Re: Paper CCXX ...LONG
I took Cisco approved courses through a Cisco Premier Training Partner about a year and a half ago. I took ICRC, ACRC, CMTD, CLSC, and CIT. On the first day, the instructor would have everyone say a little about who they were and what they did. Of all the students in all the coursed, only two, myself and one other, were there on their own. All the others were sent by their employers. Most had been network Engineers for over two years, and several had been Network Engineers for over five years. Some of the companies represented were Disney, Universal Studios, GTE (Verison), and various regional and national financial institutions. In general, the more experience these people had, the more confidence they portrayed on the first day, but by the middle of the week, most of these same seasoned and experienced Network Engineers were understanding the material and performing the labs no better than those with less (or even no) experience. Many times they would say things like "Oh, that explains why we were experiencing that problem on our network" or "Boy, did I find that out the hard way!" or "We don't use that protocol on our network, so this is all new to me" or "So, that's why thus and such works that way" or "Can you explain subnetting again?". On that first day, when we introduce ourselves, I would say that I had been a PC Tech and had no experience, but was looking to become a CCNP and find employment as a Network Engineer and had already completed courses in Novell. Someone would almost always say "Why don't you get a job, work a while and have your employer send you?". Often, when they would introduce themselves, they would talk about how they had been trying to take this course, but had to reschedule several times because of this project or that outage, but by the end of almost every course, one of them would say how they wished they could go through all the courses and get certified the way I was (except for having to pay for it themselves, of course), and that even though the course was great, and would help them tremendously at work, they wouldn't have the time to study and become certified. The others would nod in agreement. I know there is no substitution for experience, but I think it is important to remember that the courses are designed to provide the students with the benifit of those who have extensive experience. These courses don't exist in a vacume. The writers of the Cisco self study materials are written by true Experts. Will courses teach you everything you will come across on the job? Of course not. But from what I learned interacting with 40 or so Network Engineers from a wide variety of industries, what you learn in persuit of a CCNP is valuable and will continue to be. Well, I have to get back to studying for my Microsoft 70-221 test ... Scott A. Ramos A+, CNA, CNE, (4.11 & 5.0), CCNA, CCNP _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Paper CCXX ...LONG
One thing to remember, big companies are BIG on TITLES!!!.. We have a "NETWORK ENGINEER" who is as dumb as tree stump. Its just a title another words.And yes it is hard to know everything. I don't think there is one person who knows everything they studied in their cert a year later. You'll forget something, and it will be the stuff that you don't use very often. "Scott Ramos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I took Cisco approved courses through a Cisco Premier Training Partner > about a year and a half > ago. I took ICRC, ACRC, CMTD, CLSC, and CIT. On the first day, the > instructor would have > everyone say a little about who they were and what they did. Of all the > students in all the > coursed, only two, myself and one other, were there on their own. All > the others were sent by > their employers. Most had been Network Engineers for over > two years, and several had been Network Engineers for over five years. > Some of the companies > represented were Disney, Universal Studios, GTE (Verison), and various > regional and national > financial institutions. In general, the more experience these people > had, the more confidence > they portrayed on the first day, but by the middle of the week, most of > these same seasoned and > experienced Network Engineers were understanding the > material and performing the labs no better than those with less (or even > no) experience. Many > times they would say things like > "Oh, that explains why we were experiencing that problem on our network" > or "Boy, did I find > that out the hard way!" or "We don't use that protocol on our network, > so this is all new to > me" or "So, that's why thus and such works that way" or "Can you > explain subnetting again?". > On that first day, when we introduce ourselves, I would say that I had > been a PC Tech and had > no experience, but was looking to become a CCNP and find > employment as a Network Engineer and had already completed courses in > Novell. Someone would > almost always say "Why don't you get a job, work a while and have your > employer send you?". > Often, when they would introduce themselves, they would talk about how > they had been trying to > take this course, but had to reschedule several times because of this > project or that outage, > but by the end of almost every course, one of them would > say how they wished they could go through all the courses and get > certified the way I was > (except for having to pay for it themselves, of course), and that even > though the course was > great, and would help them tremendously at work, they wouldn't have the > time to study and > become certified. The others would nod in agreement. > I know there is no substitution for experience, but I think it is > important to remember that > the courses are designed to provide the students with the benifit of > those who have extensive > experience. These courses don't exist in a vacume. The writers of the > Cisco self study > materials are written by true Experts. Will courses teach you > everything you will come across > on the job? Of course not. But from what I learned interacting > with 40 or so Network Engineers from a wide variety of industries, what > you learn in persuit of > a CCNP is valuable and will continue to be. > Well, I have to get back to studying for my Microsoft 70-221 test ... > > Scott A. Ramos A+, CNA, CNE, (4.11 & 5.0), CCNA, CCNP > > > > > _ > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Paper CCXX ...LONG
You can also blame big corporations for not taking in interest in actually looking at someone's resume as nowadays they use a scanning technology to pull keywords. And unfortunately someone with the IQ of Bevis and Butthead with a resume that has all the right words gets them to interview; versus someone who's a techie and is very sharp but lacks the writing ability to convey all they information they know into a resume that sells themselves. i know first hand that this happens all the time, and often). My .01 cents worth... "Craig Columbus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Ok...before I even begin addressing this point, let me state that I think > that there's value in obtaining certification and that I certainly admire > everyone who's taken the time and money to better himself, or herself, > through the certification process. However, as someone who hires network > people, I have a problem with paper certs and in this post, I'll explain > why. If you're going to flame me, at least read through the entire post > first. With that much said: > > I think most of you are missing the point. Let me rephrase this in the > form of a question: > > What is the point of becoming certified? > > I think we can all agree that the point of becoming certified is so that an > independent third party "certifies" our competency, or level of > understanding, in a field of study. We desire this third-party > acknowledgement so that peers and employers will understand, at a glance, > that we have at least the minimum level of understanding to pass > examinations of a certain difficulty. > So, given this set of parameters, what happens when those obtaining > certification do not have the minimum skills, as defined by the > certification process? We must conclude that the certification process is > not reliable, not valid, or both not reliable and not valid. Is it the > fault of those obtaining, or seeking to obtain, certification? No. It's > the fault of the third-party certifier. When this situation occurs, the > certification process should be revised so that it's both reliable and > valid, reducing the number of certified individuals who are incompetent as > defined by the minimum standards of the level of certification in > question. It's at this point that we're faced with a reality > check: vendors don't particularly care that some of the certified > individuals don't meet at least minimum standards. Why? They have a pool > of individuals who have staked time and money on the certification process > and won't readily abandon the desire to keep working. To keep working, > they have to make sure that their employer keeps the product on which > they're certified in stock. With little effort, besides offering someone > the satisfaction of obtaining the letters of certification, the vendor has > gained a massive "indentured" sales force. > > When hiring someone for an open position, I used to look at experience, > certifications, formal education, and references, in that order. I did > this because experience showed what the candidate had done, certifications > showed at least a certain amount of direct competency in a study area, > formal education showed at least a certain broad level of knowledge, and > references verified the experience. Today I look at experience, formal > education, references, and finally, certifications. Why the > change? Because anymore, the certifications don't really tell me what a > candidate knows; they're not a valid or reliable indicator of competency. > > Who's to blame for the devaluation of certain certifications? Certainly > not the paper certs themselves. While some argument could be made that > those only in it for the money are at fault, I acknowledge that we're all > looking for a better life and the paper certs see an opportunity and are > taking it in an effort to better their lives. Personally, I blame the > vendors and the training centers. Vendors need a certain "critical mass" > of certified individuals to meet marketing objectives and have thus lowered > the barrier to entry. Training centers only care about making a buck off > the current hot certification. You've all heard the ads..."Get CCNA > certified in 2 weeks and join the ranks of those making $70k a year!". The > training centers know the realities, but aren't about to advertise them > since few people would enroll in a course if they realized that two weeks > of training and a CCNA will get you only a foot in the door at a very low > salary. > > So, why bother with the certification at all? A few reasons: > 1) Given that all else is equal on two resumes, most employers generally > bring in the certified person for an interview before the non-certified. > 2) The market still looks for certifications, irrespective of knowledge, > for some positions. You've all seen the ads...CCNP required, CCNA > preferred. Some companies don't understan
Re: Paper CCXX ...LONG
I took Cisco approved courses through a Cisco Premier Training Partner about a year and a half ago. I took ICRC, ACRC, CMTD, CLSC, and CIT. On the first day, the instructor would have everyone say a little about who they were and what they did. Of all the students in all the coursed, only two, myself and one other, were there on their own. All the others were sent by their employers. Most had been Network Engineers for over two years, and several had been Network Engineers for over five years. Some of the companies represented were Disney, Universal Studios, GTE (Verison), and various regional and national financial institutions. In general, the more experience these people had, the more confidence they portrayed on the first day, but by the middle of the week, most of these same seasoned and experienced Network Engineers were understanding the material and performing the labs no better than those with less (or even no) experience. Many times they would say things like "Oh, that explains why we were experiencing that problem on our network" or "Boy, did I find that out the hard way!" or "We don't use that protocol on our network, so this is all new to me" or "So, that's why thus and such works that way" or "Can you explain subnetting again?". On that first day, when we introduce ourselves, I would say that I had been a PC Tech and had no experience, but was looking to become a CCNP and find employment as a Network Engineer and had already completed courses in Novell. Someone would almost always say "Why don't you get a job, work a while and have your employer send you?". Often, when they would introduce themselves, they would talk about how they had been trying to take this course, but had to reschedule several times because of this project or that outage, but by the end of almost every course, one of them would say how they wished they could go through all the courses and get certified the way I was (except for having to pay for it themselves, of course), and that even though the course was great, and would help them tremendously at work, they wouldn't have the time to study and become certified. The others would nod in agreement. I know there is no substitution for experience, but I think it is important to remember that the courses are designed to provide the students with the benifit of those who have extensive experience. These courses don't exist in a vacume. The writers of the Cisco self study materials are written by true Experts. Will courses teach you everything you will come across on the job? Of course not. But from what I learned interacting with 40 or so Network Engineers from a wide variety of industries, what you learn in persuit of a CCNP is valuable and will continue to be. Well, I have to get back to studying for my Microsoft 70-221 test ... Scott A. Ramos A+, CNA, CNE, (4.11 & 5.0), CCNA, CCNP _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Paper CCXX ...LONG
Very well said Craig. - Original Message - From: Craig Columbus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mike Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 6:22 AM Subject: Re: Paper CCXX ...LONG > Ok...before I even begin addressing this point, let me state that I think > that there's value in obtaining certification and that I certainly admire > everyone who's taken the time and money to better himself, or herself, > through the certification process. However, as someone who hires network > people, I have a problem with paper certs and in this post, I'll explain > why. If you're going to flame me, at least read through the entire post > first. With that much said: > > I think most of you are missing the point. Let me rephrase this in the > form of a question: > > What is the point of becoming certified? > > I think we can all agree that the point of becoming certified is so that an > independent third party "certifies" our competency, or level of > understanding, in a field of study. We desire this third-party > acknowledgement so that peers and employers will understand, at a glance, > that we have at least the minimum level of understanding to pass > examinations of a certain difficulty. > So, given this set of parameters, what happens when those obtaining > certification do not have the minimum skills, as defined by the > certification process? We must conclude that the certification process is > not reliable, not valid, or both not reliable and not valid. Is it the > fault of those obtaining, or seeking to obtain, certification? No. It's > the fault of the third-party certifier. When this situation occurs, the > certification process should be revised so that it's both reliable and > valid, reducing the number of certified individuals who are incompetent as > defined by the minimum standards of the level of certification in > question. It's at this point that we're faced with a reality > check: vendors don't particularly care that some of the certified > individuals don't meet at least minimum standards. Why? They have a pool > of individuals who have staked time and money on the certification process > and won't readily abandon the desire to keep working. To keep working, > they have to make sure that their employer keeps the product on which > they're certified in stock. With little effort, besides offering someone > the satisfaction of obtaining the letters of certification, the vendor has > gained a massive "indentured" sales force. > > When hiring someone for an open position, I used to look at experience, > certifications, formal education, and references, in that order. I did > this because experience showed what the candidate had done, certifications > showed at least a certain amount of direct competency in a study area, > formal education showed at least a certain broad level of knowledge, and > references verified the experience. Today I look at experience, formal > education, references, and finally, certifications. Why the > change? Because anymore, the certifications don't really tell me what a > candidate knows; they're not a valid or reliable indicator of competency. > > Who's to blame for the devaluation of certain certifications? Certainly > not the paper certs themselves. While some argument could be made that > those only in it for the money are at fault, I acknowledge that we're all > looking for a better life and the paper certs see an opportunity and are > taking it in an effort to better their lives. Personally, I blame the > vendors and the training centers. Vendors need a certain "critical mass" > of certified individuals to meet marketing objectives and have thus lowered > the barrier to entry. Training centers only care about making a buck off > the current hot certification. You've all heard the ads..."Get CCNA > certified in 2 weeks and join the ranks of those making $70k a year!". The > training centers know the realities, but aren't about to advertise them > since few people would enroll in a course if they realized that two weeks > of training and a CCNA will get you only a foot in the door at a very low > salary. > > So, why bother with the certification at all? A few reasons: > 1) Given that all else is equal on two resumes, most employers generally > bring in the certified person for an interview before the non-certified. > 2) The market still looks for certifications, irrespective of knowledge, > for some positions. You've all seen the ads...CCNP required, CCNA > preferred. Some companies don't understand the process and don't want to
RE: Paper CCXX ...LONG
Bottom line for most job hunters is "what needs to be on my resume so the recruiter will forward it to company X" The simple answer is certs relevant to the position. Once at the interview, it is the job of the company at hand to screen the paper certs vs. the real McCoy vs. the up and coming. Most of these posts imply that paper certs include anyone without a CCIE or without extensive experience in [insert skill here] as a paper cert. The reason we have paper certs is because employers tolerate them. If you have hire/fire authority get rid of your dead weight and hire someone new. What have you got to lose??? Grab your n*ts (or female equiv), counsel/mentor/whatever your subordinates and put their future directly on their shoulders... I've seen plenty of paper certs myself but I am not in any position to do anything about it but I imagine some of you are. So when Monday roles around, some one on the list should get their local paper cert in their office and put him on notice. Let's let this thread die already... It's not as elitist as some of the previous ones but it heading in that direction... if you have any doubts, notice how the well respected members on this list are not contributing... as far as I'm concerned, that says it all. Tim _ FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Paper CCXX ...LONG
Ok...before I even begin addressing this point, let me state that I think that there's value in obtaining certification and that I certainly admire everyone who's taken the time and money to better himself, or herself, through the certification process. However, as someone who hires network people, I have a problem with paper certs and in this post, I'll explain why. If you're going to flame me, at least read through the entire post first. With that much said: I think most of you are missing the point. Let me rephrase this in the form of a question: What is the point of becoming certified? I think we can all agree that the point of becoming certified is so that an independent third party "certifies" our competency, or level of understanding, in a field of study. We desire this third-party acknowledgement so that peers and employers will understand, at a glance, that we have at least the minimum level of understanding to pass examinations of a certain difficulty. So, given this set of parameters, what happens when those obtaining certification do not have the minimum skills, as defined by the certification process? We must conclude that the certification process is not reliable, not valid, or both not reliable and not valid. Is it the fault of those obtaining, or seeking to obtain, certification? No. It's the fault of the third-party certifier. When this situation occurs, the certification process should be revised so that it's both reliable and valid, reducing the number of certified individuals who are incompetent as defined by the minimum standards of the level of certification in question. It's at this point that we're faced with a reality check: vendors don't particularly care that some of the certified individuals don't meet at least minimum standards. Why? They have a pool of individuals who have staked time and money on the certification process and won't readily abandon the desire to keep working. To keep working, they have to make sure that their employer keeps the product on which they're certified in stock. With little effort, besides offering someone the satisfaction of obtaining the letters of certification, the vendor has gained a massive "indentured" sales force. When hiring someone for an open position, I used to look at experience, certifications, formal education, and references, in that order. I did this because experience showed what the candidate had done, certifications showed at least a certain amount of direct competency in a study area, formal education showed at least a certain broad level of knowledge, and references verified the experience. Today I look at experience, formal education, references, and finally, certifications. Why the change? Because anymore, the certifications don't really tell me what a candidate knows; they're not a valid or reliable indicator of competency. Who's to blame for the devaluation of certain certifications? Certainly not the paper certs themselves. While some argument could be made that those only in it for the money are at fault, I acknowledge that we're all looking for a better life and the paper certs see an opportunity and are taking it in an effort to better their lives. Personally, I blame the vendors and the training centers. Vendors need a certain "critical mass" of certified individuals to meet marketing objectives and have thus lowered the barrier to entry. Training centers only care about making a buck off the current hot certification. You've all heard the ads..."Get CCNA certified in 2 weeks and join the ranks of those making $70k a year!". The training centers know the realities, but aren't about to advertise them since few people would enroll in a course if they realized that two weeks of training and a CCNA will get you only a foot in the door at a very low salary. So, why bother with the certification at all? A few reasons: 1) Given that all else is equal on two resumes, most employers generally bring in the certified person for an interview before the non-certified. 2) The market still looks for certifications, irrespective of knowledge, for some positions. You've all seen the ads...CCNP required, CCNA preferred. Some companies don't understand the process and don't want to understand the process. All that matters is that the VP wants someone with a certification on the network team. 3) The partner program is going to put more emphasis on having x number of certified individuals, at all levels of certification. Bottom line? Paper certs aren't going away. I think they'll decline a bit as the economy slows and dumps more experienced people into the job market, but overall I think they're going to continue to become more common as long as people believe that you can get something for nothing. As an employer, my only defense is to look for experience and a proven track record. As an employee, my only defense is to back up the cer
