Hell, if you have an engineering degree, you typically have to amass at least 5 years experience _post-graduation_ to finally even get the opportunity to be licensed. In the meantime, they call you a "Certified Intern" after you pass the first test. But at _no_time_ does the state/national board _ever_ "REVOKE" your college degree or "delist you." In the US, they will _always_ certify you as having an ABET Accredited BSE and passing the Engineering Fundamentals or Engineering Technology Fundamentals exam. Once you go through the hoops of your ~3 month investigation, then you can sit the Practices exam and get your license.
But let's say you studies Engineering Technology and not Engineering. So you get to skip that 5 year internship and it is drastically reduced. That's more akin to IT (a form of Engineering Technology). Now let's say you have your ET License, you're still in the same boat every 5 years. Because every 5 years or so, you MUST maintain "continuing education" - if you don't, your license will expire and you will be an "inactive engineer" or "inactive engineering technologist." You can still work, but if a job requires an ACTIVE cert with the board to manage a project, you might find yourself on the team instead of signing off on it. You often have to go back through the submission process again, and many US states wil require you to resit the exam (or at least significant portions of it) if you are "INACTIVE" when you re-apply. Same deal now in the LPI world. They don't "discredit" your "base Linux theory." But just like a certified engineer intern or licensed engineer/engineer technologist is *NOT* solely based on whatever classes you took, but that you have passed current exams *OR* passed former exams *AND* maintained "continuing education." The principles of UNIX/Linux are an engineering technology in principle. So same application as a certified engineering technologist who may have been actively licensed at one time, but is now INACTIVE by either his/her choice or failure to meeting continuing requirements, including education. *FURTHERMORE*, I want to point out most engineering boards will gladly accept extensive experience as a _replacement_ for a college degree. As such, the "college degree" isn't really even a factor - let alone it has _never_ been a factor when it comes to on-going, continuing, "real world" technical knowledge, even for "traditional engineers." Much less engineering technologists, land surveyors and countless other technologists and technicians. - Bryan P.S. Did you know engineering used to be even more of a "theory-based" degree and require a PhD, but less experience, for licensure? It was the British that first stated that only a 2-3 year internship beyond 7-3 year education and experience level for engineers was unacceptable. They changed it to a modified/extended 5 year BS + 5 year internship, and had the audacity to suggest over 3 centuries ago that they have to undergo regular re-certification to "stay current" with technologies and practices that were - gasp - "common technician-level knowledge," but current which couldn't be provided by and in their theory for common practive. The "theory" let's you understand practice, but it is not contemporary on its own. ;-) -- Sent from my Treo -----Original Message----- From: Bryan J. Smith Date: 06.12.8 0:37 To: [email protected], [email protected] Subj: Re: [lpi-discuss] Re: Linux Professional Institute changes Recertification Policy ?? beyond the =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3D?iso-8859-1?q?=5Fsemantics/posturing?=3D, ___the_2_typ?= es of LPIC... From: Frank Vincentelli > After all, do you go back to college every couple of years > to graduate again? YES! It's called "continuing education." Virtually every major, certified/licensed profession based on a traditional/theory-based degree *REQUIRES* you to "go back to school" and gain newer, practical, technical experience under some sort of "certificate program" every 5 years. ;-) The "traditional, base 'theory'" of a "college degree" might be perpetual. But even those professions say on-going, real-world, technical application is "time limited." I can't believe I have to cover this over and over and over again. ;-) -- Sent from my Treo Frank On Thursday December 07, 2006 5:20 pm, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > From: Andreas K. Foerster > > > Well, to me this "inactive" still sounds too much like "invalid". > > (and now comes the real, neverending differences over semantics ;-) > > > So how about a change in the labeling? > > How about a "recertification recommended" status, > > or "current" versus "not current", or "dated", or something > > like that? > > I'm sure others will disagree there too, saying they are worse and make > other suggestions. > > But maybe - JUST MAYBE - it's because LPI is more "in-sync" with > peer-professional/licensing organizations/agencies, but "INACTIVE" merely > and often means you didn't renew, did not meet continuing requirements, > etc... for "ACTIVE" status. > > So at this point, I think everyone should trust LPI's judgement on the > semantics. ;-) > > Although I'm sure that just some of the arrogant engineer coming out in me, > causing me to roll my eyes at the technicians that aren't familar with > many professional regulatory agencies/boards. ;-) I mean, unlike nearly all > other certification programs, LPI even has the program setup for > "PROBATION" and other "disciplinary" actions. > > I mean, other vendors and programs are too busy with marketing and would > just kick you out if you went against their wishes. LPI is trying to build > a program _respected_ by not only peer Linux professionals, but > established, professional and regulatory organizations and agencies in > general. ;-) _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
