[NRF] Uh, no the free market responds by giving preference to certain well-known elite colleges. Everybody knows that not every bachelor's degree is born the same. Some are far more valuable than others. Goldman Sachs will send recruiters to Harvard, but not Podunk Community College. And this is well understood - this is why parents want their kids to attend the best school they can.
[JN] Yeah, but does the "college happy" HR dude (your idol) who says "bachelors required" on dinky IT jobs (e.g. desktop support tech) pay attention to that? As far as he's concerned all BSs are BSs, and they are all "superior" to non-graduates. Remember that we are talking about IT jobs, not "top mamanegent" or "top financial analyst" positions. [NRF] First of all, what "admissions fiasco"? Are you saying that because of the abundance of information that all of a sudden everybody's getting a perfect score on their SAT's? I don't see that happening. Do you? If so, please [JN] The admissions process is a fiasco, but that is another issue. Are you implying that all the certified people are "getting perfect scores" because of braindumps and bootcamps? [NRF] that all of a sudden because of the abundance of information, everybody is now a star athlete or class president, or all those other factors that help [JN] Ah, I see, we wish for a hierarchial classification of tech in the same manner a college partitions its student body: i.e. a class president or class athlete, as in "star router dude test# 652-STAR," a "position" in cert society achieved by fulfilling a number of criteria. Perhaps one such criterion is "popularity among router dudes, most elegant telnet typist, and IOS orator." [JN] all in (stale) humor--:) [NRF] And then you talk about what people do when they're in college. If students are using the Internet to cheat, then that's really a problem with cheating in general and not with information abundance. That's why schools are implementing policies to check for the very kind of cheating that you have stated - school administrators themselves are keeping tabs on websites where you can download papers and other such 'tools'. [JN] Is that so? So we shouldn't see a problem in braindumps, now, should we? Those who don't wish to cheat, don't cheat. Is that a fair assessment? So, should those who don't cheat get the chance to be evaluated fairly? [NRF] Yet the same thing applies just as equally to the certification process. [JN] I never said anything differently. [NRF] You talk about guys hacking test answers or getting ready-made term papers. Yet there have been several cases in Asia where CCIE proctors have been caught selling actual test questions on the black market. Right now, there are certain websites in China that will sell you these questions (I am obviously not going to name any of these websites here). And you talk about some people hiring term-paper franchises, yet people have engaged in the practice of hiring guys to take their CCIE test for them. [JN] Same in colleges. Fraud is part of this "fast paced life." Hey, the more "degree happy" HR dudes start knocking certs, the more corrupt the degree will be, and the more integrity the cert programs will have. Yup, it's all about "supply and demand." [NRF] The point is that cheating cuts both ways. Every single cheating method that you have mentioned in the academic world has its equivalent method in the cert world. I don't see that academic cheating is any more serious than certification cheating. So it's a wash. [JN] I agree completely. Amazing, but true! [JN] OK, chap, I was wrong about you---:) (besides the fact that people are sick of this thread. Actually, it sounds like they're have a good laugh--:)) > I said it earlier: Any > such > generalization and "benchmarking" will be counterproductive and > damaging to > the process of choosing employees, particularly for our field. > It is > unfair, and it is stupid. [NRF] Yet strangely enough, this is precisely what corporate America does. So basically you're saying that they're wrong and you're right? If so, then [JN] Yup, that is what I am saying, but they are also changing their ways. I've been looking at job requirements posted on the net, and the "degree required" is now increasingly replaced with the more complete "bachelors degree or equivalent experience and education." So, my "side" is winning the battle a bit! --:) > [NRF] And many others who are far more experienced in taking > the lab > interestingly > enough agree with me. > > [JN] Produce them. [NRF] OK. John Kaberna. Hansang Bae. Kwame Gordon. To name a few. [NRF] Who do you got? [JN] What do they say? Chuck, for one, answered in detail. I remember his description of the lab test when he first took it. >I can vouch for the fact that certs have > not gotten > easier in and of themselves. [NRF] Then ask yourself why is it that lab bootcamps are such a thriving business? Either it's because they make it easier to pass the exam or all the people who choose to buy them are stupid and throwing their money away. I don't think it's the latter. Therefore you must conclude that bootcamps make things easier. It then follows that the test is easier nowadays when there are bootcamps around then in the past when there were no bootcamps. [JN] I never said I like bootcamps, and I never said I like braindumps. I also never denied the damage that things like this do to the integrity of the cert programs. >I can also vouch for the fact > that a college > degree can be obtained with much more ease than before, but > that is my > personal experience and bias talking. > Remember, I am also a > graduate in > addition to holding certifications, although in completely > unrelated fields. [NRF] As am I, and I am telling you that it is the opposite. Moreover, I got corporate America implicitly on my side. How's that? Simple. If degrees were getting easier to obtain, then why do college graduates, on average, still continue to make more money than non-graduates? Do you think companies enjoy paying grads more? Do you think they like it? Oh, wait, because you're a college graduate, cool, then here have a higher salary because, you know us, we enjoy earning less profit? Come on. If college really is getting easier, then companies should respond by paying them less (supply and demand, if supply increases, then the equilibrium price drops). Are they doing that? I don't see it. [JN] "Corporate America" is wising up when it comes to our field, as I mentioned above. [JN] I was measuring college of the present with the college of the past. It was tougher to get through the curriculum in the past. Sure, as populations grow, the "top colleges" are harder to get into, but the college experience - even in those "top colleges" is much more lax than before. There are simply less demands on the student, from what I have seen. Medical doctors even complain that their new peers are less capable due to the "cram session" nature of medical schools of today. [JN] I have seen the reverse trend in the cert tests themselves, even in Microsoft tests. There was one downgrade in Microsoft's testing history, and that was the TCP/IP test where the NT 3.51 TCP/IP test was a nightmare for novices, and the 4.0 TCP/IP test was noticeably easier; but that is the only one I have seen. The rest have stayed consistent and are getting to be slightly more difficult. BOTTOM LINE: A person should be judged - as holistically as possible - as the situation requires. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70545&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
