CompTIA Certification Renewal Policy

CompTIA just released a new certification renewal policy that puts a 3 year shelf life on their certifications. This is a significant change for CompTIA.

You can read about it here:

CompTIA Certification Renewal Policy

Cert Shelf Life

You don't necessarily have to retake a certification exam to stay current but can earn continuing education credits to do so. This sounds similar to the CISSP certification.

Darril Gibson
Author: CompTIA Security+: Get Certified Get Ahead
ISBN-10: 1439236364

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

GiddyG

knwminus wrote: »

On another note, if comptia said "Ok here is your money back" would you give up the cert?

In a word, Yes.

dmarsh

GiddyG wrote: »

In a word, Yes.

I agree, I would not have entered into the program under the current conditions, I would surrender my Network+ and Security+ certifications for a full refund if CompTia want to stick to their new policy.

dynamik I enjoy learning new and challenging things, not being endlessly tested on the entry level material.

I plan to get a Masters, learn some finance, maths, multithreading/parallel programming/HPC. I have already recently taken two maths courses, a Windows Internals course and a CUDA course. I have read and continue to read numerous books on computing, I read 5-20 computer books a year, currently reading a 1000 page book on concurrent programming.

I will not stop learning, however its quite likely that none of this would count to Security+ CPD, and even if it did it would cost me more time and money, which was not the original agreement.

Cisco are career certs and they are very upfront about the re-cert, as such they are only really viable to full time network engineers, CompTia were branded as general purpose certifications for the mass market, they were entry level and good for life. Look around the net, there are still endless blogs, cert sites, and trainers posts reccomending them because they are 'good for life' !

If I was prepared to do a career track and recert I would do the Cisco track and and CCENT for networking or CEH/SSCP/CISSP for security, why would I choose CompTia ? There is no longer any real point to Network+ or Security+ as there are higher end certs that are cheaper and have similar re-cert requirements. CompTia were good because they didn't have this and you could show you were knowledgable in an area but perhaps not an expert and it was not your main career focus.

You are probably new to your career and IT, lets see how you feel in 10 years time after having to pay and visit the exam centre for the 20th refresh exam on the same material and you're busy changing the nappies of your three kids ?

jojopramos

For me, I already have my A+ 2003 and my Server+2004... thats enough CompTIA for me... I will concentrate more on my Microsoft's MCITP and Cisco certs...

TheShadow

dmarsh wrote: »

Err the people that pay CompTia's staff's wages ? Thats you and me

If you believe that then you do not know what compTIA is or know that the organization existed long before they offered certifications or that certifications were the idea of member companies.

I am not defending them by any means. I don't like it anymore than the rest of the members here. But you need to understand that the certification costs barely pay for cert upkeep and that each exam has one of more Shepard companies. The reason they no longer offer an Apple cert, (yes once upon a time there was an Apple A+) is that Apple felt they were getting a raw deal as a single company supporter and pulled their exam in-house because they felt it was cheaper.

Some of you should look at the real parts of CompTIA, look at the membership list of many thousand companies (10,000+) starting with IBM, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Intel etc. and see what they pay for an annual membership. The cheapest membership is $675 if you make under 10 million, $2500 up to 50 million and over 50 million cost is $5000 per year. CompTIA was founded in 1982 long before a PC revolution and Amd dwarfed Intel in size

Certifications are just a division, like the scouts compared to the armed forces. Those of us that had personal memberships in the beginning always felt like the ugly stepchild and I can't see where it has changed much. We could not even read the white papers then, after much bit*hing they let us see sanitized ones or ones that were released to the press. They basically kept us in a playpen. Now the governments of the world are interested and they see real money to be made. However they are not making it yet, only trying too.

dmarsh

The corp membership fees are described here.

All good points shadow, but Microsoft is a huge organization and there is only one of them, $5000 seems pretty cheap and is only the equivalent of about 17 UK Security+ personal exam fees (per year).

So we should still be important and treated with respect. If they want to be a government only body they are going the right way about it !

Norbie

knwminus wrote: »

No attitude here and if you feel that way I apologize. As I read my post I can see how you would get that impression. For the record I do not have my degree yet (working towards it) and I was not trying to sound like an elitest or something, I was just being blunt and honest which is hard to differentiate in a text based medium. I need the A+ for a job as well and N+ was for my then job (which I never got to see the benefit from that job since I left that place). I have paid out of pocket for my certs and I will probably end up paying for everything in my sig as well (if the hr department doesnt gets it act together) so I know where you are coming from. Like I said, I was pissed, for similar reasons but my thing is, 3 years is along time. I am sure you will be much further along in your IT cert path than you are not (god willing and what have you) so you gotta think about it like this: Comptias is not going to be my last cert. The way I thought about it was in 3 years I will have either enough certs to make the comptias no longer worth it or I will study and keep up the comptias, or both

On another note, if comptia said "Ok here is your money back" would you give up the cert?

Honestly I would lean towards yes. I got the A+ to keep my job and the situation at my job is more or less I have to wait for someone else to retire or leave before I can move up so my current certs aren't going to help me move up and apparently won't help me get a better job. Since my career is in neutral in the meantime I might as well have my money back so I can put it towards other certs or completing my bachelor's (I only have two associate degrees at the moment).

Aside from being threatened with termination for not having the A+ the reason I wanted the comptia certs was because I could build up a few lifetime certs and then figure out what I want to do cert wise. I have a junk car and the nearest Prometric center is a hundred miles away so I wasn't so keen on starting microsoft yet. Cisco seems great but the thing that originally turned me off of them was the fact that I would have to recertify every 3 years and I felt I would always be playing catching up rather than moving forward. The thing that I didn't like about Cisco is the very thing they're doing with CompTIA but at least with Cisco you can argue it's worth it.

Bl8ckr0uter

Norbie wrote: »

Honestly I would lean towards yes. I got the A+ to keep my job and the situation at my job is more or less I have to wait for someone else to retire or leave before I can move up so my current certs aren't going to help me move up and apparently won't help me get a better job. Since my career is in neutral in the meantime I might as well have my money back so I can put it towards other certs or completing my bachelor's (I only have two associate degrees at the moment).

Aside from being threatened with termination for not having the A+ the reason I wanted the comptia certs was because I could build up a few lifetime certs and then figure out what I want to do cert wise. I have a junk car and the nearest Prometric center is a hundred miles away so I wasn't so keen on starting microsoft yet. Cisco seems great but the thing that originally turned me off of them was the fact that I would have to recertify every 3 years and I felt I would always be playing catching up rather than moving forward. The thing that I didn't like about Cisco is the very thing they're doing with CompTIA but at least with Cisco you can argue it's worth it.

I know what you mean about issues with testing center. I had a very s1tty car at that point and although there were many testing centers close by, none were open when I needed them (Sat) so I had to drive about 60 miles to the nearest testing center open on Saturdays. I wasn't happy about that. Then when it was all said and done, my job didn't even care.

I was told that if I get my A+, they will pay for a class for me to get my N+ and they will pay for the test. They also told me I would get a 5 dollar and hour raise. Well none of those things happened and I ended up self studying for the N+ but by the time I passed I had already left that place.

dmarsh

All good points also, the reality is that actual testing centres (not cert vendors or testing bodies.) make about 5% of the face value of the exam fee.

It is barely enough to pay for premises and staff, so you can't really blame them when they don't want to do unsociable hours. In fact most of them are only run as an aside to training centres to allow their students to take exams on site.

So yes people that study hard in their own time, drive long distances to test centres, sit exams, pay for it out of their own pocket, only to have their certifications retrospectively removed? You absolutely should not get treated like this.

Certification often represents a considerable investment in time, money, energy and other resources by the test taker. Time and again I'm amazed at how we seem to be viewed by those that actually work in the cert industry, these people are often banned from taking their own cert exams for legal reasons (they would also have obvious advantages and conflicts of interest in many cases.). Developers have a phrase called 'eating your own dog food' another non developer expression is 'walk a mile in my shoes', I really think if all the industry pundits and vendors had to work a busy day shift cutting code or fixing customers systems, then study for the exams on their own time and pay for it all out of their own pocket and not company expenses they might start to have a clue.

Certification is not an impulse buy, you really have to go out of your way to take them and weigh the pros and cons before starting. You would not expect a company in this position to put its cutomers off. What other business would act like this ?

Also many of the advertised advantages of certification like higher pay simply aren't borne out by statistical evidence and are generally produced by biased polls with very small sample sizes. People's pay generally does increase with time/experience, so in order to draw these conclusions the survey would have to be fairly scientific and canvas a large group of randomly selected IT professionals of all ages.

Some salary surveys have shown many of the highest earners as non-certified, I suspect this is simply because they are the oldest most experienced people who trained when certs did not exist and see no reason to take them.

The salary surveys that say the opposite are usually commissioned by cert vendors !

walterbyrd

If CompTIA sells lifetime certs, then CompTIA should provide lifetime certs - period.

Whether or not expiring certifications are good or bad, for cert holders is beside the point. Previous cert holders had an agreement with CompTIA, and it is not fair, and should not be legal, for CompTIA to arbitrarily break that agreement.

If CompTIA wants to change the agreement with subsequent exam takers, then that is a different matter. Comptia has no right to renege on agreements that they have already made.

matradley

I think the new policy should not be retroactive as we have agreed to separate terms.

unsupported

I think everyone should put on their big boy/girl panties and STFU!

The reason for the change to keep the certification current is for ISO certification. ISO certifications increases the importance/value of the certification. Have any of you actually read the requirements for continuing education? Just by doing what you normally do, such as reading a book, going to a computer users chapter meeting, reading/writing blogs, listening to podcasts, getting certifications, and going to school you can maintain your certification. It is not about CompTIA making more money by requiring you to retake the certification every three years, but hey, if you choose to do that, then do it!

janmike

unsupported wrote: »

I think everyone should put on their big boy/girl panties and STFU!

The reason for the change to keep the certification current is for ISO certification. ISO certifications increases the importance/value of the certification. Have any of you actually read the requirements for continuing education? Just by doing what you normally do, such as reading a book, going to a computer users chapter meeting, reading/writing blogs, listening to podcasts, getting certifications, and going to school you can maintain your certification. It is not about CompTIA making more money by requiring you to retake the certification every three years, but hey, if you choose to do that, then do it!

The point is we will not STFU! because CompTIA agreement said that the certs were for lifetime, and the idea that ISO cares about renewal of entry-level certifications is absolutely absurd. The certification is not an upgrade, and the whole idea of renewing an entry level cert still leaves the holder at entry level and gives no indication of increase skill.

Bl8ckr0uter

unsupported wrote: »

I think everyone should put on their big boy/girl panties and STFU!

The reason for the change to keep the certification current is for ISO certification. ISO certifications increases the importance/value of the certification. Have any of you actually read the requirements for continuing education? Just by doing what you normally do, such as reading a book, going to a computer users chapter meeting, reading/writing blogs, listening to podcasts, getting certifications, and going to school you can maintain your certification. It is not about CompTIA making more money by requiring you to retake the certification every three years, but hey, if you choose to do that, then do it!

+1 and Rep added, you hit it right on the head.

GAngel

unsupported wrote: »

I think everyone should put on their big boy/girl panties and STFU!

The reason for the change to keep the certification current is for ISO certification. ISO certifications increases the importance/value of the certification. Have any of you actually read the requirements for continuing education? Just by doing what you normally do, such as reading a book, going to a computer users chapter meeting, reading/writing blogs, listening to podcasts, getting certifications, and going to school you can maintain your certification. It is not about CompTIA making more money by requiring you to retake the certification every three years, but hey, if you choose to do that, then do it!

Who are you to decide how other people should think? I believe you're being totally arrogant and self righteous towards some of the members on hee. This is not your forum or blog if they want to complain on here that is there right. The least you could do is show some class in the way you wrote that post. Most of the comptia section is junior members and people new to the forums I would think we'd take a bit more tact with them and try to guide them into not making the same mistakes we made.

If you need me i'll be in the security section where we can talk about GCIH

Megadeth4168

knwminus wrote: »

+1 and Rep added, you hit it right on the head.

I respectively disagree. I think that you are missing the very point of all the complaints. No one is saying that they disagree with increasing the value of the certifications. No one would complain about an expiration period if implemented properly.

The problem here boils down to moral and ethical business practices. You know, the same objectives covered in CompTIA's very own Project+ exam.

As a business, is it correct to enter into an agreement and then back out of it later on? The problem with CompTIA here is that they are acting like politicians, they are creating a plan that does not come to a middle ground. I can think of several ways that they could have instituted changes that would have pleased just about everyone, but instead they chose the path of the greatest resistance.

Look, the point has already been made about degrees, we all agree on this point. The point has been made about certifications like the MCSE, where a person with an MCSE in Windows NT is still considered an MCSE. The certification does not expire, but the usefulness of the knowledge does degrade over time. At this point it is up to the person to responsibly put on the resume that the MCSE is in Windows NT technology, again it is also the responsibility of the employer to validate said knowledge. On this, I think we all agree.

So, why is it unacceptable all the sudden for someone to say they have a 2003 version of the A+? A person passing this exam under the rules at the time should be given the freedom to continue to use the A+ certification, perhaps they should be asked to provide a certification date or some other similar request.

Another point we all agree on, these certifications are entry level. Yes, people may not need these certs on resumes anymore, so why carry on about it? Again, it's the principle of the agreement being broken. However, I must also argue that CompTIA certifications are vendor neutral, they test on concepts more than they do on configuring. There are many concepts that have not changed. Some technologies may have been added to objectives, some taken away, but concepts and best practices, a lot of times remain unchanged.

Finally, I would like to point out that they could have accomplished a stronger goal by appealing to a mid-level market as well. For example, create a Network++ or Network+ Gold exam (or whatever name). On this exam, give the candidate a scenario based exam, give them a diagram of a couple buildings, give them a budget, have them pick out the best places to run cables, place wiring closets and decide what equipment would best suit a scenario in each room. Something that puts the knowledge to work is more difficult than a multiple choice exam and is more real world. Have the upfront understanding that this mid-level exam has an expiration on it.

I know that doesn't address the entry level market, so, let's do that. Let's grandfather in everyone up until July1, 2010. Make sure that all new candidates know up front that there will be new rules for expiration. I know that leaves open the loophole of previous people certified, again, I propose that CompTIA ask that people with older certifications be up front about the age of the cert. You may argue that people are just going to put A+ on the resume anyway, but people with expired CCNAs or outdated MCSEs also put this on their resume. It's not CompTIA's responsibility to fight human nature and dishonesty, anyone can put anything on a resume. It is up to the individual to be honest and the employer to validate said knowledge.

So, in conclusion, I must express my disappointment at how CompTIA handled this situation. I feel that there are many better avenues that they could have gone down for this, even ones that I didn't mention. I really want the company to stay around, to succeed and to continue to enhance the IT industry but not at the expense of their integrity.

unsupported

janmike wrote: »

The point is we will not STFU! because CompTIA agreement said that the certs were for lifetime, and the idea that ISO cares about renewal of entry-level certifications is absolutely absurd. The certification is not an upgrade, and the whole idea of renewing an entry level cert still leaves the holder at entry level and gives no indication of increase skill.

The CompTIA agreement also states that they are able to revise the terms of the agreement. In the event of an revision, your acknowledgment of a new agreement may be a condition of your continued certification.

Recertification via continuing education credits or passing the test again shows the holder has the skills to maintain their status/minimum level of knowledge. If you are concerned about a higher level of certification,until CompTIA has higher level certs, go somewhere else. Not allowing for recertification does not do jack to show you have increased skill either.

unsupported

GAngel wrote: »

Who are you to decide how other people should think? I believe you're being totally arrogant and self righteous towards some of the members on hee. This is not your forum or blog if they want to complain on here that is there right. The least you could do is show some class in the way you wrote that post. Most of the comptia section is junior members and people new to the forums I would think we'd take a bit more tact with them and try to guide them into not making the same mistakes we made.

If you need me i'll be in the security section where we can talk about GCIH

I am not a *****, but I play one online.

I admit my opening was harsh, brash, and old manish, but it served a purpose to get peoples attention. I'd never tell anyone how they should think, or take away their ability to post their feelings.

I was frustrated at the pages and pages of "CompTIA pinky swore I'd have my certification fffoooorrrrreeeevvverrrrrr!". I just wanted to present an alternate view.

Now that it is out of the way, we can move on with the discussion.

dmarsh

unsupported I'm glad you are happy about the changes but many (myself included) clearly are not.

unsupported wrote: »

The reason for the change to keep the certification current is for ISO certification. ISO certifications increases the importance/value of the certification.

Do you even know what a standards body is ? Do you think there has never been a bad standard ? Ever heard the phrase 'designed by committee' ? How do you know it increases the importance or value ? Isn't this all rather 'emperors new clothes' ?

unsupported wrote: »

Have any of you actually read the requirements for continuing education?

Yes I have many times now. Its here.

unsupported wrote: »

Just by doing what you normally do

Maybe for you, but not for everybody, I'm a developer, I cut code, is a CompTIA official going to come read my code to determine if its Security+ appropriate code ?

unsupported wrote: »

...such as reading a book, going to a computer users chapter meeting, reading/writing blogs, listening to podcasts, getting certifications, and going to school you can maintain your certification. It is not about CompTIA making more money by requiring you to retake the certification every three years, but hey, if you choose to do that, then do it!

computer users chapter meeting - Not covered unless you are lecturing and your lecture is deemed 'appropriate'.

reading/writing blogs - Reading a blog is not covered, writing a blog only if deemed 'relevant'.

listening to podcasts - Definitely not covered

getting certifications - Yes, but no list of what certifications count and to what CompTia cert they map too.

going to school - Maybe, it depends entirely on their assessment, it might count, it might not.

Did you read the CEU policy ?

dmarsh

unsupported wrote: »

The CompTIA agreement also states that they are able to revise the terms of the agreement. In the event of an revision, your acknowledgment of a new agreement may be a condition of your continued certification.

Yes it does but here in the UK there are such things as void contracts, unfair contracts, illegal contracts, false advertising, missselling, trade descriptions act.

It's possible to write contracts that are not legal, an illegal contract does not change law.

unsupported wrote: »

Recertification via continuing education credits or passing the test again shows the holder has the skills to maintain their status/minimum level of knowledge.

Now heres where you and I fundamentally disagree. To believe that you would have to believe that certification itself can prove something let alone recertification.

You only have to look at paper MCSE's, braindumpers, gunmen, test prep crammers, etc to see that status and skill cannot be shown by certification alone. It is a crude indicator at best that has limited value when taken with other stronger evidence such as references, interviewing etc. It struggles even to prove a MINIMUM let alone an acceptable level of skill or knowledge.

unsupported wrote: »

If you are concerned about a higher level of certification,until CompTIA has higher level certs, go somewhere else.

Well here you are kinda arguing against yourself, this is what many people are saying, recert makes no sense for entry level certs.

unsupported

Megadeth4168 wrote: »

I respectively disagree. I think that you are missing the very point of all the complaints. No one is saying that they disagree with increasing the value of the certifications. No one would complain about an expiration period if implemented properly...

Thank you for your well thought response. CompTIA has every right to change their policies. This is part of the agreement you are so vehemently defending in the first place.

In order to maintain their ISO (and other standards) accreditation this model needed to be adopted. Yeah, it is a pisser that your Whatever+ may expire unless you maintain it, but really, how much work will this require? Logging onto a website and writing down that you listened to podcast or read a magazine? At least you do not have to pay maintenance fees.

Major vendors are moving to a maintenance, rather than straight re certification model. Are you going to take to the streets and burn your wallet cards? March on Redmond?

dmarsh

unsupported wrote: »

In order to maintain their ISO (and other standards) accreditation this model needed to be adopted. Yeah, it is a pisser that your Whatever+ may expire unless you maintain it, but really, how much work will this require? Logging onto a website and writing down that you listened to podcast or read a magazine? At least you do not have to pay maintenance fees.

Have you actually paid any attention to the debate ?

1. CompTIA are charging a yearly fee for the CEU system. Is this not maintenance ?

2. It is not clear that ISO accreditation mandates the changes at all.

3. The terms I entered into did not require me to become a paper filing clerk for CompTIA. What is this the secret police ? Prisoners on parole have more rights !

How does telling CompTIA I like my Ipod prove any level of competency ?

Goodluck with your Whatever+ !

janmike

unsupported wrote: »

I am not a *****, but I play one online. I admit my opening was harsh, brash, and old manish, but it served a purpose to get peoples attention. I'd never tell anyone how they should think, or take away their ability to post their feelings.

I was frustrated at the pages and pages of "CompTIA pinky swore I'd have my certification fffoooorrrrreeeevvverrrrrr!". I just wanted to present an alternate view.

Now that it is out of the way, we can move on with the discussion.

Hey, don't talk like "old manish" is something to be avoided. I'm 63 years old, and I keep up very well with the kids that I work with, and they consider me the "old guy." And, yes, you started off like some kind of CompTidiot!

And, I am still not going to STFU!...LOL

Megadeth4168

unsupported wrote: »

Thank you for your well thought response. CompTIA has every right to change their policies. This is part of the agreement you are so vehemently defending in the first place.

In order to maintain their ISO (and other standards) accreditation this model needed to be adopted. Yeah, it is a pisser that your Whatever+ may expire unless you maintain it, but really, how much work will this require? Logging onto a website and writing down that you listened to podcast or read a magazine? At least you do not have to pay maintenance fees.

Major vendors are moving to a maintenance, rather than straight re certification model. Are you going to take to the streets and burn your wallet cards? March on Redmond?

I have finished reading the CompTIA candidate agreement, and I must acknowledge that you are correct. This is from CompTIA:

CompTIA may modify any examination, test objective or the requirements for obtaining or maintaining any CompTIA certification at any time.

So, while I do concede to this right that the company has, I must stress that I still believe that they are going about this the wrong way. I do not believe that it is good business practice to upset the very people who have been loyal supporters for many years.

I wonder now how some colleges, bootcamps or schools are going to handle the backlash now. Just a guess, but any place that advertised taking classes to get certified for life with CompTIA, may be in trouble unless they too had the student enter into an agreement of understanding.

I also want to point out that they could have still met their ISO accreditation through other means like I talked about above.

Kujo

Slowhand wrote: »

Personally, I think it's a shameful maneuver on CompTIA's part to force current A+, Network+, and Security+ holders to renew their certs. It'd be one thing if they had said that everyone taking the new versions of the exams had to renew, or as of January 1st, 2010 there would be an expiration date on exams taken. However, I paid my money and took my A+ and Security+ exams under the impression that they were lifetime certs, a point I have argued many times on this forum. Now, CompTIA tells me that is no the case, they've changed their mind, and the agreements I signed before taking my exam are null and void. . . oh, except the parts that I agreed to uphold.

Yeah, I agree, this should only affect new certifications done from 2010 onward. I think it's ridiculous that they're making people who got certifications prior to this new policy renew their certifications. I got A+ 11 years ago, and Network+ around 5 years ago. I have no plans to renew my CompTIA certs, and will focus on Microsoft, and probably Cisco certifications.

matradley

The naysayers should put some money forward to pay for all of us when we need to re-certify. Otherwise, policy should not be retroactive.

Norbie

unsupported wrote: »

I think everyone should put on their big boy/girl panties and STFU!

The reason for the change to keep the certification current is for ISO certification. ISO certifications increases the importance/value of the certification. Have any of you actually read the requirements for continuing education? Just by doing what you normally do, such as reading a book, going to a computer users chapter meeting, reading/writing blogs, listening to podcasts, getting certifications, and going to school you can maintain your certification. It is not about CompTIA making more money by requiring you to retake the certification every three years, but hey, if you choose to do that, then do it!

We agreed to lifetime certs. We didn't get what we paid for. So take your own advice and STFU!

dynamik

Unsupported, as stated earlier, there is a $49 annual "maintenance fee" in addition to the CEU. I have no problem whatsoever with them requiring a little bit of continuing education to make sure people are staying on top of things. It's just when I consider what those costs are going to be over, say, another two decades, I really don't feel like dumping another grand into the Security+. I'll just retake it if it's ever required for whatever reason. I'm not upset; I just can't justify keeping it current.

I'm much more concerned about starting down the SANS/GIAC path. A $900 exam every four years is going to really sting! I wish they'd take the same approach as Cisco and allow one exam to renew all the others that are at the same level or lower.

Ok, I'll STFU now

snadam

dynamik wrote: »

Unsupported, as stated earlier, there is a $49 annual "maintenance fee" in addition to the CEU. I have no problem whatsoever with them requiring a little bit of continuing education to make sure people are staying on top of things. It's just when I consider what those costs are going to be over, say, another two decades, I really don't feel like dumping another grand into the Security+. I'll just retake it if it's ever required for whatever reason. I'm not upset; I just can't justify keeping it current.

I'm much more concerned about starting down the SANS/GIAC path. A $900 exam every four years is going to really sting! I wish they'd take the same approach as Cisco and allow one exam to renew all the others that are at the same level or lower.

Ok, I'll STFU now

+1
In the grand scheme of things, these renewal fees are minimal compared to other certifications such as the SANS GIAC. I have yet to hear such an uproar for the REQUIRED VCP Course (which, BTW, is $3000 US). That's 2 months worth of mortgage for most people in a lump sum.

If you feel that the new fee structure is too much for you, then I would suggest an alternative. On the other hand, I feel that these are GREAT for individuals who are getting in to the field. I am disappointed they are moving towards this 'cert model', and I probably wont be renewing unless its a job requirement. As a Network+ and Security+ holder for a while now, I still use net+ knowledge and feel it was an advantageous move to learn the fundamentals.

Megadeth4168 wrote:

As a business, is it correct to enter into an agreement and then back out of it later on?

Somebody should tell NBC that

dynamik

Oh yea, totally forgot about the VCP. You only had a few months to upgrade, and you'll soon have to take a two or three day refresher course to get up to speed. That's not as bad as the full thing, but it's only available in select cities, and you'll still have to take days off of work and drop a decent chunk of change on it.

I don't really have a problem with them requiring a course at the onset, but it seems a bit silly to keep forcing it on people. I thoroughly enjoyed the first course, but I had to dig much deeper to master the material and get to the point where I felt comfortable taking the exam. I don't see a "refresher" course as adding any value to the certification since they won't cover the material in the depth that I would on my own anyway.

As always, just vote with your wallets, and don't spend too much time complaining about things on the internet

dmarsh

VCP, CCIE, GIAC, CISSP and the like are a quite different kettle of fish.

They are high end certs and marketed as such. They are not marketed as for life. You know the deal when you take these certs, you are not sprung a big surprise ! A retro-active decision that goes back 10+ years. I will be voting with my wallet from now on, but the way this has been handled means many people will have certified over the last year and not been given the choice to 'vote with their wallet', CompTIA witheld information and introduced retroactive rules.

Personally I'd find it very hard to justify any of the high end or maintenance certs out of my own pocket and there is evidence that most CompTIA members do pay out of their own pocket. (It stands to reason that an entry level exam will often be taken by people not in the industry and hence will not be employer sponsored.)

It is laughable that CompTIA are trying to re-position Security+ as a high end cert, while higher level than the A+/N+, it still covers basic security fundamentals.

Education and certification are quite different issues, you can learn OS, hardware and networking fundamentals anywhere. I use A+/N+ material every day, however I would still do so even if I'd never taken the N+ exam and I still don't possess the A+.

Knowledge, skills or experience are not something you must pay a tax on to CompTIA, you're better off going to college and going the academic route if possible.

Entry level and mid range certification was a nice stop gap for some people that could not got to college, now that seems to be changing.