More inline =) "nrf" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > True, a blend is always better. But let me say this. Experience alone is > usually better than certs alone. Naturally the blend is better. But if you > had to pick one.... (continued later)
I would agree that experience alone is usually better than certs alone.... but it depends on "experience in what".... I've beat that horse to death with the previous X.25/T1 example, so I'll let it lie.... > The biggest problem that lab-rats face is simple. They don't have > experience in working in a production environment. And it gets down to > simple work attitudes and skills. Will the guy show up on time for his > shift (if it's shift work)? Will he freak out and break under pressure > when the network's down and the bosses are screaming at him? If the > routers are acting oddly, will he approach the problem methodically, or will > he pull a cowboy stunt like clearing all the BGP sessions? Does he have a > personality that lets him relate to and get along with other network guys? > With a lab-rat CCIE, these questions are all unknown, because he's never > actually worked on a network before. You bring up a very good point...... work attitudes and skills.... This is something I don't believe experience or certs has anything to do with.... so it's not quite fair to favor the experience over the certs because experience has nothing to do with work attitudes (good work ethic, etc) and skills.... (Yet another anecdote) I used to do PC support and then later server admin work...... although my experience in networking was not much (I knew what routers, switches, and hubs were, and understood IP and subnetting, but by no means had any hands-on with Cisco network gear), I had a solid record of having good work habits, being good at troubleshooting, using logic, learning new things, and being able to multitask... My CCNA, CCNP, etc aren't meant to show an employer that I'm reliable. They're meant to show a level of knowledge.... My resume and past work history (and letters of recommendations, references, etc) are meant to vouch for my reliability. Now, the gentleman I spoke of earlier that is the lead engineer in my group, has years of experience and is very good with Cisco gear..... but he is the *first* one to "pull a cowboy stunt" in an attempt to get things working... (he smoked 2 - 6500Sup2s trying to convert from Hybrid to Native because he *refused* to (even made fun of me for) following the steps from Cisco's website). As an aside it's funny you used the phrase 'cowboy' because that's the exact phrase I used when trying to explain him to my other network friends...... also used the phrase "shoot from the hip"...... =) So to recap my point here, to favor experience over certs because of 'work ethic and skills' is a demonstration in faulty logic because one should consider ones work ethic and skills aside from experience or certs. i.e. Experience and certs are ways to quantize ones knowledge. Work ethic and skills are a way to judge one's ability to be a good worker...... They're (IMHO) mutually exclusive. > And more to the point, I wouldn't have hired him because I have personally > had bad experiences with lab-rats. One guy just sat around and played > Solitaire all-day and while still demanding a high salary. Another 2 > completely screwed up a bunch of 6500's and 4000's that we had (remember, > those switches are not part of the exam). I understand your bad experiences.... It sounds to me like your blaming the cert for lack of being able to choose qualified employees.... (not meant to piss you off, but you cannot even begin to blame the cert for Mr. Solitaire being a lazy sack no more than I can blame a college for a lazy graduate.... I mean he sat around playing Solitaire and demanded a high salary.... who was the fool that agreed to pay or or didn't fire his ass?) As far as the labrats toasting a couple of switches, as I pointed out above, where I work Mr. Cowboy lead engineer, with tons of experience, fried two Sup2s because he didn't wanna follow directions..... so again, blaming the cert (IMHO) isn't valid because I could turn that around and blame experience for the same thing..... (i.e. "well, he's got years of experience... he should've *known* better") (I mean, I was a 'virtually experienceless' CCNP, but I've never toasted a switch, router, etc because I'm NOT A BOOB!!! I know how to READ DIRECTIONS) (not shouting at you, just adding emphasis) (you like my multi-parenthesis statements..?. hehe) (it's like they'll never stop.....) (ever).... LOL > So I agree with you that some > lab-rats are obviously good. But on the other hand, there are enough bad > ones out there that it makes me wary to hire one. Again I think you could make the case (even moreso) for experienced people...... "There are enough bad people out there that it makes me wary to hire one" > And surely you would > agree, employers are looking to reduce risk when hiring people, so they will > go for something safe. Obviously not all of them are bad. But enough of > them are like this that it gives the employers pause. I do agree that employers are looking to reduce risk when hiring people..... But that goes back to the "show up on time, etc" work ethic and skills.... something experience nor certs can change.... People with shoddy work records give employers pause. People with bad references give employers pause...... Aside from knowing EIGRP and how to various network tasks, my bosses main (#1) concern when hiring someone is that they got along well with the rest of the group..... They could have been Mr. Quad-CCIE but they wouldn't have made it off probation if their work habits sucked and they couldn't get along with the rest of the crew...... Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44418&t=44342 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
