""Michael L. Williams"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > More inline =) > > "nrf" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > True, a blend is always better. But let me say this. Experience alone is > > usually better than certs alone. Naturally the blend is better. But if > you > > had to pick one.... (continued later) > > I would agree that experience alone is usually better than certs alone.... > but it depends on "experience in what".... I've beat that horse to death > with the previous X.25/T1 example, so I'll let it lie.... > > > The biggest problem that lab-rats face is simple. They don't have > > experience in working in a production environment. And it gets down to > > simple work attitudes and skills. Will the guy show up on time for his > > shift (if it's shift work)? Will he freak out and break under pressure > > when the network's down and the bosses are screaming at him? If the > > routers are acting oddly, will he approach the problem methodically, or > will > > he pull a cowboy stunt like clearing all the BGP sessions? Does he have a > > personality that lets him relate to and get along with other network guys? > > With a lab-rat CCIE, these questions are all unknown, because he's never > > actually worked on a network before. > > You bring up a very good point...... work attitudes and skills.... This is > something I don't believe experience or certs has anything to do with.... so > it's not quite fair to favor the experience over the certs because > experience has nothing to do with work attitudes (good work ethic, etc) and > skills....
I have to part company with you here. I believe experience is indeed extremely useful as it pertains to work attitudes and skills, for 2 reasons. #1, a guy who has experience has had more chances to mature and develop proper work attitudes. Nobody is just born with proper work attitudes, it has to be learned from somewhere. If not from the parents, then from school, and if not from school, then from the job. For example, I might expect a 16-year-old kid to perhaps not have developed a good understanding of what it and is not acceptable in the workplace, even for a minimum-wage job. That pretty much described myself and all my peers when we were 16, I admit I didn't understand how the world really worked when I was that age. But as you hold down a job, over a period of time you generally you learn more about what it takes to be a good worker. You learn just how important it is to show up on time, present an acceptable personal appearance, get along with your coworkers, etc. etc. The same thing holds true for the networking field - being within an actual datacenter for the first few times may be overwhelming and the first few times you may make silly mistakes - for example, when some new guy brought in a cup of coffee and then put it on top of a server, which is a no-no (because he then spilled it and we had lots of fun watching smoke come out of the server). But as you do it for awhile, you learn the little things that allow you to do your job more productively and more importantly avoid stupid mistakes. You learn what is and is not acceptable behavior. And secondly, experience is important as a benchmark for acceptable work habits. Like I said, let's say a guy had unacceptable work habits. Let's say he was always chronically late for work. Or he showed up to work drunk. Or he had an obnoxious personality and everybody hated him. Or he liked to surf porn in front of women coworkers. Or he was a racist. Or something like that. If this is the case, then it is unlikely that the guy would be able to present a resume full of years of solid experience, because it is likely that he would have been fired before he had a chance to build up any significant experience, and certainly he probably would not be able to provide good references who are willing to validate his experience. So if a guy can show a demonstrable and verifiable amount of solid experience, then it is likely that he indeed has acceptable work habits, because if he didn't, then why exactly did those other companies keep him on? Now, like I said, this rule is not absolute, clearly there are exceptions. But in general it is true that if a guy has lots of experience, then it is quite likely that his work habits are acceptable. You simply can't say that with the "L" word guy. An "L" guy has demonstrated that he could show up on time for 2 appointments ( the written and the lab), and that his personality wasn't so obnoxious that he didn't completely piss off the proctor. But other than that, you really can't say much of anything. He might be a complete as*hole to his coworkers. He might have a problem showing up on time. He might make racist statements at work. Etc. etc. Now you might say that this could be the case with the experienced guy too, but what I'm saying is that it is much less likely (because again, if his behavior and attitude really was unacceptable, then his previous companies should have fired him before they did, so how exactly did he manage to build up all that experience in the first place?). > > (Yet another anecdote) I used to do PC support and then later server admin > work...... although my experience in networking was not much (I knew what > routers, switches, and hubs were, and understood IP and subnetting, but by > no means had any hands-on with Cisco network gear), I had a solid record of > having good work habits, being good at troubleshooting, using logic, > learning new things, and being able to multitask... My CCNA, CCNP, etc > aren't meant to show an employer that I'm reliable. They're meant to show a > level of knowledge.... My resume and past work history (and letters of > recommendations, references, etc) are meant to vouch for my reliability. > Now, the gentleman I spoke of earlier that is the lead engineer in my group, > has years of experience and is very good with Cisco gear..... but he is the > *first* one to "pull a cowboy stunt" in an attempt to get things working... > (he smoked 2 - 6500Sup2s trying to convert from Hybrid to Native because he > *refused* to (even made fun of me for) following the steps from Cisco's > website). As an aside it's funny you used the phrase 'cowboy' because > that's the exact phrase I used when trying to explain him to my other > network friends...... also used the phrase "shoot from the hip"...... =) > > So to recap my point here, to favor experience over certs because of 'work > ethic and skills' is a demonstration in faulty logic because one should > consider ones work ethic and skills aside from experience or certs. i.e. > Experience and certs are ways to quantize ones knowledge. Work ethic and > skills are a way to judge one's ability to be a good worker...... They're > (IMHO) mutually exclusive. Again, I don't see that work ethic and attitudes are separate from experience. See above. > > > And more to the point, I wouldn't have hired him because I have personally > > had bad experiences with lab-rats. One guy just sat around and played > > Solitaire all-day and while still demanding a high salary. Another 2 > > completely screwed up a bunch of 6500's and 4000's that we had (remember, > > those switches are not part of the exam). > > I understand your bad experiences.... It sounds to me like your blaming the > cert for lack of being able to choose qualified employees.... (not meant to > piss you off, but you cannot even begin to blame the cert for Mr. Solitaire > being a lazy sack no more than I can blame a college for a lazy graduate.... > I mean he sat around playing Solitaire and demanded a high salary.... who > was the fool that agreed to pay or or didn't fire his ass?) Hey, don't blame me. I didn't have hiring or firing power at the time, I was just a low-level manager. Yes you could have said that my upper-level managers were idiots, but that's a whole 'nother story. > > As far as the labrats toasting a couple of switches, as I pointed out above, > where I work Mr. Cowboy lead engineer, with tons of experience, fried two > Sup2s because he didn't wanna follow directions..... so again, blaming the > cert (IMHO) isn't valid because I could turn that around and blame > experience for the same thing..... (i.e. "well, he's got years of > experience... he should've *known* better") (I mean, I was a 'virtually > experienceless' CCNP, but I've never toasted a switch, router, etc because > I'm NOT A BOOB!!! I know how to READ DIRECTIONS) (not shouting at you, > just adding emphasis) (you like my multi-parenthesis statements..?. hehe) > (it's like they'll never stop.....) (ever).... LOL Again, I believe that experienced people make less mistakes than merely-certified people. That's not to say that they don't make any mistakes. But less. Why do I believe that? Simple. Experienced people by definition have been around the workplace a long time and therefore have had numerous opportunities to make decisions that have possibly negative consequences to them and their careers. For example, experienced people understand intimately through personal experience that if they make critical errors, they can and will be fired. People who are only certified don't have this experience. So on the whole, do to their own personal experience, it follows that experienced people are more careful in what they do because they have a much greater likelihood of having had to face career-threatening choices. A merely-certified guy is unlikely to really understand what it means to be in a situation where, say, knowing that if he makes the wrong move doing such-and-such, he'll have to go up to the boss and explain why the network is fried. And more to the point, since experienced people are more likely to have gone through such traumatic events, they will likely know how to deal with such high stress in a graceful way. Why? Because they've already been through the baptism of fire. This phenomena has been born out in the military, where soldiers who have actually been in bonafide combat are clearly many times more effective than green troops. Surely you can imagine a situation where the entire datacenter is fried, the bosses are yelling and threatening to fire everybody, and the merely-certified guys are in a state of panic and shock , and the only guys who are still productive are the guys with experience. Steel nerves is what I'm talking about, and that is another thing that experience gives you that certs can't. > > > So I agree with you that some > > lab-rats are obviously good. But on the other hand, there are enough bad > > ones out there that it makes me wary to hire one. > > Again I think you could make the case (even moreso) for experienced > people...... "There are enough bad people out there that it makes me wary > to hire one" > > > And surely you would > > agree, employers are looking to reduce risk when hiring people, so they > will > > go for something safe. Obviously not all of them are bad. But enough of > > them are like this that it gives the employers pause. > > I do agree that employers are looking to reduce risk when hiring people..... > But that goes back to the "show up on time, etc" work ethic and skills.... > something experience nor certs can change.... People with shoddy work > records give employers pause. People with bad references give employers > pause...... Aside from knowing EIGRP and how to various network tasks, my > bosses main (#1) concern when hiring someone is that they got along well > with the rest of the group..... They could have been Mr. Quad-CCIE but they > wouldn't have made it off probation if their work habits sucked and they > couldn't get along with the rest of the crew...... Once again, I think indeed experience has something to do with it, for the 2 reasons I stated above .First, many people learn what is acceptable behavior through their first few jobs, and second, experience serves as a useful, albeit imperfect filter (but there is no perfect filter) of who has proper work attitudes and who doesn't - guys who have lots of solid experience are unlikely to have poor work habits (because if they did, then again, how exactly did they manage to build up all that experience in the first place?). > > Mike W. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44420&t=44342 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
