[ I've spent way too much time on this, last post. ] From: Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I don't really consider certifications worth anything.
Then why are you here? If you want to go that route, does public certification and licensing mean anything? Or, I'll re-phrase, do the exams mean anything either? In the state of Florida, I am a Certified Engineering Intern (EI). That means I passed the Fundamental of Engineering (FE) exam, formerly known as the Engineer-In-Training (EIT). Do you think the FE exam is a good test of my education? And what would you say if I told you I was tested on fluid mechanics, thermodynamics and various other system interactions and transfers? A "smartie-pants?" or "what the f-?" for an electrical engineering graduate? I've been lazy, so I haven't put through the paperwork to take the Practices/Principles of Engineering, to become a Professional Engineer (PE). Part of the reason why is that I'm still hopeful they'll have a more Software Engineering -centric examination. It's a long, drawn out, multi-decade battle between the more traditional engineering disciplines and newer fields -- not unlike how Civil Engineers prevented Environmental Engineering from being recognized in the '70s (but doing so immensely improved environmental actions in the US, "behind the scenes" instead of ignorant politicians and whistle blowers "after-the-fact"). With that all said, do you think the PE exam is any different? And that's before you consider the reality ... Does having an electrical engineering degree help me do my job at all? Oh, sometimes people get all "oh, it's a computer degree, good" because my Electrical Engineering option was "Computer." But just because I had my 2nd semester in analysis (all that stupid, higher math for automated, engineering applications), architecture (you know, gate-level system design), semiconductor (you know, intrinsic material, junctions, layout, etc...), etc..., does that really apply to IT at all? > Probably takes it too far in the other extreme. I would > consider a hands on test the most useful, but even there > it's a simulated set of problems. When it comes down to > it you have to deal with real problems, without predefined > solutions in many cases, and occationally without solutions > (which isn't good), working together with other people. > Do any tests do that? perhaps I am much to cynical about > certifications, but so far the ones I have seen have been > rather far from reality. Again, do any exams? Does the FE/PE test the ability of certified/licensed engineers to serve the public trust, to be held criminally negligent for any actions that go against such? Does it test them on how to write statues, to protect the public? Does it teach them how to get their employers to understand that they answer to the public more than their paycheck, under the threat of criminal prosecution? So, I ask again, why are you here? You have a problem with the exams, yes. But what about the larger aspect of what some certification programs are trying to accomplish with exams, even if it's a very incomplete aspect of the larger evaluation of a professional? > If you are looking to hire someone that knows how to build > web server farm's, that really doesn't sound that bad. How about computing grids at banks? Yes, Wall Street may have tanked, but even some of my former colleagues at Lehman Brothers have caught on at Barclay's. Why? Lehman's existing data center of 15,000 RHEL servers was valued in the billions. It's still quite useful for various banking. Red Hat's MRG efforts, based on Morgan Stanley (among other) developments, is another example. Does Red Hat's RHCDS really prepare people for MRG deployment in huge, multi-thousand server grid environments? > Which is good. Of course to some extent the policy of not > discussing questions makes it hard to elliminate that kind > of problem question. I realize entirely why discussing > questions isn't feasible, but that doesn't detract from the > problem it also question. > I can see some people never having a need for -r when using > ls. I do use ls -lrt way too often to not know what it does, > along with the ls -lrS of course. But why use "ls -r" when "find" is better/safer for many things? Why use "cp -dpR" when piped tar or dump is better/safer? And what about inode concepts? Superblock? Ever teach these concepts, let alone test them completely? HINT: You can't, and that's 1, small aspect. ;) -- Bryan J Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith ------------------------------------------------------ I'm a PC, but Linux -- Windows: Life Without Firewalls _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
