RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
[NRF] Oh, believe me, I understand your central point. Trust me, you're getting across just fine. [JN] No, apparently I have been yet again unsuccessful in getting a simple point across. The onus is yet again on me. Let me explain again. [NRF] However, surely you would concede that having that business degree from Harvard would help your career. I'm an independent consultant also, and we [JN] At this point in my career, a business degree would cause me to lose every customer that I have, if I so decide to move to Boston/Cambridge and abandon administration of their networks. However, if by career you mean the ambition to climb some corporate ladder, then I cannot argue; but that is entire point. Is it not? [NRF] both know that it's not like the old days anymore when you could win deals merely by demonstrating technical acumen. Surely you would agree that [JN] It depends on the situation. I have found that I am not required to have college level marketing or formal training, experience in insurance knowledge when implementing a network for a marketing or insurance firm. I have done so, but I have mostly been given the design input while negotiating the project. [NRF] winning deals these days often times means showing a client how hiring you ultimately makes sense to him, which often times means that in addition to technical skill, it also takes an intimate understanding of business concepts like ROI, payback period, capital depreciation schedules, op-ex, and that sort of thing. [JN] This has not happened in my case, although I don't deny that any additional industry specific knowledge will be serve as an advantage. [NRF] Which gets to a point that I've been making for awhile. In the post-bubble networking industry, if all you know is network techologies, you really don't know much. The fact is, companies don't really care about the intricacies of BGP, ATM, QoS, or whatnot (they may say they care, but they don't actually care), they only care about how these things translate into money. [JN] This above statement is made under the assumption that I disagree, somehow, with a college education. If the situation requires it, if the job position actually requires the knowledge (a questionable amount most of the time) gained through a degree program, then I have no argument. [NRF] The point is this. In the late 90's, you really could live just on certs and tech knowledge. To do so now is to live dangerously, as all the unemployed CCIE's can attest to. Tech skill is not enough - people need learn how the relationship between tech skill and money. Companies will hire you (or not) based on whether they think they will make money (or not) from doing so. [JN] It is fair to ask for business or management knowledge when hiring for a management position, or a position that requires understanding of business strategies. However, you have shot the target higher in your invocation of career objective. OK, I agree, (as I have not ever expressed disagreement) that a degree from a prestigious university is perhaps the only ticket when hopping for management position on an already fast running train like Cisco or MS. I find it objectionable when a desktop management position also somehow requires a degree. Go to biotech firms like Farben and Amgen, and you might find yourself short of getting a dinky desktop position due to degree requirements. A practical tech cert should be enough. If the chap then wishes to advance his career and climb up the ladder, then who is arguing against his attainment of a degree? I don't recall ever saying this. Au contraire - entirely relevant. The fact is, many engineers (not all, but many) don't want to be engineers forever. I know if I'm still schlepping [JN] In their case, they should plan their career accordingly. [NRF] And besides, it doesn't exactly jibe with your argument above that companies who place an emphasis on degrees seem to suffer from a high number of [JN] I will not go into denial and dismiss my own experience. MS or Cisco, I have no profound knowledge of, but shops that I have been in that judge their employees strictly through credentials suffered greatly. One company went under and laid us all off for precisely this reason! [NRF] Furthermore, think about what you said above. You said that companies are run more efficiently if they judge each individual by his own merits - and I take that to mean that the company should 'de-emphasize' the importance of [JN] Absolutely. Too much emphasis on credentials such as a degree is a real market phenomenon. Too much dismissal of knowledge from vendor certifications is also a sadly pervasive market phenomenon. [NRF] the degree. Yet, consider the logic of this argument. If these companies are really so 'efficient', then why don't they dominate the ranks of the [JN] Au contraire, let us reframe the question to read: How is it that a good many of the so-called Fortune 500 companies are founded
Re: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
This sort of thinking is why I've decided to skip the CCNP and just work on the CCIE. As long as Cisco keeps it insanely difficult with the lab exam being the majority of the work required it will be valuable. -- John A. Kilpatrick Go for it! Skip the CCNP and aim for the CCIE (or heck, skip the CCNA too). It is a bit hard, but come on, this stuff is not rocket science. Practice practice, and if you are a fast learned, decent typer, fast thinker, you can do it. But, do learn Cisco's methodologies for troubleshooting and Ciscoisms. Also, learn the basic layout of how the documentation is. Think fast, and implement fast and you got it. ;) Of course much easier said than done. -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=70008t=69483 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
I still seem to be unable to get across the central point. It does not matter what is more potent or more reliable than the other. The point is that neither should be either undervalued or overvalued by way of unfair propaganda and preconceptions. I have experienced that a college degree holder can also be as incompetent and moronic as a non-holder, but I DO NOT go on a crusade to ridicule college education. Nor do I discourage someone from EARNING a degree, and, in fact, I completely agree with the idea that a bachelors degree should be EARNED when it is most opportune: early in life when not bogged down by life's responsbilities. I also, on the same exact and precise token, do not discourage people to EARN a certification from the vendor relevant to their current position to update their knowledge. I happen to have gained much from Cisco's program as well as MS's due to my particular area of work: Indepedent constultant. I don't have to prove that I have Harvard business knowledge when the reality that I deal with dictates that I understand NETWORKING principles. It is a simple idea, and it is crucial to the welfare of each company: Judge each individual by their own merit as much as the situation allows and as the situation requires. I know companies who do this, and they are run most efficiently. Other who do not follow such principles always suffer from disgruntled employees. As to some of the points you outline (sorry I cannot get to all your points or if I have missed any): 1. Cisco's (and Microsoft's for that matter) example of who's on the Board of Directors or in management in general is irrelevant to the discussion except for the fact that they are managers, specifically managers. Those on the board or in management have proven themselves to be managers, while the CCIE's are proven technicians, network engineers. There is no Vendor cert for management. We are, yet again, devaluing something, an orange per se, by putting it in an apple contest. Irrelevant! 2. I again, restate, restate and restate again that I DO NOT discourage, nor do I wish to unfairly discredit, discount, ridicule, nor dismiss the value of a REAL college education. I am a college graduate as well, albeit in the music field, but I see the need for vendor certs (the programs themselves, not as much the title). Specialization in technical areas has to be achieved and measured in some formal manner, specially in a complex field like networking. This is precisely the reason why I find it strange that a certification program is under attach with such propaganda. If you EARN a cert, truly, you will learn a lot. There is essentially little difference in result per effort invested. 3. I do not have lofty ideals from which I fly into bouts of fantasy. I tell reality the way I have seen it, and I can assure you that vendor certs are valued by a good number of people for what they are. College degrees have been overrated by a great many companies who hire people for technical positions, and these same companies, again, are the ones that suffer the most from lack of professionalism in their ranks. For positions of upper management (or even middle management), I have no argument either way, as it is totally out of bounds of this discussion. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 2:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483] Jack, I would submit the following 2 points: First off, the fact is, college is on the whole proven to be a significantly more useful indicator of success than any cert. Think of Cisco itself. You would think that if any company knew the value of the CCIE program, it would be Cisco itself. Yet of the executive management in Cisco, how many CCIE's do you find? I believe the answer is zero. Now how many of them are college graduates? Exactly. Case closed. If you don't believe, it, see for yourself: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/exec_team/ Now ask yourself why is that? If certification was really so powerful than why doesn't Chambers just fire all his executive management and replace them with all CCIE's? Are you saying Chambers is being deliberately stupid in who he chooses to manage his company? If the college degree was really so useless, then why exactly do all of Cisco's top brass seem to have one? The same is true for every other large company. Bill Gates is perhaps the most famous and successful college dropouts in the world. You would think that if anybody would know the shortcomings of the degree, it would be him. Yet, every one of their Microsoft's top management positions is filled with degree'd people (if you don't believe it, look it up yourself - http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/default.asp), and usually from the most prestigious schools in the world. Is this a coincidence? Why doesn't Gates just fire all his managers and replace them with dropouts
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
Hi, I've been following this discussion about the Certs vs. a College Degree and I'd like to just add something that people should really think hard about before they choose between the two, and share some of my own observations working in the current IT industry. I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but the current trend in the U.S. high-tech industry is the ongoing and increasing trend of the exportation of IT jobs to Asia and India where workers will work for 10% of what we are paid here in the U.S. This is a pure and simple business decision, and I understand why companies are doing this, although the consequences to us here in the U.S. who now work in the IT industry is not so comforting. Just as most of the manufacturing jobs have left the U.S., the same thing is going on for IT as well. Globalization is here to stay and there's really not much we can do about this trend as corporations cross national borders and their loyalty is not towards their workers, but toward their invenstors. Competition for IT jobs is now fierce, and although not all IT jobs will leave the U.S., I do not think we will see what happened in the 90's repeat itself. In many ways, from what I've seen going on in the last couple of years, in general what you know doesn't hold as much weight as who you know in finding and keeping IT employment. I am in the networking industry now, and without mentioning the company I work for, which is a major player, we are still going through layoffs and downsizing. I honestly do not know whether I will have a job from week to week, and it isn't because my work skills are poor or lack the certs. Many of my collegues have been laid off in the last two years, had far more skills and certs than I had, and are sadly still out of work. I frankly feel quite upset that the work I do is some of the most challenging I've ever done and enjoy immensely most of the time, but the hard facts regarding the health of the IT industry in this county seems to indicate that I'm faced with another career change sooner rather than later. I don't think many of us in the IT field can be certain we will have long term careers anymore. That being said, in my opinion, the College degree is a far more valuable basis on which to build a career. Even if you get your B.S./B.A. degree in one subject, you can build on it and get a Masters in another subject if you find the industry you are in changing, or if you seek a career change at some point. This is important to remember, because the average person in today's world will end up changing careers many times in a life time as opposed to working for one company like many of our fathers did. One of the most important things to remember is that the degree you earn can never be taken away -- Cisco Certs are valid for only a few years and if you let them lapse you have to start all over again. That's not to say someone in the IT field won't continue to grow, recertify or earn newer Certs at a higher level, but those Certs will never make up for the fact that if the job you are applying for requires a college degree - which many, many of the better jobs do -- and if you don't have one, you will not even be considered for the position, even when you have industry experience. As a side note, many of us in the IT industry went into the industry with Certs, but due to the reality of our jobs taking 60 - 70 hours of our time each week, many of us have let our Certs lapse because there just is no time left at the end of the week to devote to training. I would love to have the opportunity to increase my skill set outside of what my job requires, but it isn't realistic right now. Anyway, my point in all this is to suggest to everyone that the best thing we can do to help ourselves navigate through our lives and working careers is to try and make choices that will provide us with the most options down the road, and regardless of whether you agree with the system or not, the college degree offers the most flexibility and a solid foundation in the long run, while the Certs should be seen as finite, short run solution to gaining the knowledge you need to do your job now. My two cents... From: Jack Nalbandian Reply-To: Jack Nalbandian To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483] Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 00:29:56 GMT I still seem to be unable to get across the central point. It does not matter what is more potent or more reliable than the other. The point is that neither should be either undervalued or overvalued by way of unfair propaganda and preconceptions. I have experienced that a college degree holder can also be as incompetent and moronic as a non-holder, but I DO NOT go on a crusade to ridicule college education. Nor do I discourage someone from EARNING a degree, and, in fact, I completely agree with the idea that a bachelors degree should be EARNED when it is most opportune: early
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
John, And I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into the perennial debate, but here it goes. Perhaps I am not getting my principal point across, but I do not wish to devalue or overrate any piece of paper. The fact is that you cannot rate a person based on some benchmark, unless you are a (del monte fruit) processing unit like a large Fortune Company 500 HR shop. The idea is that of being fair, on judging matters and people on a case by case basis, and not treat them like chiquita bananas for the packing. As an independent consultant working on term contracts, I have been turned down offers due to the competitor having the degree, (CS degree) but I have been called back to clean my competitor's trash of a job. One had a CS degree specializing in mainframe analysis, but apparently he had no idea how to do an upgrade on a Windows domain; and the customers paid for it twice. With due respect to those who genuinely eanred their degrees (as well as those who genuinely earned their certs), the holder of the degree can also be - as is a good percentage of the time - someone who failed calculus 5 times, took between 3-4 years to earn his AA (going full time), stumbled through chem with a d- in his junior year, got through the basic requirements by only fullfilling the most basic requirements, jumbled through class in a disorganized and semi-conscious state, skipped the majority of lectures, paid for most of his english and sociology term papers, and then earned his degree. He then was dumped into a company only to be discovered to be the moron that he is. I had a coworker that fit precisely this profile. He went further and got himself an MCSE, and his study method was that of going to the test at the minimum required increments between failures, repeatedly. In other words, he took the workstation 4.0 test 6 times until he remembered all the questions. He then skimmed by and got 10 points higher than the minimum, and VOILA!, a certified degree holder, the ideal package with the soft and hard skills blah blah. College apparently did not give him the soft skills that you mention! Should we go ahead and propagate myths on good ole' frat boys or sorority chicks who got the degree through thrashing the system? Hey, there are papers BSs as well, load of them, pushing paper, badly, all over the labor market. Lynch 'em! Moreover, a degree and the knowledge it gives gets OUTDATED as the market shifts (as was the case with the competing consultant above), and thus the supplement - if one must measure the person with a piece of paper or lapel pin, can only be the vendor cert. Some of the smarter recruiters and HR people that I have dealt with were FULLY aware and alert about this. They were SPECIFICALLY looking for those who had updated their vendor certs, but they mistrusted that criterion enough to throw in a hefty tech interview as well. I thank God at this point that I have the energy to avoid the two-dimensional sorts of HR departments and work independently. The hypocrisy involved, the lack of professional integrity one has to deal with when working in a half-wit HR screened department causes for too many brain cells to slough off. Aging should be a natural and timely process. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John A. Kilpatrick Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483] On 5/24/03 6:53 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Nalbandian wrote: My opinion on the matter remains the same: a bachelors is functionally overrated by the typical manager. It depends on what you think the degree says. It doesn't say I know the Cisco CLI like the back of my hand. But to me it does say that the person knows how to follow things through, has to have some fundamental planning and time management skills, and knows how to approach problems in a creative way. The majority of certifications out there don't really focus on problem solving - and I don't mean just troubleshooting. I remember a friend of mine who was reading the Cisco BGP book and asked me about the BGP FSM. He could figure it out, but had never seen a FSM or digraph before. It's a small example, but I had a couple of classes that went in to graphing theory and wow, it was used in real life. The CCNP or other forms of certification ARE known to the IT managers from my experience, but the reason that they are waning in influence is precisely due to the paper whatever myth that is being perpetuated, by of all people, techies! All myths have a foundation in reality. There are PLENTY of paper CCNPs and MCSEs. The CCNA is pretty much an all paper certification. I've met a bunch of them. A 1 or 2 week academy and then a few tests isn't the same thing as 4 years of study. To me if I was choosing between someone with just a cert and just a BS, same experience, then I'd pick the BS. The point is that you do
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
Jack Nalbandian wrote: I still seem to be unable to get across the central point. It does not matter what is more potent or more reliable than the other. The point is that neither should be either undervalued or overvalued by way of unfair propaganda and preconceptions. I have experienced that a college degree holder can also be as incompetent and moronic as a non-holder, but I DO NOT go on a crusade to ridicule college education. Nor do I discourage someone from EARNING a degree, and, in fact, I completely agree with the idea that a bachelors degree should be EARNED when it is most opportune: early in life when not bogged down by life's responsbilities. Oh, believe me, I understand your central point. Trust me, you're getting across just fine. Yet I believe you're not giving proper emphasis to people who choose to earn their degrees later in life. True, such a thing is more difficult. But it's something that's performed by many. Just because you may have missed the train when you were young doesn't mean that you should't try to catch the next one later. I also, on the same exact and precise token, do not discourage people to EARN a certification from the vendor relevant to their current position to update their knowledge. I happen to have gained much from Cisco's program as well as MS's due to my particular area of work: Indepedent constultant. I don't have to prove that I have Harvard business knowledge when the reality that I deal with dictates that I understand NETWORKING principles. However, surely you would concede that having that business degree from Harvard would help your career. I'm an independent consultant also, and we both know that it's not like the old days anymore when you could win deals merely by demonstrating technical acumen. Surely you would agree that winning deals these days often times means showing a client how hiring you ultimately makes sense to him, which often times means that in addition to technical skill, it also takes an intimate understanding of business concepts like ROI, payback period, capital depreciation schedules, op-ex, and that sort of thing. Which gets to a point that I've been making for awhile. In the post-bubble networking industry, if all you know is network techologies, you really don't know much. The fact is, companies don't really care about the intricacies of BGP, ATM, QoS, or whatnot (they may say they care, but they don't actually care), they only care about how these things translate into money. The point is this. In the late 90's, you really could live just on certs and tech knowledge. To do so now is to live dangerously, as all the unemployed CCIE's can attest to. Tech skill is not enough - people need learn how the relationship between tech skill and money. Companies will hire you (or not) based on whether they think they will make money (or not) from doing so. It is a simple idea, and it is crucial to the welfare of each company: Judge each individual by their own merit as much as the situation allows and as the situation requires. I know companies who do this, and they are run most efficiently. Other who do not follow such principles always suffer from disgruntled employees. However, your argument suffers from a flaw of logic. See below. As to some of the points you outline (sorry I cannot get to all your points or if I have missed any): 1. Cisco's (and Microsoft's for that matter) example of who's on the Board of Directors or in management in general is irrelevant to the discussion except for the fact that they are managers, specifically managers. Those on the board or in management have proven themselves to be managers, while the CCIE's are proven technicians, network engineers. There is no Vendor cert for management. We are, yet again, devaluing something, an orange per se, by putting it in an apple contest. Irrelevant! Au contraire - entirely relevant. The fact is, many engineers (not all, but many) don't want to be engineers forever. I know if I'm still schlepping boxes in 20-30 years, I'm going to slit my wrists. The greatest value of the degree is that it gives you career flexibility - if you decide you want to do something else later in life, you can do it. Without that degree, you're basically stuck, with your only 'escape' being to found your own company, a la Gates. The real question you have to ask yourself is are you absolutely sure that you're content with being the tech guy forever? And in the case of the CCIE, are you content with being the network guy forever? And besides, it doesn't exactly jibe with your argument above that companies who place an emphasis on degrees seem to suffer from a high number of disgruntled employees. Microsoft, Cisco, and other such degree-oriented companies are perennial contenders for best companies to work for, as demonstrated by surveys run by Fortune Magazine and Businessweek. In fact, of all
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
Has Bill Gates got an MBA? Did John Postel ever go for a CCIE? Just my $0.02 Best regards, Dom Stocqueler CTO - SysDom Technologies -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Nalbandian Sent: 01 June 2003 01:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483] I still seem to be unable to get across the central point. It does not matter what is more potent or more reliable than the other. The point is that neither should be either undervalued or overvalued by way of unfair propaganda and preconceptions. I have experienced that a college degree holder can also be as incompetent and moronic as a non-holder, but I DO NOT go on a crusade to ridicule college education. Nor do I discourage someone from EARNING a degree, and, in fact, I completely agree with the idea that a bachelors degree should be EARNED when it is most opportune: early in life when not bogged down by life's responsbilities. I also, on the same exact and precise token, do not discourage people to EARN a certification from the vendor relevant to their current position to update their knowledge. I happen to have gained much from Cisco's program as well as MS's due to my particular area of work: Indepedent constultant. I don't have to prove that I have Harvard business knowledge when the reality that I deal with dictates that I understand NETWORKING principles. It is a simple idea, and it is crucial to the welfare of each company: Judge each individual by their own merit as much as the situation allows and as the situation requires. I know companies who do this, and they are run most efficiently. Other who do not follow such principles always suffer from disgruntled employees. As to some of the points you outline (sorry I cannot get to all your points or if I have missed any): 1. Cisco's (and Microsoft's for that matter) example of who's on the Board of Directors or in management in general is irrelevant to the discussion except for the fact that they are managers, specifically managers. Those on the board or in management have proven themselves to be managers, while the CCIE's are proven technicians, network engineers. There is no Vendor cert for management. We are, yet again, devaluing something, an orange per se, by putting it in an apple contest. Irrelevant! 2. I again, restate, restate and restate again that I DO NOT discourage, nor do I wish to unfairly discredit, discount, ridicule, nor dismiss the value of a REAL college education. I am a college graduate as well, albeit in the music field, but I see the need for vendor certs (the programs themselves, not as much the title). Specialization in technical areas has to be achieved and measured in some formal manner, specially in a complex field like networking. This is precisely the reason why I find it strange that a certification program is under attach with such propaganda. If you EARN a cert, truly, you will learn a lot. There is essentially little difference in result per effort invested. 3. I do not have lofty ideals from which I fly into bouts of fantasy. I tell reality the way I have seen it, and I can assure you that vendor certs are valued by a good number of people for what they are. College degrees have been overrated by a great many companies who hire people for technical positions, and these same companies, again, are the ones that suffer the most from lack of professionalism in their ranks. For positions of upper management (or even middle management), I have no argument either way, as it is totally out of bounds of this discussion. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69962t=69483 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
John, And I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into the perennial debate, but here it goes. Perhaps I am not getting my principal point across, but I do not wish to devalue or overrate any piece of paper. The fact is that you cannot rate a person based on some benchmark, unless you are a (del monte fruit) processing unit like a large Fortune Company 500 HR shop. The idea is that of being fair, on judging matters and people on a case by case basis, and not treat them like chiquita bananas for the packing. As an independent consultant working on term contracts, I have been turned down offers due to the competitor having the degree, (CS degree) but I have been called back to clean my competitor's trash of a job. One had a CS degree specializing in mainframe analysis, but apparently he had no idea how to do an upgrade on a Windows domain; and the customers paid for it twice. With due respect to those who genuinely eanred their degrees (as well as those who genuinely earned their certs), the holder of the degree can also be - as is a good percentage of the time - someone who failed calculus 5 times, took between 3-4 years to earn his AA (going full time), stumbled through chem with a d- in his junior year, got through the basic requirements by only fullfilling the most basic requirements, jumbled through class in a disorganized and semi-conscious state, skipped the majority of lectures, paid for most of his english and sociology term papers, and then earned his degree. He then was dumped into a company only to be discovered to be the moron that he is. I had a coworker that fit precisely this profile. He went further and got himself an MCSE, and his study method was that of going to the test at the minimum required increments between failures, repeatedly. In other words, he took the workstation 4.0 test 6 times until he remembered all the questions. He then skimmed by and got 10 points higher than the minimum, and VOILA!, a certified degree holder, the ideal package with the soft and hard skills blah blah. College apparently did not give him the soft skills that you mention! Should we go ahead and propagate myths on good ole' frat boys or sorority chicks who got the degree through thrashing the system? Hey, there are papers BSs as well, load of them, pushing paper, badly, all over the labor market. Lynch 'em! Moreover, a degree and the knowledge it gives gets OUTDATED as the market shifts (as was the case with the competing consultant above), and thus the supplement - if one must measure the person with a piece of paper or lapel pin, can only be the vendor cert. Some of the smarter recruiters and HR people that I have dealt with were FULLY aware and alert about this. They were SPECIFICALLY looking for those who had updated their vendor certs, but they mistrusted that criterion enough to throw in a hefty tech interview as well. I thank God at this point that I have the energy to avoid the two-dimensional sorts of HR departments and work independently. The hypocrisy involved, the lack of professional integrity one has to deal with when working in a half-wit HR screened department causes for too many brain cells to slough off. Aging should be a natural and timely process. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John A. Kilpatrick Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483] On 5/24/03 6:53 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Nalbandian wrote: My opinion on the matter remains the same: a bachelors is functionally overrated by the typical manager. It depends on what you think the degree says. It doesn't say I know the Cisco CLI like the back of my hand. But to me it does say that the person knows how to follow things through, has to have some fundamental planning and time management skills, and knows how to approach problems in a creative way. The majority of certifications out there don't really focus on problem solving - and I don't mean just troubleshooting. I remember a friend of mine who was reading the Cisco BGP book and asked me about the BGP FSM. He could figure it out, but had never seen a FSM or digraph before. It's a small example, but I had a couple of classes that went in to graphing theory and wow, it was used in real life. The CCNP or other forms of certification ARE known to the IT managers from my experience, but the reason that they are waning in influence is precisely due to the paper whatever myth that is being perpetuated, by of all people, techies! All myths have a foundation in reality. There are PLENTY of paper CCNPs and MCSEs. The CCNA is pretty much an all paper certification. I've met a bunch of them. A 1 or 2 week academy and then a few tests isn't the same thing as 4 years of study. To me if I was choosing between someone with just a cert and just a BS, same experience, then I'd pick the BS. The point is that you do
Re: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
Yes, but it is the case for enough folks that it has started to cheapen the certs, just as grade inflation has damaged many universities. (For example, Stanford may be more prestigious than Berkeley, but at Stanford you can drop a class up to the day of the final. At Berkeley the deadline is 2 weeks. And the median grades at Berkeley are much lower. So I'd give more value to a degree from there.) The problem here is twofold. First of all, most people don't know that grade inflation has occurred. More than 90% of all Harvard undergrads will graduate will honors, but most people don't know that. http://tangra.si.umich.edu/~radev/ilist/0051.html And more importantly, it doesn't matter very much anyway. The fact is, the hardest part, by far, in graduating from the super-elite private schools is getting admitted in the first place. Stanford and the Ivy League, with the possible exception of Cornell, are actually pretty easy schools once you're in (Stanford and Harvard are notoriously easy), but, ay, there's the rub - getting in is an absolute killer. It's not exactly a cakewalk getting into Berkeley either, but it's far easier than getting into Stanford, particularly if you're a California resident. That is why people generally consider the Stanford undergrad degree slightly more prestigious than the Berkeley one, simply because the Stanford graduate was subjected to a much tougher admissions standard. Things change significantly, however, when you're talking about the graduate schools. Berkeley can arguably make the claim to having the best overall graduate school in the country. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69934t=69483 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
Jack, I would submit the following 2 points: First off, the fact is, college is on the whole proven to be a significantly more useful indicator of success than any cert. Think of Cisco itself. You would think that if any company knew the value of the CCIE program, it would be Cisco itself. Yet of the executive management in Cisco, how many CCIE's do you find? I believe the answer is zero. Now how many of them are college graduates? Exactly. Case closed. If you don't believe, it, see for yourself: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/exec_team/ Now ask yourself why is that? If certification was really so powerful than why doesn't Chambers just fire all his executive management and replace them with all CCIE's? Are you saying Chambers is being deliberately stupid in who he chooses to manage his company? If the college degree was really so useless, then why exactly do all of Cisco's top brass seem to have one? The same is true for every other large company. Bill Gates is perhaps the most famous and successful college dropouts in the world. You would think that if anybody would know the shortcomings of the degree, it would be him. Yet, every one of their Microsoft's top management positions is filled with degree'd people (if you don't believe it, look it up yourself - http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/default.asp), and usually from the most prestigious schools in the world. Is this a coincidence? Why doesn't Gates just fire all his managers and replace them with dropouts like himself? Are you saying you know more about how to run a business than Bill Gates? More likely, the most famous dropout in the world obviously thinks there is some value in that degree, otherwise why would he choose to fill his management with degree'd people? Secondly, even if you don't personally think that there is value in the degree, you conceded yourself that other people do. In particular, a lot of people who are in charge of hiring do. You've admitted yourself that you would have difficulty in getting hired in the Fortune 500 because you lack the degree and that you've lost deals to a competitor who had the sheepskin. Let's face it. While it's nice to follow your ideals, sometimes a little pragmatism needs to come into play. Sometimes you gotta do things you don't like and don't believe in. I, for example, think it's stupid that I have to stop at red lights at 3 in the morning when there's nobody around, but if I get pulled over, am I really going to convince the cop that since there's nobody out driving but me, I should be allowed to drive any way I want? Heck no. He's going to hand me a $250 ticket, and that's that. Similarly, if HR decides that a particular position will be filled only by a person with a degree, then you either have that degree or you don't. You're not going to get anywhere by arguing with them over how stupid you think that requirement is. They're the ones with the job, so they set the rules about who is eligible for that job, and if you don't have what they want, then you're not going to get it, simple as that. Therefore, even if you don't personally believe in the value of the degree, other people do and that, by itself, is a good enough reason to get it. Railing against the requirements of corporate America won't put food on the table. I'm not telling you that you should get that degree. The choice is up to you. But what I am saying is that if you choose not to, then you should understand that you are closing some doors to yourself, and you should accept that fact. If you choose not to follow the 'rules' of corporate America, then you should be prepared to accept the consequences. Just like if I choose to run red lights at 3 in the morning, then I will have to accept the fact that I will get ticketted. But there's no point in railing against the rules. The rules are the rules. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69933t=69483 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Prolonged Batchlers Vs. CCNP ? [7:69483]
On 5/24/03 6:53 PM, in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Nalbandian wrote: My opinion on the matter remains the same: a bachelors is functionally overrated by the typical manager. It depends on what you think the degree says. It doesn't say I know the Cisco CLI like the back of my hand. But to me it does say that the person knows how to follow things through, has to have some fundamental planning and time management skills, and knows how to approach problems in a creative way. The majority of certifications out there don't really focus on problem solving - and I don't mean just troubleshooting. I remember a friend of mine who was reading the Cisco BGP book and asked me about the BGP FSM. He could figure it out, but had never seen a FSM or digraph before. It's a small example, but I had a couple of classes that went in to graphing theory and wow, it was used in real life. The CCNP or other forms of certification ARE known to the IT managers from my experience, but the reason that they are waning in influence is precisely due to the paper whatever myth that is being perpetuated, by of all people, techies! All myths have a foundation in reality. There are PLENTY of paper CCNPs and MCSEs. The CCNA is pretty much an all paper certification. I've met a bunch of them. A 1 or 2 week academy and then a few tests isn't the same thing as 4 years of study. To me if I was choosing between someone with just a cert and just a BS, same experience, then I'd pick the BS. The point is that you do not have to knock down one in order to praise the other. Certifications, especially those earned by individuals due to actual need for knowledge in their career, should also be rewarded with acknowlegement. And they are. You can put CCNP, MCSE+I and a whole bunch of alphabet soup on your resume and business cards. And many managers and HR departments like to see them, just as they like to see a BS. Most would like to see you have both of them. I repeat, it aids in the perpetuation of a myth that all certs are earned through braindump memorization. It is certainly not the case for a good many in the field. Yes, but it is the case for enough folks that it has started to cheapen the certs, just as grade inflation has damaged many universities. (For example, Stanford may be more prestigious than Berkeley, but at Stanford you can drop a class up to the day of the final. At Berkeley the deadline is 2 weeks. And the median grades at Berkeley are much lower. So I'd give more value to a degree from there.) This sort of thinking is why I've decided to skip the CCNP and just work on the CCIE. As long as Cisco keeps it insanely difficult with the lab exam being the majority of the work required it will be valuable. -- John A. Kilpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Text pages| ICQ: 19147504 remember: no obstacles/only challenges Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7i=69600t=69483 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
