MTA Exams

oli356

Hey all,

As part of my apprenticeship I go to college and take a few exams. While last years apprentices did A+, N+ and another one we have to do MTA: Security, Server admin and networking.

We had 5 days of being "taught" and self study to do the Server Administration exam this week. I took the exam on Wednesday and passed. About 70% or so of my class mates failed 1st time and a number still haven't passed. I asked to do the networking exam, considering I just completed my CCNA I knew this would be easy, passed.

On Thursday I looked through the security book for an hour or two and took the exam, passed it.
On Friday I did an optional exam as there was nothing for me to do, (Operating System fundamentals) and I passed - without any studying or idea what the exam involved.

Anyway, so I passed all 4 exams on my 1st attempt, not trying to show off, don't exactly feel proud of them or anything; scores could've been much better. But it made me think what these certifications actually mean, I'm unsure of the Microsoft exam track, but if an employee saw these on a CV/resume would it impress them even a little?

swild

It would be a leg up above people with zero experience for an entry level help desk job or similar. Honestly, the apprenticeship will probably catch their attention more than the MTA certs. Anyone who knows about Microsoft certs will know that these are on par with A+, N+, S+, and no where near the MCITP level. Plus you have a CCNA which trumps all the MTAs.

HR people will see the Microsoft certs and be thrilled, not knowing the difference.

gdeusthewhizkid

Still a nice measure of skill level. I dunno people on here keep downing the MTA's but ive gotten more of a thrill in passing MTA's then i did with the comptia ones. Well not the network+.. Maybe it's because the MTA's are lifetime and it's microsoft lol..

oli356

swild wrote: »

It would be a leg up above people with zero experience for an entry level help desk job or similar. Honestly, the apprenticeship will probably catch their attention more than the MTA certs. Anyone who knows about Microsoft certs will know that these are on par with A+, N+, S+, and no where near the MCITP level. Plus you have a CCNA which trumps all the MTAs.

HR people will see the Microsoft certs and be thrilled, not knowing the difference.

I won't be searching for a job for a few years hopefully. My apprenticeship is 3 years long with a large networking company, will gain a lot of experience

I was under the impression that the MTA certs were a bit more basic than the Comptia ones, though I haven't done either before or looked into doing them. That's true about the HR people, though I do wonder how many of them know which certs are better. My current boss and previous employer both did interviews and as far as I know read some of the applications, unlike HR they would know what's better.

gdeusthewhizkid wrote: »

Still a nice measure of skill level. I dunno people on here keep downing the MTA's but ive gotten more of a thrill in passing MTA's then i did with the comptia ones. Well not the network+.. Maybe it's because the MTA's are lifetime and it's microsoft lol..

First time I've poked my head in this section of the forum so haven't read what others think. I just felt like any exam which I can walk into without any studying/preparation and pass is easy, if I walked into the entry Cisco networking exam I would've failed miserably.

Useful that they are lifetime though personally if I was going down the Microsoft route I would want to get the better certs anyway..

Ivanjam

Judging from the exams I have passed or studied for, the level of difficulty is as follows:

MTA < CIW < CompTIA < CCNA and MCTS

kgb

Ivanjam wrote: »

Judging from the exams I have passed or studied for, the level of difficulty is as follows:

MTA < CIW < CompTIA < CCNA and MCTS

I agree with Ivanjam.

I've only ever taken MTA < CIW < CompTIA.

However, I think Microsoft labels the MTA's accurately. Most have "Fundamentals" into the title. Where as CIW loves the "Specialist" keyword. If you say you are a specialist, you better be able to back it up. I don't personally believe the CIW materials set you up to be a "Specialist". I actually would prefer they say, "Fundamentals" or similar. I'd be more inclined to place them on my actual resume.

Ivanjam

kgb wrote: »

I don't personally believe the CIW materials set you up to be a "Specialist". I actually would prefer they say, "Fundamentals" or similar.

kgb - they seem to have a few "Associate" titles - that would be a far better name for all their exams.