I still seem to be unable to get across the central point. It does not matter what is more potent or more reliable than the other. The point is that neither should be either undervalued or overvalued by way of unfair propaganda and preconceptions.
I have experienced that a college degree holder can also be as incompetent and moronic as a non-holder, but I DO NOT go on a crusade to ridicule college education. Nor do I discourage someone from EARNING a degree, and, in fact, I completely agree with the idea that a bachelors degree should be EARNED when it is most opportune: early in life when not bogged down by life's responsbilities. I also, on the same exact and precise token, do not discourage people to EARN a certification from the vendor relevant to their current position to update their knowledge. I happen to have gained much from Cisco's program as well as MS's due to my particular area of work: Indepedent constultant. I don't have to prove that I have "Harvard business knowledge" when the reality that I deal with dictates that I understand NETWORKING principles. It is a simple idea, and it is crucial to the welfare of each company: Judge each individual by their own merit as much as the situation allows and as the situation requires. I know companies who do this, and they are run most efficiently. Other who do not follow such principles always suffer from disgruntled employees. As to some of the points you outline (sorry I cannot get to all your points or if I have missed any): 1. Cisco's (and Microsoft's for that matter) example of who's on the Board of Directors or in management in general is irrelevant to the discussion except for the fact that they are managers, specifically managers. Those on the board or in management have proven themselves to be managers, while the CCIE's are proven technicians, network engineers. There is no "Vendor cert for management." We are, yet again, devaluing something, an orange per se, by putting it in an apple contest. Irrelevant! 2. I again, restate, restate and restate again that I DO NOT discourage, nor do I wish to unfairly discredit, discount, ridicule, nor dismiss the value of a REAL college education. I am a college graduate as well, albeit in the music field, but I see the need for vendor certs (the programs themselves, not as much the "title"). Specialization in technical areas has to be achieved and measured in some formal manner, specially in a complex field like networking. This is precisely the reason why I find it strange that a certification program is under attach with such propaganda. If you EARN a cert, truly, you will learn a lot. There is essentially little difference in result per effort invested. 3. I do not have "lofty ideals" from which I fly into bouts of fantasy. I tell reality the way I have seen it, and I can assure you that vendor certs are valued by a good number of people for what they are. College degrees have been overrated by a great many companies who hire people for technical positions, and these same companies, again, are the ones that suffer the most from lack of professionalism in their ranks. For positions of upper management (or even "middle" management), I have no argument either way, as it is totally out of bounds of this discussion. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 2:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483] Jack, I would submit the following 2 points: First off, the fact is, college is on the whole proven to be a significantly more useful indicator of success than any cert. Think of Cisco itself. You would think that if any company knew the value of the CCIE program, it would be Cisco itself. Yet of the executive management in Cisco, how many CCIE's do you find? I believe the answer is zero. Now how many of them are college graduates? Exactly. Case closed. If you don't believe, it, see for yourself: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/exec_team/ Now ask yourself why is that? If certification was really so powerful than why doesn't Chambers just fire all his executive management and replace them with all CCIE's? Are you saying Chambers is being deliberately stupid in who he chooses to manage his company? If the college degree was really so useless, then why exactly do all of Cisco's top brass seem to have one? The same is true for every other large company. Bill Gates is perhaps the most famous and successful college dropouts in the world. You would think that if anybody would know the shortcomings of the degree, it would be him. Yet, every one of their Microsoft's top management positions is filled with degree'd people (if you don't believe it, look it up yourself - http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/default.asp), and usually from the most prestigious schools in the world. Is this a coincidence? Why doesn't Gates just fire all his managers and replace them with dropouts like himself? Are you saying you know more about how to run a business than Bill Gates? More likely, the most famous dropout in the world obviously thinks there is some value in that degree, otherwise why would he choose to fill his management with degree'd people? Secondly, even if you don't personally think that there is value in the degree, you conceded yourself that other people do. In particular, a lot of people who are in charge of hiring do. You've admitted yourself that you would have difficulty in getting hired in the Fortune 500 because you lack the degree and that you've lost deals to a competitor who had the sheepskin. Let's face it. While it's nice to follow your ideals, sometimes a little pragmatism needs to come into play. Sometimes you gotta do things you don't like and don't believe in. I, for example, think it's stupid that I have to stop at red lights at 3 in the morning when there's nobody around, but if I get pulled over, am I really going to convince the cop that since there's nobody out driving but me, I should be allowed to drive any way I want? Heck no. He's going to hand me a $250 ticket, and that's that. Similarly, if HR decides that a particular position will be filled only by a person with a degree, then you either have that degree or you don't. You're not going to get anywhere by arguing with them over how stupid you think that requirement is. They're the ones with the job, so they set the rules about who is eligible for that job, and if you don't have what they want, then you're not going to get it, simple as that. Therefore, even if you don't personally believe in the value of the degree, other people do and that, by itself, is a good enough reason to get it. Railing against the requirements of corporate America won't put food on the table. I'm not telling you that you should get that degree. The choice is up to you. But what I am saying is that if you choose not to, then you should understand that you are closing some doors to yourself, and you should accept that fact. If you choose not to follow the 'rules' of corporate America, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences. Just like if I choose to run red lights at 3 in the morning, then I will have to accept the fact that I will get ticketted. But there's no point in railing against the rules. The rules are the rules. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=69949&t=69483 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
