You can also blame big corporations for not taking in interest in actually
looking at someone's resume as nowadays they use a scanning technology to
pull keywords. And unfortunately someone with the IQ of Bevis and Butthead
with a resume that has all the right words gets them to interview; versus
someone who's a techie and is very sharp but lacks the writing ability to
convey all they information they know into a resume that sells themselves.
i know first hand that this happens all the time, and often).
My .01 cents worth...
"Craig Columbus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ok...before I even begin addressing this point, let me state that I think
> that there's value in obtaining certification and that I certainly admire
> everyone who's taken the time and money to better himself, or herself,
> through the certification process. However, as someone who hires network
> people, I have a problem with paper certs and in this post, I'll explain
> why. If you're going to flame me, at least read through the entire post
> first. With that much said:
>
> I think most of you are missing the point. Let me rephrase this in the
> form of a question:
>
> What is the point of becoming certified?
>
> I think we can all agree that the point of becoming certified is so that
an
> independent third party "certifies" our competency, or level of
> understanding, in a field of study. We desire this third-party
> acknowledgement so that peers and employers will understand, at a glance,
> that we have at least the minimum level of understanding to pass
> examinations of a certain difficulty.
> So, given this set of parameters, what happens when those obtaining
> certification do not have the minimum skills, as defined by the
> certification process? We must conclude that the certification process is
> not reliable, not valid, or both not reliable and not valid. Is it the
> fault of those obtaining, or seeking to obtain, certification? No. It's
> the fault of the third-party certifier. When this situation occurs, the
> certification process should be revised so that it's both reliable and
> valid, reducing the number of certified individuals who are incompetent as
> defined by the minimum standards of the level of certification in
> question. It's at this point that we're faced with a reality
> check: vendors don't particularly care that some of the certified
> individuals don't meet at least minimum standards. Why? They have a pool
> of individuals who have staked time and money on the certification process
> and won't readily abandon the desire to keep working. To keep working,
> they have to make sure that their employer keeps the product on which
> they're certified in stock. With little effort, besides offering someone
> the satisfaction of obtaining the letters of certification, the vendor has
> gained a massive "indentured" sales force.
>
> When hiring someone for an open position, I used to look at experience,
> certifications, formal education, and references, in that order. I did
> this because experience showed what the candidate had done, certifications
> showed at least a certain amount of direct competency in a study area,
> formal education showed at least a certain broad level of knowledge, and
> references verified the experience. Today I look at experience, formal
> education, references, and finally, certifications. Why the
> change? Because anymore, the certifications don't really tell me what a
> candidate knows; they're not a valid or reliable indicator of competency.
>
> Who's to blame for the devaluation of certain certifications? Certainly
> not the paper certs themselves. While some argument could be made that
> those only in it for the money are at fault, I acknowledge that we're all
> looking for a better life and the paper certs see an opportunity and are
> taking it in an effort to better their lives. Personally, I blame the
> vendors and the training centers. Vendors need a certain "critical mass"
> of certified individuals to meet marketing objectives and have thus
lowered
> the barrier to entry. Training centers only care about making a buck off
> the current hot certification. You've all heard the ads..."Get CCNA
> certified in 2 weeks and join the ranks of those making $70k a year!".
The
> training centers know the realities, but aren't about to advertise them
> since few people would enroll in a course if they realized that two weeks
> of training and a CCNA will get you only a foot in the door at a very low
> salary.
>
> So, why bother with the certification at all? A few reasons:
> 1) Given that all else is equal on two resumes, most employers generally
> bring in the certified person for an interview before the non-certified.
> 2) The market still looks for certifications, irrespective of knowledge,
> for some positions. You've all seen the ads...CCNP required, CCNA
> preferred. Some companies don't understand the process and don't want to
> understand the process. All that matters is that the VP wants someone
with
> a certification on the network team.
> 3) The partner program is going to put more emphasis on having x number
of
> certified individuals, at all levels of certification.
>
> Bottom line? Paper certs aren't going away. I think they'll decline a
bit
> as the economy slows and dumps more experienced people into the job
market,
> but overall I think they're going to continue to become more common as
long
> as people believe that you can get something for nothing. As an employer,
> my only defense is to look for experience and a proven track record. As
an
> employee, my only defense is to back up the certification with knowledge
> and experience.
> "But wait!", you say. What about those of us with the CCNx and no
> experience? How are we supposed to get experience if no one will hire us
> without experience? In a nutshell, my recommendation is to be realistic
> about your expectations. If you were a waitress 2 weeks ago making $17k,
> you can't expect that you're going to get $50k today just because you
> obtained your CCNA. There are employers out there who will hire people
> with little to no experience. However, the employers are taking a risk
and
> they're not going to gamble much on the outcome. I've hired people with
> absolutely NO experience in IT, but they were paid appropriately for
> someone who could offer little more than a pair of hands to the
> company. As their experience grew, so did their salary; often doubling in
> the first year.
>
> Just my $0.04 (since it was a long post)....
> Craig
>
> At 03:51 PM 3/17/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> >I will probably get yelled at for this one but...
> >
> >I am a CCNA, CCDA, CCNP, and yes going after the CCIE.
> >So up front I am not against certs.
> >
> >I am becoming aware of more and more people becoming
> >Cisco certified and not know enough to go and actually
> >do the work. Our company has and is interviewing for
> >network folks, I have the opportunity to interview
> >these people to verify technical experience. I have
> >had CCNA, CCNP, and yes even CCIE written folks who
> >could not tell me what they 'should' acutally know.
> >
> >
> >This scares me because I am also working hard toward
> >my certs and the CCIE. But it has been proven and is
> >showing up more that these people are becoming "paper"
> >Cisco folks, as in the paper MCSE.
> >
> >I know and hope the CCIE LAB and title will remain as
> >difficult if not more so in the future. I for one do
> >not want to spend a year of my life gaining the CCIE
> >title to be one among thousands who also have it.
> >
> >That is my insite and hope Cisco will
> >try to make it more difficult to obtain the CCNP/DP
> >and not become another MCSE program.
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> >http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> >
> >_________________________________
> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
