OK, inline
""Michael Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Comments inline... > > nrf wrote: > > What I said is that not that I hate all 'lab-rat' CCIE's > > because everybody > > has to start somewhere.Rather that I find the phenomena that > > people view > > the CCIE as an easy shortcut highly suspect. This phenomena > > manifests > > itself in guys obtaining their cert and then immediately > > demanding a level > > of salary and respect equal to another guy who has > > significantly more > > experience. > > A couple of comments here. First, given that the CCIE is quite difficult to > obtain, I think that one who has achieved it deserves a certain minumum > amount of respect whether they have 'real world' experience or not, and the > fact that you (often) use the word 'labrat' to stereotype them denies them > even that minimum level of respect. I never said that anybody, even a lab-rat, deserves zero respect. I've never said that. What I'm saying is that he most likely deserves less respect than a non-lab-rat. That's not to say that he can't earn more respect by continuing to build on his knowledge. But at that point in his career, I think I'm on very safe ground when I say that such a guy doesn't deserve the level of respect as the average CCIE (which would naturally include all those experienced and highly knowledgeable guys) >I'm not saying any CCIE (or anyone for > that matter) should demand a level of respect which they are not due, but > they also (regardless of how obtained) should never be denied that level of > respect they've earned, especially from fellow networkers. Hey, if you've earned respect that is due, then there's no problem. The problem is not with those guys but, as you said, with guys who think they deserve more respect than they are actually due. So we are in full agreement here. > > Second, IMHO, you are making a grave mistake in assuming that experience > always teaches one the lessons of networking any more than a certification. > Experience can teach things certs dont. But certs can educate someone about > things they've never done before they ever have to call upon that knowledge, > and one type of knowledge is no less valuable than the other. I've never said that certs are not useful. Indeed they can be. Again, it's a case that some people think they are more useful than they actually are. >There are > many lessons that someone needs to learn in the school of hard knocks to > really understand because the certification doesn't deal with such issues. > However, a very wise man once told me, "Sometimes 5 years experience isn't 5 > years experience. Many times it's the same 1 year of experience 5 times > over". On the other hand, surely you would agree that sometimes 5 years experience is actually 15 years experience, if you catch my drift. Really really good experience is immensely valuable, just like really bad experience is practically worthless. So if you want to make the point that certain kinds of experience aren't very useful, you must concede that other kinds of experience are exceptionally useful. So basically, it's a wash. When you examine a guy with 5 years experience, he might actually only "have" 1 year of real experience. But on the other hand, he might actually "have" 15 years of experience. So saying that 5 years = 5 years is probably a good average number to use. >Think about that. I'll give an excellent example that shows this > point (which I've given before, but I think it's needed to support my > position). I worked with a gentleman at a previous job when I was 3 months > into my first 6 months of real hands-on networking experience. This > gentleman who had been dealing with Cisco and networking for 5+ years. I > had just completed CCNP. He did a sniffer trace and was surprised when he > saw multicast traffic and said outloud to all of his fellow "experienced" > engineers "Where's this multicast traffic coming from?" I, the lowly > inexperienced CCNP, asked "Aren't we using EIGRP" (which we were). He said > "Yeah, but what's that got to do with this multicast traffic". I just > turned and walked away. I was floored that a room full of engineers with a > combined 50+ years of experience couldn't answer this, when ANYONE who has > made it through the CCNP Routing exam would have answered the question in a > heartbeat. Experience limits you to what you deal with. Certification > encourages you (and requires you) to read and learn new things that you may > never use just to be exposed to them. Again, I agree that experience is not a perfect indicator for employee success. But I believe that it is a better indicator than anything else out there. It is certainly a better indicator than the number of certs a guy holds. The job market agrees with me - you've probably noticed how companies are demanding experience first, and certs second. Not because experience is the perfect indicator, but that it's the best thing available right now. > > Experience is only as good as what it exposes you to. If you have 10 years > experience with RIP networks and that's it, then that 10 years may just as > well be 6 months. Because all that "experience" isn't going to mean squat > in a shop running OSPF/BGF/EIGRP, etc... That's where having the knowledge > that a certification gives you is advantageous. Again, we are in agreement that experience has its limits. But again, so do certs. I believe overall certs have more limitations than experience, for, among other reasons, it's easier to 'fake' your way to getting certs (i.e. the paper-MCSE braindump phenomena) than to fake your way through experience. > > > Or it manifests itself in guys who don't want to > > pay their dues > > and do grunt-work and just want to be the senior network guy > > without having > > spent any time as the non-senior network guy. It is that kind > > of behavior > > that is what I'm targeting. Is my finding this phenomena > > highly skeptical > > really objectionable? I think most people here would find it > > quite > > reasonable. > > I think your skepticism here is valid, and a good thing. The only thing I > would interject here is this: Believing that one must perform years of > simple "go patch these ports in..... go mount this switch in the closet" > type of gruntwork is nonsense. I'll use myself as an example. (kinda > picking up from my story above) After my 6 months of good experience at my > first job, and armed with CCNP, I got my current job... Sr. Network > Engineer... I setup dial-in access routers, I setup VoIP trunks between > PBXs, I implemented many things that were there that they weren't using > because they didn't know they could (i.e. using MLS on Cat5500s with > RSMs)... No one else here with their vast experience could do or did do any > of these things.... Within 6 months of being here my boss realized that I > could take the knowledge from my certs and put them with the built-in skill > I had to understand and troubleshoot things, and put me in charge of our > multi-state ATM WAN network including charging me with redesigning the way > we do our routing, QoS, etc.... Every day I stand toe-to-toe with my lead > network engineer and debate (and most times win) issues regarding switching, > routing, etc and this is a guy with 8+ years of (good) experience in Cisco > networking. I'm not advocating that people have to do an excessive amount of grunt work. But really, all network engineers should have at least spent some time in wiring closet, for example. Maybe not years, but at least a little bit of time. In your particular case, I would say that this is not usual. It is usually the case that the guy who's been doing something more tends to know that thing better. Obviously there are exceptions, but the rule is true. And I'm not talking about networking specifically, but in all walks of life. Want proof? Simple. Every U.S. census has shown that the average salary of a working man in his 40's or 50's (ignoring retired people, obviously) tends to be higher than guys in their 20's. And surely you would agree that senior positions in a company tend to be occupied by older people. This directly points to the fact that the older (and therefore more experienced) you get, the more knowledgeable and productive you are, which is why you tend to earn more and/or occupy higher positions in the company. > > In my case, and I belive the idea behind certs, is that you can gain a vast > knowledge of networking in a shorter amount of time (just over 1 year for me > from CCNA to CCNP) as opposed to getting 5-10 years experience and STILL not > knowing as much about various aspects of networking as a CCNP or CCIE, etc > would know. > > I don't think your gripe is with 'labrats'. I think your gripe is with > people that aren't good with logic and troubleshooting getting through a > cert and then not knowing what the hell they are doing, thus giving all with > the certs a bad name..... > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44392&t=44342 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
