> I think an agenda is emerging here, nrf. This thread seemed, at least > to me, to deal with the merits of academia, certification, or > combinations to move into technical jobs.
I completely disagree with the insinuation that I have solely been moving the discussion in any direction. If anything, I am only moving where others are taking me. People want to invoke things like ethics and happiness (which as far as I can tell had nothing to do with the initial argument) into the argument, and I am only too happy to oblige. But I don't see you jumping all over them - why not? I too thought we were just talking about degrees vs. certs, but other people want to go to other places. > > In your last few posts, however, I'm only confused whether the thrust > of your arguments is to maximize monetary return, or to reach the top > ranks of general corporate management. Now, if you had a screen name > of NFL, I'd suggest you have more monetary potential than most > corporate executives. If you can give a creditable impression of > Christina Aguilara, that also offers significant potential. The > latter, however, might require an unacceptable level of surgery. Not > that I have met you personally, but I know several people in the > business that have much better genetics for that mission, including, > indeed, at least one top executive that has been mentioned. What I am doing it attempting to counter the notion that certifications are the only thing that matters - something that often times seems to be the prevailing paradigm on this particular newsgroup. Certs have their use, don't get me wrong. But it is a tremendously reckless strategy to dismiss the value of the degree categorically. By electing not to get your degree, you are closing opportunities off to yourself. Simple as that. That's my point. Now, everybody should make the calculation that perhaps getting the degree is not worth its cost in terms of time and money, and that's a perfectly valid calculation to make. Or you might respond that those opportunities that you are closing are not, and will never be, of interest to you, and that is yet another perfectly valid observation to make. What is not valid is to delude oneself into thinking that you are not closing off any opportunities. > > But to my mind, your utopia has relatively little to do with > networking. Personally, I don't agonize about not making a > seven-figure plus income when I can make six figures doing things I > love. Now, yes. I want enough product management authority, > including P&L justification, that I can see my best ideas come to > fruition -- and those are not one-person projects. I still believe, > for example, I have an architecture in mind that could give orders of > magnitude improvement in certain aspects of router performance. > Perhaps some day I will land a slot as technology VP of a startup, > make that happen, cash out, and mix my interests in network research > and medicine. Heh heh, so I see you want money too. That's my point. A lot of people want to do what they really want to do - but they cannot because they don't have financial security. That's not to say that everybody should believe that money is the most important thing in the world, for it is not. But it can certainly enable happiness. > > There is no question, however, I could be making much more right now > in the networking industry had I chosen to go into sales. I'm an > excellent verbal and written communicator, can make business cases, > etc., but I don't like playing corporate politics. That, > incidentally, is quite different than participating in general > politics -- throughout my adult life, I've been involved in issue > lobbying. > > > > >But on the other hand, even you agree that there are a lot of people (not > >just Americans, but a lot of people in the world) who want money. For some > >of these people, it is precisely money that brings them happiness. And > >who's to say that you can't have a happy career that also happens to produce > >a lot of money? I don't see it as an either-or choice. Sure, some rich > >people are unhappy. But go to the bad, poverty-stricken part of town, and > >you'll see some REALLY unhappy people. I volunteer for various charities, > >and I spent the holidays providing toys for needy people who couldn't afford > >to buy simple gifts for their children. I was happy to help out, but > >that's some real misery I was looking at. > > > > > >Like I said, if you're happy with your lot, then God bless you. But again, > >I don't see that business success and ethics is necessarily an either-or > >choice. You can be successful and ethical. > > I can't help but interpret the above as an appeal to get out of > technology as soon as possible. Hardly so. A certain Mr. Gates never left technology and I'm sure he doesn't have any complaints. But what I'm saying is that success in the technical realm is rarely determined by technical skills alone. Business savvy matters. What matters it not that you know this-and-that technology but that you know how that technology translates into dollars. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60319&t=60319 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
