Boss says Comptia certs don't mean anything?

SdotLow

Look at the cert list to the left. now look back at me... A BEAST.

Off topic but, that made me lol @ work.

zaxbysauce

Old Spice Guy reference, classic.

grauwulf

SdotLow wrote: »

Off topic but, that made me lol @ work.

What's this in my hand? It's that Cert you want. Look at your laptop, now back at me. I'm in a NOC.



Glad to bring a smile to your day

cyberguypr

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

I guess to say if they are worth it or not I guess we need to first define our criteria for worth. IMO given the amount of money they cost and the potential return (ie job prospects, promotions) there are much better vender and vender neutral certs out there, especially in networking and security.

Great point. It is up to the individual to define value. For some it may be the potential to land a job. For others it may be a work requirement or a personal goal. I took a beta N+ over 10 years ago. I already had a great desktop support job and decided to go for the test because I wanted to learn more networking. Using this as my definition value, it was definitely worth it as the new knowledge I gained filled some gaps.

A+, Sec+ and N+ are definitely entry level, but generally speaking, they are far from useless. They may be useless for those of us who have higher level cers but the mere fact that some employers require it establishes intrinsic value even if we don't agree.

BTW, I've also heard the "MCSE/MCITP/CCNA/CISSP is worthless" arguments from managers.

it_consultant

cyberguypr wrote: »

Great point. It is up to the individual to define value. For some it may be the potential to land a job. For others it may be a work requirement or a personal goal. I took a beta N+ over 10 years ago. I already had a great desktop support job and decided to go for the test because I wanted to learn more networking. Using this as my definition value, it was definitely worth it as the new knowledge I gained filled some gaps.

A+, Sec+ and N+ are definitely entry level, but generally speaking, they are far from useless. They may be useless for those of us who have higher level cers but the mere fact that some employers require it establishes intrinsic value even if we don't agree.

BTW, I've also heard the "MCSE/MCITP/CCNA/CISSP is worthless" arguments from managers.

N+ grabs my attention, I have seen the material and it is very apropos to the kind of support my company does. Generally I ignore A+, I expect you to at least have that level of knowledge coming into an interview. Even if you don't have it but have the knowledge, you will be OK.

Mishra

It all depends on your skills. If a CCIE can't program a router, I wouldn't hire him.

To me, certifications are a means for people to make assumptions to someone who doesn't know you. I have no idea if CCIE #48 is better than CCIE # 4,500. However, I do know I can probably assume they both know Cisco.

Because of this, certifications are more for you, and not the company. The company may want to reward because it is proof of some level of learning. However, a good company will continue to progress you based on your -Skill-.

Like someone else said, just listen to whatever they want you to get and go for that. It doesn't matter what we say here.

gui4life

Interesting replies. Thanks. I am currently going for my MCITP:EA right now.

Bl8ckr0uter

gui4life wrote: »

He considers CCNA to be a NMC level certificate, and CCNP a senior NMC tech level certificate.

Um...

gui4life wrote: »

I am currently going for my MCITP:EA

Why?

Devilsbane

Bl8ckr0uter wrote: »

gui4life wrote: »

Interesting replies. Thanks. I am currently going for my MCITP:EA right now.

Um...



Why?

My thoughts exactly. It is a respectable cert (even by your manager's view I'm sure) but didn't you say you are in networking? And that he is interested in Cisco?

gui4life

I want to move into the consulting portion of my company, and I want to take my career in that direction.

While being an NMC tech is great, I want to move on to bigger and better things. (And pay.)

After MCITP:EA I am going to go for my CCNA and LPIC 1 & 2, maybe 3.

Bl8ckr0uter

Why don't you please your current boss by getting the CCNA done first. My boss asked me to do the CCNP:Security. I really want to do GCIA, some linux and OSCP. But you can bet your bottom dollar that getting the CCNP:S is my top priority. Why? Because you want your boss to be happy with you and if someone drops a hint like that, you best be picking it up son lol. Besides you boss could be a great help in getting you into the part of the company you want to be in.

RobertKaucher

powerfool wrote: »

Not to be disrespectful to folks here that have certifications from CompTIA, but I certainly don't hold in any value in them. As a matter of fact, I have joked several times that if it weren't for the DoD 8570, Security+ would merely qualify someone to be a shift-manager at a fast food restaurant.

Devilsbane wrote: »

To put it very bluntly... Boss is an idiot. Ever hear of the Security+? Department of Defense knows what that is about.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with PowerFool here. When I was studying for Sec+ I recalled very clearly how it was being pitched as a cert that everyone who worked with computer systems should have - from receptionists to whoever. I found it useful becuase I had very little exposure to ENTERPRISE level IT. I took the exam because I thought it would be the easiest way to get my MSCE Security.

Devilsbane wrote: »

That aside, A+ is a big door opener for people. Net+ will get good knowledge while studying but the cert itself isn't great. Linux+ is another big one again now that they partnered with LPI. Are they on par with Microsoft or Cisco? Not really, but far from not meaning anything.

That's the point. They are intended to be entry level. To anyone with any experience in REAL IT these certs are worthless.

Devilsbane wrote: »

It is very easy for someone to declare something as worthless if they haven't put the time in themself to get it.

But the implication that a person is unable to evaluate the merit of something without having done it is illogical. I have never had a piano fall on my head, yet I am capable of judging the fact that the experience would be of no benefit to me.

I'm not saying they have NO value at all. I am saying that for a person with 6 months of IT experience I would say go get vendor specific certs unless you have a valid reason not to (DoD or a prereq for another cert). For a Destop Tech with 1 of experience, A+ or Net+ are both probably useless.

badrottie

cyberguypr wrote: »

BTW, I've also heard the "MCSE/MCITP/CCNA/CISSP is worthless" arguments from managers.

MCSE/CCNA I can understand, due to the rash of certification holders that braindumped their way through. I would take their comments with a grain of salt, or more importantly, look for an employer that does value them. (Using their line of reasoning, a B.Comm/MBA are "worthless" as well)

zaxbysauce wrote: »

This is not necessarily true. It depends on how your top level organization interprets 8570. In my case I work on the military healthcare system. DHIMS is the top level organization that controls it for all the military services. They have recently reinterpreted 8570 such that to them, they think you need BOTH level I and level II if your job role requires you to have level II. So if you are in a position that requires Sec+ (or any level II cert), you must also get A+ (or any level I cert) to be in full compliance. Again this is entirely dependant upon how your organization interprets the regulation. I personally think it is kind of stupid, but since they pay the people that pay the bills, I do what they say.

Their interpretation of 8570.01-M is incorrect. The high-level certifications "trickle-down". In other words, if you have a CISSP or GIAC GCIH (IAT III), you do not need to also hold a Security+ (IAT II) and a Network+ (IAT I). This is akin to saying that a surgeon also needs to be qualified as a paramedic and an EMT.

JugglingReferee

If a hiring manager had to choose between two people, and the only known difference was that one applicant had ANS+ while the other didn't, would the ANS+ candidate have an edge?

Jinuyr

They are low level certificates, good for people starting out or using it as a stepping stone to something better.

If you handle a lot of Cisco products then the CCNA/P is definitely your best choice right now.

RobertKaucher

JugglingReferee wrote: »

If a hiring manager had to choose between two people, and the only known difference was that one applicant had ANS+ while the other didn't, would the ANS+ candidate have an edge?

What would the experience level be? If this were their first IT job, I would have to say yes. If they both had a year+ experience it would come down to he interview.

Certifications to not exist in a vacuum except in the case of first-timers.

JugglingReferee

I agree, with the exception that I think the ANS+ would extend beyond a year's experience. I work in Canada's Technology Triangle, and I know that the ANS+ is in many postings, and they pay quite well too. One public service job was listed at $70k. That's pretty good money up here.

Forsaken_GA

My personal opinion is that CompTIA certs are worthless. I no longer include them in any list of my certifications.

zaxbysauce

badrottie wrote: »

Their interpretation of 8570.01-M is incorrect. The high-level certifications "trickle-down". In other words, if you have a CISSP or GIAC GCIH (IAT III), you do not need to also hold a Security+ (IAT II) and a Network+ (IAT I). This is akin to saying that a surgeon also needs to be qualified as a paramedic and an EMT.

Regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not, if they say they want it that way they get it that way. Plenty of people in high places on this contract have argued the point, as of right now they have all been forced to get Sec+ and A+ if they want their jobs past August 31st.

higherho

zaxbysauce wrote: »

Regardless of whether the interpretation is correct or not, if they say they want it that way they get it that way. Plenty of people in high places on this contract have argued the point, as of right now they have all been forced to get Sec+ and A+ if they want their jobs past August 31st.

You need to send some emails higher level IAM / DAA from the DOD regarding the 8570. Your organization is wrong and needs to be proven wrong but a higher entity.

I'm IAT LV1 and 2 because I have a Security +.

On topic. The certs are not valuable in your situation but the certs are valuable in a sense to get people introduced to IT and get some exposure. Your CCNA is not going to mean anything if Cisco goes under and everyone moves to Juniper. See my last comment? Just sounds like your boss being blunt and close minded. Of course these certs are only Entry level and that is obvious. Once your in a position you have to keep growing and the only way to do that is to get pass the entry level material.


@Bl8ckr0uter

Off topic, but the individual I was going to contact for you regarding sourcefire called off today =/

colemic

I will include my Sec+ (and probably Net+) on my resume when I try to get back into DoD (near future) because they are relevant in that arena.

Devilsbane - why would DoD 8570 apply to a DoJ employee?

instant000

The CompTIA certs with the "+" at the end are considered Entry Level. I believe that the CASP is supposed to be different, but if you check, it doesn't have a "+" at the end of it, as by now, pretty much everyone has figured out that a cert with a "+" at the end of it is entry level from CompTIA.

There is nothing wrong with entry level certs, when they're useful.

Since you're working in a NOC, the entry level CompTIA certs don't fit the environment that you're working in. Your career will go further, if you work at your CCNA/CCNP.

Even IF you decide that you want to just be a Windows Server consultant, the better admins I've known are the ones that can understand routing and switching, at least at a basic level, so obtaining the CCNA would definitely help you with that.

The knowledge that's really needed to go far in your career, you usually gain it from hands on and study. You can't get it all from hands on, as if you don't know what you're doing, you won't know what to do. Also, you can't get it all from study, as you need the practical side for those concepts to make sense.

If I could compare it to Football (and I will).

IT is like Football.
You can do filmwork, and you can run scrimmages, but it doesn't compare to what happens when the actual game starts.

If you're going to draft a quarterback, do you want the one who knows all the plays but has never executed on the field, or do you want the one you've seen have star performances on the gridiron? (Now, usually, the ones who perform the best get there because they work the hardest in their scrimmages and film work.)

Hope this helps!

Psoasman

I think that CompTIA certs have value. That being said, I feel they are entry-level certs. They do provide a nice foundation, especially for someone who is new to IT or perhaps needs a cert to boost their resume.

badrottie

higherho wrote: »

You need to send some emails higher level IAM / DAA from the DOD regarding the 8570. Your organization is wrong and needs to be proven wrong but a higher entity.

I'm IAT LV1 and 2 because I have a Security +.

cf. DoD 8507.01-M Incorporating Change 2, April 20, 2010 (If there is a more recent update published, someone please reference/link to it.)

IAT I-III applicable:

AP3.2.4.1. Higher level IAT certifications qualify for satisfy lower level requirements. Certifications listed in Level II or III cells can be used to qualify for Level I. However, Level I certifications cannot be used for Level II or III unless the certification is also listed in the Level II or III cell.

IAM I-III applicable:

AP3.2.5. Higher-level IAM certifications satisfy lower level requirements. Certifications listed in Level II or III cells can be used to qualify for Level I. However, Level I certifications cannot be used for Level II or III unless the certification is also listed in the Level II or III cell.

Apparently, cascade-down applicability is not being recognized (which could very well be their prerogative). All I know is if someone asked for me to get a Security+ certificate when I already hold a CISSP, I would be surprised, to say the least.

Blackout

Wether or Not they are useless, I didn't know a 10BaseT from a Cheeseburger until I studied for my Net+ certification.

NinjaBoy

gui4life wrote: »

...What are your thoughts? How do your employer handle certificates and pay raises?

Professional development are part of our job under continuing professional development (CPD), however certifications are optional for us.

And as for pay raises... What pay rises???

-Ken

powerfool

erpadmin wrote: »

Mind you I could have agreed with everything you said in your post....but I do take issue a bit with your little fast-food comment.

Now don't go getting all sensitive on me.

It was merely a joke... and as a matter of fact, one that I used in joking about myself... as that was my previous job before I jumped into IT (but that has been at least 160 moons ago).

The curriculum is one thing. Heck, the Network+ curriculum is great for someone wanting to learn networking. But, on the other hand, we all know that you don't have to master the curriculum to pass the exam. As with any endeavor in life, you get out of it what you put into it.

powerfool

badrottie wrote: »

Apparently, cascade-down applicability is not being recognized (which could very well be their prerogative). All I know is if someone asked for me to get a Security+ certificate when I already hold a CISSP, I would be surprised, to say the least.

And it is their prerogative. Policies come top-down and define a minimum requirement... there is nothing stopping them from be more stringent and rigorous.

WafflesAndRootbeer

colemic wrote: »

Devilsbane - why would DoD 8570 apply to a DoJ employee?

The mantra in Federal cyber-security at this time is to have across the board compliance with a single defined security standard based on whatever the DoD, CIA, NSA is doing in ALL government agencies so as to keep the entire Federal system secure.

zaxbysauce

powerfool wrote: »

And it is their prerogative. Policies come top-down and define a minimum requirement... there is nothing stopping them from be more stringent and rigorous.

Exactly, and since DHIMS is THE top level authority on the military healthcare system for all 3 services (Marines fall under Navy of course), if they want everyone to have Sec+ for level 2 and A+ for level 1 they get it.