Amen to that. Humility is called for on both sides. Apparently I've been tagged around here as the 'King Experience' guy. The very ironic thing is that on another message board, I was the person who was arguing that experience was NOT as important as other posters had indicated (this was an experience vs. college degree argument). Basically it boiled down to the fact that while experience is indeed extremely valuable, particularly nowadays, even experience can sometimes be taken too far. For example, one guy said that experience always wins no matter what (which is patently false), so I gave him the example of 2 guys, whereas both guys had good experience, but the first guy had stellar degrees from the most famous schools, all kinds of certs, a killer personality, and everything else, whereas the second guy had none of that (besides the experience ), but he had a day's more experience. Hey, if experience really beat everything all the time, then companies should always pick the second guy, because after all, he had more experience (one additional day). Clearly this is false.
My point is simply this. Experience, education, certs, work attitude, etc. etc., they all form your suite of qualifications. None of them should be pursued at the exclusion of all others. In fact, the best strategy seems to be to work on your weaknesses. For example, if you have lots of certs and education, but no experience, then get experience. Conversely, if you have lots of experience, but no certs and no education, then go get certs and education. ""Thomas Larus"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I thought the "experience versus certification" debate had finally died a > few days ago, but now it resurfaces over on the professional list. I may as > well weigh in. > > The problem here is clear. Some folks with lots of experience are scared > (or merely offended) that some manager or client might think some relative > newbie with great-sounding certs is as good or better (or even nearly as > good) as the more experienced folks. Many of these experienced people > gained their experience in difficult or underpaid conditions. The last > thing they want is some ambitious upstart invaders studying hard in the lab, > then walking into their field and being treated as their peers. The > "experience is everything" crowd should relax right now, because in this > economy, they are in the driver's seat. > > One the other hand, the lab rats, myself included, are justifiably scared. > We knew that if by studying hard we managed to reach a higher position than > our experience alone would justify, we might face some hostility from those > with lots of experience. Now, however, we are given to understand that for > employers right now, experience is king, since there are plenty of folks > with lots of experience and good certs to fill all positions that HAVE to be > filled (as opposed to those positions that employers advertise but are in no > hurry to fill). > > Then, there's the common complaint that, "I'm always having to fix the > networks screwed up by the paper-CCNAs, paper-MCSEs, Lab Rats, etc." I > have enough experience to know that plenty of the screwing-up of networks is > done by folks with lots of experience. It doesn't take long in the field to > run across an arrogant but extremely experienced guy who thinks he is the > only person in his company who knows anything, and then proceeds to break > things that he then cannot fix. > > A little humility is called for in a field where almost no one can know > everything and where most of the greatest gurus make glaring errors. > > Best regards, > Tom Larus > > "Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > At 1:49 PM -0400 5/21/02, Thompson Alton wrote: > > >Your comments are false and you sound very ignorant. > > >I work with guys who have 20 years experience and to trouble shoot a > problem > > >take months. > > > > I suggest, Sir, that you examine your logic. > > > > The Internet and predecessors (including enterprise networks) are at > > least 20-30 years old. I first used a time-sharing computer, with > > remote access, about 1968. > > > > Cisco certification is under 10 years old. > > > > The Internet and its predecessors worked before Cisco certification > > > > Some people with 20 years experience, therefore, MUST be very > > knowledgeable on protocols. Other people with 20 years experience > > are not. > > > > >This is because they don't know how the protocols work. How > > >much money can a company afford to lose when production is downloading > for a > > >considerable amount of time? That's why as a mangersm we send Engineers > on > > >training to learn about new and merging technologies. And thatms before > you > > >can put or do any upgrades to the production network you must first try > it > > >out in the lab. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=44685&t=44653 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
