Why use job related experience as a perquisite for exams?

pretty_boy

Why use job related experience as a perquisite for exams? This is by far the most stupidest thing I have encounter so far pertaining to certain certification exams. Job related experience shouldn’t be the reason why you cannot take certain exams. What if I was in a field 20 years, and I decide I wanted to go into another field? This idea of job related experience as perquisite for exams is almost unfair. No it’s unfair. Exams are design for you to pass or fail, regardless of your job experience or should be at least.

Ricka182

A good opinion. I agree, to a point. But, with an experience pre-req, I think it eliminates some, not all, but some of the people who would want to **** for the exam. You can't **** 10 years of experience.....

Baredor

I think it's a good idea for advanced certs such as CISSP and CCIE. For exams of that calibre, there'd be few people that could pass them without the appropriate experience. So I don't really see it as a problem. Personally I'm not aware of any entry or professional level certs that require such experience; was this topic regarding any particular one?

pretty_boy

Baredor wrote:

I think it's a good idea for advanced certs such as CISSP and CCIE. For exams of that calibre, there'd be few people that could pass them without the appropriate experience. So I don't really see it as a problem. Personally I'm not aware of any entry or professional level certs that require such experience; was this topic regarding any particular one?

Mostly security certifications. For example EC-council, SSCP, CISSP. I think I could pass CISSP within a year. Most security certification is more terminology than technical. CCIE is a different story. CCIE leans more into mastering their products, and it’s not as general as security certification. The bad thing about having proprietary certs is what happens when the company goes out of business. Back to the point, I don’t think people will attempt CCIE without mastering all there products, but if a person feels that they can pass, then by all means the should be able to take the exam. That is the whole purpose of testing to see how much a person know, not the amount experience they have.

qsub

I think possibly a fact is braindumps exist out there.

The fact that 234890234 people having _____ certification. How much value is it worth really? It turns into an entry level.

pretty_boy

spfdz wrote:

I think possibly a fact is braindumps exist out there.

The fact that 234890234 people having _____ certification. How much value is it worth really? It turns into an entry level.

So are you saying that if a person has valid experience, that they will not use brain ****. This is my opinion on brain ****. The same way CISSP does audits; this is the same way it should be done for all certifications. Also, I don’t know the legal aspect of brain ****, but if it’s illegal then the FBI needs to do a better job of perusing these lawbreaker, and as law abiding citizen with certification we should report these illegal sites immediately. Eventually, if don’t take this matter seriously, then all our hard work will mean nothing.


I just wanted to throw this out their.

qsub

I'm not saying that. But a person with valid experience can back up the fact they still have a clue what they're talking about or doing.

pretty_boy

spfdz wrote:

I'm not saying that. But a person with valid experience can back up the fact they still have a clue what they're talking about or doing.

What if this person with 10 years experience can’t pass the exam, and the person with 1 year experience can? My point is exams show how much you known. Just because a person has 10 years of experience doesn’t mean he knows more than a person with 1 year experience. The person with 1 year experience maybe is whole lot smarter and faster. If a person can pass CISSP in 1 year for example, this person should be held in high regards. Especially, if the exam requires a person to have 4 years of experience to pass. I think the exams writer should make there exams tough enough to make a person feel that they need 4 years of experience, and not require people to wait for 4 years, when they can pass it in a month.



Talent is being wasted on ignorance.

/usr

I think you're missing the whole point of have a prerequisite of X years of experience.

Upper level certifications are meant to be difficult to obtain, thus show you actually know what you're talking about and can APPLY it in real world situations.
Those with the required amount of real world experience will (theoretically) have been around the concepts and put them to actual use.

I think it's simply an attempt at keeping just anyone from getting the certification.

garv221

Ricka182 wrote:

I think it eliminates some, not all, but some of the people who would want to **** for the exam. You can't **** 10 years of experience.....

Exactly. I love the idea. In turn, it will keep the certs respect level high, which will keep the pay rate high.

Ricka182

Let's say there were no experience pre-reqs. You're an employer who is in need of a good security professional. You have narrowed down to two applicants. One is right out of school, full of theory, with the latest industry certifications, and a couple years experience. The other is a seasoned IT worker, who has the same relevent certifications, also knows the same theory, but comes with 12 years of practical experience applying that theory. Who would you choose? Take in consideration, would a lower salary for the new guy be an acceptable trade-off if he can not perform his duties, or if he is not practical enough? This is your companies network or data, or customer info. Can this all be too important? I say no, there's never enough protection, especially if you're in the financial or security markets of IT.

jmc724

Most cert exams I have taken are more theory based rather than practical. A few scenarios are practical. IMO, if you see the scenario and its something you have troubleshooted before it make you grasp answering the problem immediately than outright quessing. IMO, practical experience does play a role.

Anyone can pick up a book and simply memorize it from front to back, take an exam and pass. The experienced person will try to rationalize the exam instead of looking at it from a different perspective, thus failing the exam.

Again memorizing any exam is not a solution to obtaining certs, what you do at the job plays a vital role in what your certs stands for.

Having an mcse and cant enable a user account would be a practical example...

RussS

Being a newcomer into the industry after a career elsewhere I really should be against a prequisite - however I am in agreement with it. In fact where it is a recommendation in many cases I would think making it a prequisite would be a danged good idea. The sheer number of paper techs out there who are certified to extremes but have no practical nous are enormous and are a concern to many large and small employers.

pretty_boy

I thought certifications and degrees are earned for the purpose of receiving experience. So what is the purpose of me receiving certifications or degrees, if I can’t combine it with experience? It’s sound like to me certifications and degrees are a waste of time. Maybe I just need to obtain certifications, that pertains to my job related field, since that’s where my experience is, or maybe I need to find a job first in the related field, then after I gain my experience I would have more reason to acquire certifications or degrees.




Something for thought

TeKniques

Well I would look at a common comparison:

Say a new company opens and they need to design a network infrastructure for their needs. The choices to hire the main person to design it are:

person1: 6 years experience with designing networks, etc. with certifications.

person2: Has all the certifications, but has never designed a network out right.

Obviously the company would choose person1 because they are already familiar with the job needed.

Same holds true for the certifications that require experience. The vendors want people who know how to apply their certifications to a job they are already accustomed to.

No, getting a degree and certifications is not worthless. It just means that you have to start at the bottom and work your way up like 'most' people have to do. Can't drive the mercedes before the honda, unless you are 'really really' lucky with who you know imo.

pretty_boy

TeKniques wrote:

Well I would look at a common comparison:

Say a new company opens and they need to design a network infrastructure for their needs. The choices to hire the main person to design it are:

person1: 6 years experience with designing networks, etc. with certifications.

person2: Has all the certifications, but has never designed a network out right.

Obviously the company would choose person1 because they are already familiar with the job needed.

Same holds true for the certifications that require experience. The vendors want people who know how to apply their certifications to a job they are already accustomed to.

No, getting a degree and certifications is not worthless. It just means that you have to start at the bottom and work your way up like 'most' people have to do. Can't drive the mercedes before the honda, unless you are 'really really' lucky with who you know imo.

NICE POINT TAKEN. YOUR STATEMENT PRETTY MUCH SOME IT'S UP FOR ME. YOUR STATEMENT IS LOGICAL, BUT YET RESONABLE AT THE SAME TIME. THANKS.

pretty_boy

But, what value does certifications or degrees hold? It’s seems to me that experience is more important than anything. Now how can I get experience? It’s seems the only way to get hired or promoted is by who you know, not what you know. I think the job market has everything backward. The way it should be, is to hire the people that prove themselves, and expose them to the experience. In other words, give them the experience. Why should I gain all certifications and degrees, and start from the bottom. $hit, I can start from bottom without any certifications or degrees.