From: Luiz Carlos Ramos > conclusion #2: even doing nothing may be better than to engage in > continued education, e.g., if one feel that the benefit would be small > enough to offset the costs, and there are no other good options
From: Bryan J. Smith > I keep hearing the terms "training costs" and "loss of value," so let > me change the perspective. > ... > If you are Linux experienced, preparation for Exams 101, 102, > 201 and 202 can be accomplished by a mere REVIEW of the objectives! > Unlike virtually ANY other program (and I've taken 40 > exams), I don't have to go off and research the "vendor answer" > or get the "official training materials with the answers," > even though I've got 10 years of Cisco experience ... cut ... > Other vendor and vendor-independent, but training-focused > programs do NOT publish even the "outlines" or "slides" of their > training materials that would MATCH what LPI discloses. I wanted to clarify that my inclusion of Luiz's comments were not because I thought he was a trainer (I know he's not). My comments were directed at the fact that there are _no_costs_ if you are "keeping active" with Linux usage _other_ than reviewing the objectives, which are _very_ detailed and do _not_ require "vendor" or "official" materials or training to "get the right answers." So the traditional arguements of "training costs" really don't apply IMPO. That was my point, and _not_ to suggest Luiz was motivated by other considerations. My apologies if I painted Luiz as otherwise by responding to his post after another. If you are a trainer, you should be proliferating the fact that: 1) You *NEVER* have to re-certify to keep using the title/logo perpetually - which is UNIQUE in the industy! And ... 2) Even if re-certifying for the "ACTIVE" flag, re-training is _optional_ as there are NO "uncommon answers" in the entire program that "experienced" Linux professionals don't already know AND won't know what to expect because those objectives are _extensive_ in _specifics_. Otherwise, most of the commentary and analysis I've seen here is wholly _inapplicable_ FUD as applied to the LPIC program. You should be dispelling it (like myself), instead of adding to it and hurting your peers. -- Sent from my Treo _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
