Jack Nalbandian wrote: > > [NRF] Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to > certain > well-known > elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's > degree is born > the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman > Sachs will send > recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And > this is well > understood - this is why parents want their kids to attend the > best school > they can. > > [JN] Yeah, but does the "college happy" HR dude (your idol) who > says > "bachelors required" on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support > tech) pay > attention to that? As far as he's concerned all BSs are BSs, > and they are > all "superior" to non-graduates. Remember that we are talking > about IT > jobs, not "top mamanegent" or "top financial analyst" positions.
First of all, let me clear up that HR is not "my idol". I too do not like many of the things that HR does. The difference is that I accept that HR has hiring power and I see little point in raging against the machine on this point. Why? What's the point? You can whine all you want and they're still going to have hiring power. It's far more efficient to simply accept that HR has hiring power and learn to follow their rules. Second of all, do you not think that if HR sees a degree from Harvard in a resume, he's going to give more weight to that resume than to a guy from Podunk Community College? Of course he would. Everybody would. Sure, he's not going to say that anybody who wants to get a job must have Crimson blood, but when it comes to making the first cut, you know what he's going to do. > > [NRF] First of all, what "admissions fiasco"? Are you saying > that because > of the > abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's > getting a perfect > score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If > so, please > > [JN] The admissions process is a fiasco, but that is another > issue. Are you > implying that all the certified people are "getting perfect > scores" because > of braindumps and bootcamps? No I am not, but you do concede that those things make certs easier? And because of the fixed-score nature of certs, that there is no relative-scoring mechanism that can compensate for this. To wit - if everybody who applied to Harvard presents a 1600 SAT, that doesn't mean that everybody gets admitted - the admissions decision now moves to other criteria because at the end of the day there are more applicants to Harvard than there are slots. But if everybody who attempts the CCIE is properly "bootcamp-ed", then everybody can, in theory, pass. > > [NRF] that all of a sudden because of the abundance of > information, > everybody is > now a star athlete or class president, or all those other > factors that help > > [JN] Ah, I see, we wish for a hierarchial classification of > tech in the same > manner a college partitions its student body: i.e. a class > president or > class athlete, as in "star router dude test# 652-STAR," a > "position" in cert > society achieved by fulfilling a number of criteria. Perhaps > one such > criterion is "popularity among router dudes, most elegant > telnet typist, and > IOS orator." > > [JN] all in (stale) humor--:) The idea is that relative-scoring, which is a tactic used by every single reputable college (not counting community colleges and other open-admissions policies which everybody knows are not "real" colleges), serves as a proper counterbalance against the very phenomena that you seem to point out. Relative scoring should also be used in the ccie process to eliminate the problems with bootcamps. > > [NRF] And then you talk about what people do when they're in > college. If > students > are using the Internet to cheat, then that's really a problem > with cheating > in general and not with information abundance. That's why > schools are > implementing policies to check for the very kind of cheating > that you have > stated - school administrators themselves are keeping tabs on > websites where > you can download papers and other such 'tools'. > > [JN] Is that so? So we shouldn't see a problem in braindumps, > now, should > we? Those who don't wish to cheat, don't cheat. Is that a > fair assessment? > So, should those who don't cheat get the chance to be evaluated > fairly? I didn't say that, but what I am saying is that I doubt that cheating is any more widespread in the college ranks as it is in the cert ranks. > > [NRF] Yet the same thing applies just as equally to the > certification > process. > > [JN] I never said anything differently. > > [NRF] You talk about guys hacking test answers or getting > ready-made term > papers. > Yet there have been several cases in Asia where CCIE proctors > have been > caught selling actual test questions on the black market. > Right now, there > are certain websites in China that will sell you these > questions (I am > obviously not going to name any of these websites here). And > you talk about > some people hiring term-paper franchises, yet people have > engaged in the > practice of hiring guys to take their CCIE test for them. > > [JN] Same in colleges. Fraud is part of this "fast paced > life." Hey, the > more "degree happy" HR dudes start knocking certs, the more > corrupt the > degree will be, and the more integrity the cert programs will > have. Yup, > it's all about "supply and demand." Incorrect - for colleges have something that certs don't have, namely the relative scoring. Taken to its extreme, let's say that everybody cheats in school. So everybody gets a perfect 1600 on their SAT's and a perfect 4.0 in high school. That still doesn't mean that everybody gets to go to Harvard, because Harvard still has X number of admissions spots. However, if everybody cheats in the cert process, then you absolutely can have everybody becoming a CCIE. > > [NRF] The point is that cheating cuts both ways. Every single > cheating > method > that you have mentioned in the academic world has its > equivalent method in > the cert world. I don't see that academic cheating is any more > serious than > certification cheating. So it's a wash. > > [JN] I agree completely. Amazing, but true! > > [JN] OK, chap, I was wrong about you---:) (besides the fact > that people are > sick of this thread. Actually, it sounds like they're have a > good > laugh--:)) > > > I said it earlier: Any > > such > > generalization and "benchmarking" will be counterproductive > and > > damaging to > > the process of choosing employees, particularly for our field. > > It is > > unfair, and it is stupid. > > [NRF] Yet strangely enough, this is precisely what corporate > America does. > So > basically you're saying that they're wrong and you're right? > If so, then > > [JN] Yup, that is what I am saying, but they are also changing > their ways. > I've been looking at job requirements posted on the net, and > the "degree > required" is now increasingly replaced with the more complete > "bachelors > degree or equivalent experience and education." So, my "side" > is winning > the battle a bit! --:) A bit? One or two battles do not win any wars. And actually, studies have shown that the salary gaps (the delta salary) between grads and non-grads is actually increasing with time. So what does that say about the state of the war? > > > [NRF] And many others who are far more experienced in taking > > the lab > > interestingly > > enough agree with me. > > > > [JN] Produce them. > > [NRF] OK. John Kaberna. Hansang Bae. Kwame Gordon. To name > a few. > > [NRF] Who do you got? > > [JN] What do they say? Chuck, for one, answered in detail. I > remember his > description of the lab test when he first took it. Not to sound ad-hominem, but Chuck still hasn't passed. Those three have pretty much echoed my themes. Hansang, in fact, has admitted that he accelerated his ccie studies so that he would take (and pass) the 2-day exam because he didn't want to run the risk of being known as an "asterisk-ccie" (meaning the one-day ccie). > > >I can vouch for the fact that certs have > > not gotten > > easier in and of themselves. > > [NRF] Then ask yourself why is it that lab bootcamps are such a > thriving > business? Either it's because they make it easier to pass the > exam or all > the people who choose to buy them are stupid and throwing their > money away. > I don't think it's the latter. Therefore you must conclude > that bootcamps > make things easier. It then follows that the test is easier > nowadays when > there are bootcamps around then in the past when there were no > bootcamps. > > [JN] I never said I like bootcamps, and I never said I like > braindumps. I > also never denied the damage that things like this do to the > integrity of > the cert programs. > > >I can also vouch for the fact > > that a college > > degree can be obtained with much more ease than before, but > > that is my > > personal experience and bias talking. > > Remember, I am also a > > graduate in > > addition to holding certifications, although in completely > > unrelated fields. > > [NRF] As am I, and I am telling you that it is the opposite. > Moreover, I > got > corporate America implicitly on my side. How's that? Simple. > If degrees > were getting easier to obtain, then why do college graduates, > on average, > still continue to make more money than non-graduates? Do you > think > companies enjoy paying grads more? Do you think they like it? > Oh, wait, > because you're a college graduate, cool, then here have a > higher salary > because, you know us, we enjoy earning less profit? Come on. > If college > really is getting easier, then companies should respond by > paying them less > (supply and demand, if supply increases, then the equilibrium > price drops). > Are they doing that? I don't see it. > > [JN] "Corporate America" is wising up when it comes to our > field, as I > mentioned above. Hardly so - like I said, the delta salary is getting larger. So actually, corporate America is getting "more stupid". > > [JN] I was measuring college of the present with the college of > the past. > It was tougher to get through the curriculum in the past. > Sure, as > populations grow, the "top colleges" are harder to get into, > but the college > experience - even in those "top colleges" is much more lax than > before. > There are simply less demands on the student, from what I have > seen. > Medical doctors even complain that their new peers are less > capable due to > the "cram session" nature of medical schools of today. But overall, the difficulty is the same, whether the difficulty is due to the curricula itself or because it's simpler harder to get admitted in the first place, the overall difficulty is still comparable. For example, Harvard is actually pretty easy to complete once you're in. But that's the trick - you gotta get in - and getting in is now a huge pain. > > [JN] I have seen the reverse trend in the cert tests > themselves, even in > Microsoft tests. There was one downgrade in Microsoft's > testing history, > and that was the TCP/IP test where the NT 3.51 TCP/IP test was > a nightmare > for novices, and the 4.0 TCP/IP test was noticeably easier; but > that is the > only one I have seen. The rest have stayed consistent and are > getting to be > slightly more difficult. > > > BOTTOM LINE: A person should be judged - as holistically as > possible - as > the situation requires. In a perfect world, every person would be judged on their individual characteristics. But we don't live in a perfect world. The fact is, companies have only a limited number of resources to devote to their hiring process and they are going to try to find the best candidate for the least effort. > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70706&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
