""bergenpeak"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Interesting question. Some thoughts from someone that does have a PhD > in CS (dissertation in networking, a dozen or so publications, a handful > in IEEE journals). I initially went into gradual school to teach and do > research, but after spending two summers during grad school as an intern > in industry, realized that I was much more interested in working in > industry than staying in academia. When I completed my PhD, I took a > job in > industry. > > Much like John mentions, comparing the two is like comparing apples > and oranges. The material covered in each area is very different. A > PhD is much more theory oriented and there's a lot more of the "why" > types > of thinking. Obviously, this sort of questioning is needed and helps > lead > one to dissertation topics and an actual research question. Besides the > initial reading list you get from your advisor, you're on your own to > find related research, develop your ideas, verify that your work is > unique, > and then get it published before someone else stumbles across the same > idea. > And note, there are several hoops one needs to go through to get a PhD, > and > failing any one of these can cause you to get booted from your program. > In order, these steps are: > > 1) pass your prelims which are a test of breadth of knowledge in all the > main areas in your subject area. The way prelims where structured where > I > went to school, we had test and pass in 4 of 5 core areas (systems, > languages, > theory, algorithms, and architecture) and 4 non-core areas (networking > fell into > this space) > > 2) pass your comprehensives ("comps", test that you have detailed > knowledge in the area you intend to do research). The format for comps > is often a series of probing verbal questions asked by each member of > your > comittee that you answer in real-time. > > 3) pass your proposal (this is where you propose the topic/question you > intend to research/solve. Besides a verbal defense, this requires a > failry > extensive document be written which details the existing research space, > and how > your work will fit in, etc.) > > 4) do the research and write up your dissertation > > 5) defend your dissertation. It's often easiest to prove your > dissertation is > worthy of a degree if you have many peer reviewed publications, so add > lots of publications to step 4 above.
You forgot to mention another huge requirement to getting a PhD - simply getting admitted in the first place. This encompasses a huge amount of work. You can't just show up to a graduate program and start taking classes - you have to actually win admission first, which requires that you graduate with a bachelor's with decent grades, do well on the GRE, go through the application process, demonstrate a facility for research (probably by undergoing research projects while you're an undergrad), getting good rec's from profs, etc. etc. And of course in order for you to have a bachelor's, you have to win admission to an undergraduate school and all that that entails (doing well in high school, doing well on the SAT, doing extracurriculars, getting teacher rec's, blah blah blah). Therefore, I believe that when you're comparing a HS grad with a CCIE, to somebody with a PhD, then in terms of sheer effort, there's no comparison - it's a no-brainer. > > I don't have a CCIE, so can't say for sure, but here's my take on doing > the exams up to and including the CCIE written. Everyone gets the list > of > books to read, and if you know the information in these references, > you'll > pass the tests. Note that with commercial study guides, practice labs, > practice tests, and courses geared specifically to pass these tests, > there's > plenty of external help available to help make it through the CCIE > written. > As far as I know, as long as your willing to pay, you can take the tests > over and > over again until you pass. This aspect is not true when working on a > PhD. And neither is it true of the bachelor's, or any other part of traditional academia. Almost always, there are actual penalties and restrictions associated with just attempting tests and classes over and over again until you finally pass. I believe Cisco should record on your CCIE number how many times you took to pass it. Is that rough? Yeah. But hey, let's face it, a guy who took the lab 20 times before he finally passed probably isn't as good as the guy who passed it on his first time. Somebody might say that a person might get lucky or unlucky and require more or less attempts to pass (i.e. somebody who's really good might just get unlucky and fail and therefore require a 2nd attempt, somebody who's really bad might get lucky and pass on his first attempt). But hey, this is also true of academia and everybody has learned to accept this. For example, somebody who's really good academically might have a bad day and score poorly on his first shot at the SAT and require another attempt to get the score he deserves, but we've all grown to accept this fact of life. So if we can accept it in academia, then why can't we accept it in the CCIE program? > > The CCIE lab does seem to be a much more robust evaluation mechanism as > it appears to require much more "on your own" sort of preparation. > > Using the framework above, the tests up through a CCIE written might > fall into > something like the "prelims". But prelims cover a much wider range of > material. Again, I think you hit upon the biggest difference of all - you can simply attempt the CCIE written over and over again until you finally pass. You certainly can't do that with prelims. A certain number of attempts, and you're thrown out of the program. > > One might be able to classify the CCIE lab sort of like the "comps" one > takes > in working towards a PhD. I don't think I'd classify the CCIE lab as > equivalent > to a PhD as there's a lot more required in doing a PhD than knowing a > lot about > some specific area. > > So which path should one take? I think it depends. Having a HS diploma > and > a CCIE most likely will not open doors for one to teach at a > univerisity. On > the other hand, having a PhD doesn't necessarily mean one can design an > enterprise > let alone an ISP network. Hmmm. Well, I'd argue that the CCIE doesn't exactly mean that you can design an enterprise network either. Let's face it - the CCIE has nothing to do with design. The test is structured such that the exact network you are supposed to configure is already laid out for you. You have no leeway, and certainly no points granted, for designing a good network. It's a test to see whether you can configure a network of 6 routers and 2-3 switches in the exact way that the test book tells you to configure them. Nothing more, nothing less. > > I'd suggest balance. Get a four year degree and supplement with a > CCNP. Work > for a while. Determine if it makes sense from a job/career perspective > to move > on to a MS/PhD or onto a CCIE, or neither, or both.... Good plan. I would add that it seems to me that the best equipped and employable engineers of today are those who are business-savvy - guys who not only know speeds and feeds, but also know how those speeds and feeds make/save money. The fact is, businesses don't really hire engineers because they know a lot, they hire them because they can make or save money for the business. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60002&t=59481 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
