high (and sometimes low) level.

My fear is that folks are going to chase after the CCIE dream where such an aptitude may not even exist, because of everything else: the promise of more money! People who want to do CCIE should be folks who are quite knowledgable of networks. People who want to do CCIE should also want to devote that much time into doing it...I am proud to say that I do not have that kind of time (nor would I want to.) My time is better spent on pursuing other avenues where I'd put in my time, but still have time to spend with my family and friends. Reading those CCIE blogs....I see that a terrible amount of time is needed to earn that.

I don't knock anyone wishing to pursue a CCIE, but if they're going to do it, they should do it because they have a passion for it AND the aptitude. Not just for the $$$$$.

I don't disagree with that at all. There are alot of folks who try and get into it for the money, and at some point they realize that this network thing is hard and requires honest to god work. It's hard to contain my cyncism when I see posts folks from folks talking about how excited they are to be starting their Cisco certification path and how they're going to get the CCIE..... and then I see them ask questions that they could have easily found an answer for on Google. That's when I know they're not likely to make it, as the inability to figure out fundamental knowledge without doing your own research is a huge flaw. I imagine it's much the same in academia.

Now, as far as the time investment required for CCIE...... the guys who are studying may moan about the hours involved, and being embroiled in it myself, I can say they ain't kidding.

But rather than just reading those blogs, you should also check out the blogs of the guys who've passed it and see how they're doing as well. It puts it in a little more perspective. I view it like shoveling the sidewalk to get rid of the snow. Doing it the first time sucks, and can be alot of work, but if you don't, trying to wade through it every single time you go in and out of your house ends up being more work. I'm ok with a big investment of time and effort up front if it allows me to slack off more later

instant000

I think it's intriguing that they're offering a Master's in Networking. I remember my first conversation with my mentor a couple days ago, for my MS:ISA (Masters of Science in Information Security and Assurance). She told me that she had reviewed my records, and that since I already had CCNA, I'd already cleared the most difficult course, and everything was downhill from there. I hope she's right about that, as I've not really looked at the CEH curriculum, but I figure that's my most challenging one still out on the curriculum (well, besides the Capstone, I guess).

I could suffer through a WGU Master's of Networking, as at least it's inexpensive, and you can get through it fast.

But, consider the time you put into these things, people.

For the Master's program, they're expecting a 20 hour per week commitment. (Just to show the math, 20 hours per week , * 52 weeks a year = 1040 hours.)

A previous poster mentioned that a lot of posters on this forum may have the aptitude, but they're not CCIE or JNCIE.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

Chris:/*

jmasterj206 wrote: »

I can understand that, but I go to WGU and if you look at their other M.S. degree they aren't a high level. I could be wrong though. I'm just guessing.

Back to the Master's degree. I would like a Master's degree so I can either get into management or get into teaching in Tech and Community colleges. I certainly don't want to be on call for the rest of my life. Sure it is nice to make a lot of money, but it is nice to have a life as well.

Yes you are wrong.

Forsaken_GA

instant000 wrote: »

For the Master's program, they're expecting a 20 hour per week commitment. (Just to show the math, 20 hours per week , * 52 weeks a year = 1040 hours.)

Yup, that's about the level of commitment you need for a CCIE as well (not sure about JNCIE, as I haven't done any serious looking into it)

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

Indeed.

NOC-Ninja

instant000 wrote: »

I think it's intriguing that they're offering a Master's in Networking. I remember my first conversation with my mentor a couple days ago, for my MS:ISA (Masters of Science in Information Security and Assurance). She told me that she had reviewed my records, and that since I already had CCNA, I'd already cleared the most difficult course, and everything was downhill from there. I hope she's right about that, as I've not really looked at the CEH curriculum, but I figure that's my most challenging one still out on the curriculum (well, besides the Capstone, I guess).

I could suffer through a WGU Master's of Networking, as at least it's inexpensive, and you can get through it fast.

But, consider the time you put into these things, people.

For the Master's program, they're expecting a 20 hour per week commitment. (Just to show the math, 20 hours per week , * 52 weeks a year = 1040 hours.)

A previous poster mentioned that a lot of posters on this forum may have the aptitude, but they're not CCIE or JNCIE.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Edison

Can you explain to me the quote?

Are you telling me that I dont like to work hard enough to get the MS in networking?

Forsaken_GA

NOC-Ninja wrote: »

Can you explain to me the quote?

Are you telling me that I dont like to work hard enough to get the MS in networking?

I don't think he was directing it at you personally, but just making the point that alot of folks let some good chances go because they're not willing to put the work in. I believe that was more in response to erpadmin's point that while alot of people may possess the aptitude to perform at that level, they don't have the drive and follow-through to actually make it.

instant000

NOC-Ninja wrote: »

Can you explain to me the quote?

Are you telling me that I dont like to work hard enough to get the MS in networking?

No.

I was saying that people aren't CCIE/JNCIE because they aren't willing to put in the grind for it.

Case in point: There are more M.S. on this forum than CCIE/JNCIE combined.

Like I said before, if my mentor is telling me that CCNA is the most difficult course in my Master's track, then there is no way the track compares to CCIE in difficulty. (Heck, it doesn't even compare to CCNP, LOL.)

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I don't think he was directing it at you personally, but just making the point that alot of folks let some good chances go because they're not willing to put the work in. I believe that was more in response to erpadmin's point that while alot of people may possess the aptitude to perform at that level, they don't have the drive and follow-through to actually make it.

Agreed.

Forsaken_GA

instant000 wrote: »

Like I said before, if my mentor is telling me that CCNA is the most difficult course in my Master's track, then there is no way the track compares to CCIE in difficulty. (Heck, it doesn't even compare to CCNP, LOL.)

You have to be careful in how you gauge difficulty, though. The technologies that the CCIE covers is not that much more difficult than what's expected of your average CCNP. The difficulty is artificially ratcheted up by the time constraint and the breadth of technology you're expected to know.

Right now, give me a week, and I could perform the tasks on the CCIE lab exam without any problems. The only thing the training I'm doing now is to give me better retention and more efficient configuration ability so that I can condense that week down into 8 hours. That's not a very realistic real-life scenario.

Chris:/*

Your mentor gauges difficulty by the failure ratio of the test not what people find hard.

jmasterj206

Chris:/* wrote: »

Yes you are wrong.

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure it is as good a program as it was when they removed the cwsp and cwna.

And for the rest what are we arguing about anyway? Nobody knows what the programs is even going to consist of.

tpatt100

Seems pointless to get a Masters in Networking, I am working on the Masters in IA and to be honest I think a training certificate at a community college would have been a better investment. Not dissing a Masters but an Associates degree for junior and mid level engineering and then a bachelors for mid to senior level makes more sense. And for management go for a masters in Accounting and or Finance.

instant000

jmasterj206 wrote: »

And for the rest what are we arguing about anyway? Nobody knows what the programs is even going to consist of.

LOL.

(7 char)

Forsaken_GA

tpatt100 wrote: »

Seems pointless to get a Masters in Networking, I am working on the Masters in IA and to be honest I think a training certificate at a community college would have been a better investment. Not dissing a Masters but an Associates degree for junior and mid level engineering and then a bachelors for mid to senior level makes more sense. And for management go for a masters in Accounting and or Finance.

I was thinking along those lines as well, take the Master's in something other than my primary field, to make it easier to change later if I wanted.

The real benefit to doing a Master's in networking would be that I could burn through it very quickly, but I agree that may not be the best long term solution.

Chris:/*

jmasterj206 wrote: »

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure it is as good a program as it was when they removed the cwsp and cwna.

And for the rest what are we arguing about anyway? Nobody knows what the programs is even going to consist of.

It is a very strong program and I think it is good they added the CCNA to the program because it builds for the rest of the classes. The rest of the classes assume you have CCNA level knowledge and not everyone is like me who has that experience with Cisco or large scale networks.

I was disappointed to see CWNA and CWSP removed BUT I think it was a good move as you go through the rest of the program. Additionally the CWNA and CWSP expects you to have a level of knowledge at least equal to CCENT. There was a large failure ratio with the CWNA and CWSP.

The other certification tests are still as tough or tougher than a B&M college MS tests. The regular classes that require writing assignments that are equal to B&M colleges in other words they require attention to detail.

At the end of the program you still have to complete a Capstone/Thesis which does take a dedicated effort on the students part.

Keep in mind undergraduate degrees are really not that bad in terms of difficulty. You cannot gauge a graduate program against an undergraduate program the results will be incorrect.

As for the MS in Networking, I think it is a very narrow focus for an graduate program. A graduate degree in telecommunications better fits the niche that people are looking for. That being said it is just a name, the program will included required graduate course breadth to maintain regional accreditation.

petedude

This new master's might not be the best, but most folks don't realize how much value practically* any master's has over just having a bachelor's degree.

I remember reading an article on TechRepublic once that said the pecking order for master's degrees was something like (worst to best):
4. any master's degree is better than none;
3. an online master's degree;
2. a master's from a well-regarded B&M school;
1. a locally well-regarded master's program
(I can't find the article or I'd post a link. It's actually what me to start thinking seriously about a master's program after my bachelor's.)

Anyway, the idea is, no matter how less-wonderful a new WGU master's in networking might be, it would still be much better than not having a master's degree if you need one, and would be better than many other choices out there.

*When I say "practically any" master's is better than none, I say that knowing most folks will pick a master's close to their career track. But then, I think most folks would be surprised at how many non-business/non-IT master's holders have high-level jobs in IT.

hiddenknight821

petedude wrote: »

2. a master's from a well-regarded B&M school;
1. a locally well-regarded master's program

What's the difference between 2 and 1? Aren't they basically the same thing?

erpadmin

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

What's the difference between 2 and 1? Aren't they basically the same thing?

Since we're both from Jersey, this will be a fine example for you. Regardless of what your personal feelings are, this how most people would view my example.

2. a master's from a well-regarded B&M school;
1. a locally well-regarded master's program

A well-regarded B&M school would be Rutgers-New Brunswick, since that's considered our state's flagship university. These are usually your Division 1 Football/Basketball teams. Above thoses would be Ivy League schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. Another example in this category would be Seton Hall University (again...Division 1 school and they almost won a championship back in 1988....[sniff, sniff.....lousy one point game....I cried.]

Locally well-regarded schools would be schools like NJIT, Montclair State, Stevens (though very expensive, it is very well known locally). They are schools that are known to local employers but might not rank up high with employers outside of the metro-NYC area, as compared to the former example.

hiddenknight821

erpadmin wrote: »

A well-regarded B&M school would be Rutgers-New Brunswick, since that's considered our state's flagship university. These are usually your Division 1 Football/Basketball teams. Above thoses would be Ivy League schools like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. Another example in this category would be Seton Hall University (again...Division 1 school and they almost won a championship back in 1988....[sniff, sniff.....lousy one point game....I cried.]

Locally well-regarded schools would be schools like NJIT, Montclair State, Stevens (though very expensive, it is very well known locally). They are schools that are known to local employers but might not rank up high with employers outside of the metro-NYC area, as compared to the former example.

Thanks for breaking it down, Erp. Personally, I think the well-regarded B&M schools should be ranked first. Not second. That's just my opinion.

erpadmin

hiddenknight821 wrote: »

Thanks for breaking it down, Erp. Personally, I think the well-regarded B&M schools should be ranked first. Not second. That's just my opinion.

Many people can't afford a well-regarded B&M, unless they can get scholarships. I, myself, would like to go to a well-regarded B&M and was hoping to leverage graduate stafford loans WITHOUT putting in any extra. Since most people can't finance a graduate degree with grants/savings, they want to find a school where loans would cover the entire degree.

I don't want to turn this into a Dave Ramsey debate about how debt is evil and bad. When done properly, debt can be leveraged and there are many examples on the web that can show people how to do so.

hiddenknight821

erpadmin wrote: »

Many people can't afford a well-regarded B&M, unless they can get scholarships. I, myself, would like to go to a well-regarded B&M and was hoping to leverage graduate stafford loans WITHOUT putting in any extra. Since most people can't finance a graduate degree with grants/savings, they want to find a school where loans would cover the entire degree.

I don't want to turn this into a Dave Ramsey debate about how debt is evil and bad. When done properly, debt can be leveraged and there are many examples on the web that can show people how to do so.

I do not want to turn this into a debate either. When petedude listed the order, I thought it would makes sense if well-regarded B&M schools are held in high regard more than locally well-regarded master's program. I didn't include the cost as a factor for the list order but only suggesting that candidates that went to schools with higher prestige (well-regarded B&M) stand a better chance than the one that went to the local well-regarded master program if they apply for the same job. Otherwise, that would have been a different story, and the list would need to be reordered to make more sense for the cost value.

I can see why the locally well-regarded programs might be ranked first from the small and medium-sized businesses' perspectives simply because they may not be able to afford to help pay for relocation their new employees, which may turn them away. The HRs wouldn't be too thrill wasting time looking for ideal employees that can accept the jobs without relocation bonus. Also, those that came from the well-regarded B&M schools can be a little too demanding with salary negotiation.