On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Loftin, Greg wrote:
We've been around on this ride a few times in the past, but some of these
predicates don't hold...
> In a highly competitive field, *with all other things remaining equal*, the
> nod will likely go to the individual who has *documented proof* that he
> possesses a body of knowledge in the field for which he is being considered
For that, the certification has to be indicitive of a body of knowledge,
not indicitive of spending money or going to a week-long series of
courses. In the *specific* case of the current crop of certifications, I
know a handful of *very* competent people who have at least one and
*don't* advertise it in technical circles. That says a great deal about
the "value" of such certifications. As long as the field is complex,
wide-ranging, or requires extreme accuracy, certifications are only
extremely useful if the current body of top practicioners are all
certified - otherwise, it is only a metric of the "below the top." If the
world's very best surgeons were all uncertified- leaving anyone else who
wanted to be a doctor as board certified- would _you_ use that as a
metric to choose who opened up your brain?
> and that he has put fourth *a little* extra effort to enhance his value
It could also mean that he or she went job-shopping for credentials on
their last employer's time, didn't know enough about the field to get
hired on merit alone, or would rather go to classes than provide actual
value to the business. It could mean that they worked for a contracting
firm which required certifications to get contracts.
> which *could be* indicative of the additional effort that *may be*
> demonstrated in the work place.
But more likely means something else entirely.
Since the last time this went around, I've discovered two more CISSPs with
clue - neither of whom advertises their CISSP in technical circles. I've
also met one more CISSP who underwhelmed me so much on the hands-on
security side that we're spending *more* money with another company of
uncertified but competent people to do the "real work." We also had one
that didn't make it past my unclued boss' phone screen. Out of the
couple-dozen or so CISSPs I've met to date, the bulk were ex-mainframers
(and I was (a) a mainframe assembly language/PL/I developer for a number
of years, and (b) a mainframe systems programmer for a few years) who were
so blindsided by the demise of the mainframe that the certification was
their last resort to remaining gainfully employed. The majority fo the
rest seem to be good at writing policies and graphs. The 3 remaining
have all gotten (as far as I know) their certifications because of
contract requirements. To me, that doesn't speak well of the process -
but I'm not the only one to evaluate the program- and outside of the
collection of people who took it to remain employable, I'm sure that
you'll find people who find it useful. Microsoft and Novell
certifications are still negative metrics in my book - you lose points for
having either compared to someone who charges ahead and learns and does
without costly and sometimes time-wasting certification processes. The
CCIE remains the single IT-based certification that doesn't seem to have
many detractors.
If certification bodies continue to turn out low-level certifications,
non-real-world testing criteria, and not address the gap between the top
10% uncertified practicing professionals and the less-qualified "paper
holders", we'll continue to see a wide range of disagreement in the value
of certifications. Since I've yet to see anyone who wasn't absolutely
desperate for employement without the requsite skill-set pay for their own
certification, study on their own time entirely, etc. (outside of
self-employed contractors obviously) I don't see how they can fall above
someone who digs into things on their own, learns all they can, and then
demonstrates that with real-world projects. I know what I'd rather hire,
work around, and provide mentoring to.
YMMV,
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
