On Sat, 2004-07-31 at 15:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How can we get out the word that certification is valuable to both
> employers and employees (and not just a MCSE paperwork shuffle)?
Be careful with such statements.
Microsoft might have been caught "red handed" in "auto-passing" tier-1
OEM technicians *COUGH*Digital*COUGH* back in the NT 4.0 days, but the
MCSE program is not so "watered down" anymore -- especially for the
newer MCSE 2000/2003 exams. Microsofts newer testing methodologies are
about where Novell was in the latter '90s, which aren't half-bad.
Questions are still ambiguous as hell, but test to a far greater depth
now. I still passed all without failing, which may mean they are still
"weak," but I did the same for the full Cisco CCDP/CCNP track too and
even all of Sun's "memorization required" exams (SCSA, SCNA, SCSecA).
But yes, LPI has a far better pyschometric approach that doesn't require
the "ambiguity" of Microsoft or the "memorization" of Sun either.
The problem is that only about 10-15% of MCSEs are 2000+, and there is
no incentive for many to update themselves since the titles are no
different. The only way I've seen some companies try to "prevent" old
NT 4.0 MCSEs apply for positions is by requiring the MCSA (which is only
available for 2000+).
I think professional word-of-mouth is the best way to tell people about
LPI. I do my damnest to do so day in and day out.
-- Bryan J. Smith, MCSA, MCSE 2000, 2000:Security and 25 other certs
--
Engineers scoff at me because I have IT certifications
IT Pros scoff at me because I am a degreed engineer
I see and understand both of their viewpoints
Unfortunately Engineers and IT Pros only see in me
what they dislike about the other trade
------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
