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 certification with knowledge
and experience.
"But wait!", you say. What about those of us with the CCNx and no
experience? How are we supposed to get experience if no one will hire us
without experience? In a nutshell, my recommendation is to be realistic
about your expectations. If you were a waitress 2 weeks ago making $17k,
you can't expect that you're going to get $50k today just because you
obtained your CCNA. There are employers out there who will hire people
with little to no experience. However, the employers are taking a risk and
they're not going to gamble much on the outcome. I've hired people with
absolutely NO experience in IT, but they were paid appropriately for
someone who could offer little more than a pair of hands to the
company. As their experience grew, so did their salary; often doubling in
the first year.
Just my $0.04 (since it was a long post)....
Craig
At 03:51 PM 3/17/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>I will probably get yelled at for this one but...
>
>I am a CCNA, CCDA, CCNP, and yes going after the CCIE.
>So up front I am not against certs.
>
>I am becoming aware of more and more people becoming
>Cisco certified and not know enough to go and actually
>do the work. Our company has and is interviewing for
>network folks, I have the opportunity to interview
>these people to verify technical experience. I have
>had CCNA, CCNP, and yes even CCIE written folks who
>could not tell me what they 'should' acutally know.
>
>
>This scares me because I am also working hard toward
>my certs and the CCIE. But it has been proven and is
>showing up more that these people are becoming "paper"
>Cisco folks, as in the paper MCSE.
>
>I know and hope the CCIE LAB and title will remain as
>difficult if not more so in the future. I for one do
>not want to spend a year of my life gaining the CCIE
>title to be one among thousands who also have it.
>
>That is my insite and hope Cisco will
>try to make it more difficult to obtain the CCNP/DP
>and not become another MCSE program.
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>_________________________________
>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]
