IT Certification Less Important Now?

lpq writes "IT certifications, popular after the dot-com bust, seem to be hurting careers now according to this article in the current Eweek.com issue. Guess employers are getting hip to the idea that those who don't have experience or can't "do", get certified..."

Re:write on your resume

"UNIX and all will be fine."

...at least up until the point where they put you at a bash prompt and ask you to perform some tasks :)

My current position as a *nix SysAdmin required that I take a long written (as in - paper and pencil) test on some rather complex questions involving Solaris, BSD, and Linux (e.g. - "write a script that will cancel all mail messages in a courier queue that is more than X days old and report/mail the results to all current admins"). Once I was hired, I discovered that most other people who wanted the job and wrote "UNIX" in their resumes would apparently come up against a brick wall rather hard if they didn't have the experience behind the ink.

But then, you can find out in five minutes at a shell prompt whether or not someone really knows *nix, as opposed to a GUI environment where a candidate can guess-and-click their way to success.

/P

Re:write on your resume

Real UNIX typically doesn't include BASH ;)

Re:write on your resume

That is a little silly, man. I mean, I don't know how to do that, but I do know where to look. Knowing where to find answers is the most vital part of being a sysadmin in the linux/unix world, because you can never know everything, and every company has their own special way of doing things.

It's the same thing about programming. Learning to program, and learning how to program in XYZ are two different things. T

Re:write on your resume

I remember when I got my first web development job. I had the skills but no experience, and a piece of paper from a closed school in another country. The interview consisted of 10 minutes of chatting, after which they asked me to implement a simple web app that did reads, inserts, updates and deletes on a database. I asked if they minded me using the reference bookshelf in the process, as I was a little rusty, and it wasn't a problem. I skimmed through the books, refreshed my memory, and had the thing built in about twenty minutes... it wasn't particularly challenging, particularly when I had the books on hand.

I was the last of seven applicants, and the only one without a university degree in computer science. I was also the only one to complete the project. From what I was told, it took all the other applicants with their certifications at least 6 hours to not succeed in a simple task that they weren't familiar with. I got hired on the spot.

Certifications don't mean shit. If I was hiring someone, I'd be looking at their project experience. What I'd be looking for is a series of successful projects that were NOT all the same. THAT is what demonstrates your capacity to fix problems.

Re:write on your resume

I read somewhere the following about being a Systems Admin:

Systems Administation is about knowing what you know, knowing what you don't know and figuring out how to know what you don't know. ....or something like that.

slashdot summary is just plain wrong

There is nothing in the article stating IT certifications are hurting careers. To summarize the real article:

• some certifications have lost value in the market (MCDST, CISA, NCDE, MCNE, CNA)
• some certifications have gained value (SCNP, CISM, MCT)
• companies are also beginning to pay closer attention to skills rather than certifications.
• 14 certifications have grown in value, showing an 11 percent or higher growth over the last year (directly contradicting the slashdot article thesis)

I personally think certification is bullhockey, but I don't necessarily hold that someone has a certification against them. Doing so (subtracting value for certification) would be akin to disrespecting someone for having a college degree, and that doesn't make sense.

So, if you have certs, it isn't going to hurt you. What will hurt you is not having skills companies are looking for (unfortunately, the article is really a little thin on what those skills are. The article does list some very broad categories that are "growing" (whatever that means): Applications Development/Programming Languages, Project Management, Training, Webmaster and Security).

Bottom line, as it probably should be, you're going to get evaluated and paid for performance, not pieces of paper.

Correlation != Causation

In college psych there are 3 things I still reference on a daily basis. One of the biggies was, correlation isn't causation. You are right, just because the average person with a cert might make less than those without does not mean certs cause you to make less.

During the last few years there have been many diploma mills out there. What these numbers lead me to believe are those with real skills didn't have any need to prove it with a 6 week class and a cert. However, this isn't always true. We get up to 5% a year bonus for certs at my job. So most people assume to take one or two a year for that reason.

Certs aren't inherently bad. They are just a symbol of aquired knowledge. By that line of reasoning they are no more fundamentally evil than a degree from a state university. However, in practice, these short term training programs became about who paid most for questions closest to the real test.

I could throw in a antecdotal story of someone having cert x and being dumb as a rock, but I don't really need to. We all know one. And if you don't know one, you probably are that person. 2-8 week cert programs were a fad that HR depts ate up like so much confection spread upon my naked body. It couldn't last forever. PHB's are starting to realize Microsoft certs are a dime a dozen, Novell certs are losing steam (they are changing markets too quick and their customers aren't keeping up with their training), and Cisco certs are still somewhat valueable. But what is valueable now (and will probably always be valueable in the long term) is experiance.

Just a side note... Has anyone seen those Vonage ads on slashdot pwning the fad technologies of the week? It's nice to see sed and awk are still in style 8-)

Re:Correlation != Causation

Many times just the presence of a degree at all is good enough to not get your application tossed right away. If you feel you are already qualified for the job, the best thing you can do is write a quality resume and cover letter. In your cover letter, try and connect somehow with the reader. For example, if you think your employer is looking for a 15 year employee, you can possibly make reference to settling down and wanting long term employement. Also, make it very clear you are not only _willing_ to be trained in new technology, but that it excites you and something you love. It's very rare a given employee is an exact fit, and you want to make it clear to the reader that any areas in which you are lacking you will learn.

If you need training as well, admin and tech positions are possibly the worst to train for. This is by far the most competitve market out there. Why? Because it mostly involves training and not that much critical thinking. Before anyone gets offended, I'm not saying admins are dumb. I do admin work all the time. I also do a million other things. I can tell you, being an admin is by far the most mindless part of my day. That, and tech work.

The part of the day that I have to think the most is by far programming. If you feel that's a path you can take, go for an acclerated AS degree at a community college. You'll pretty much be guaranteed work in the US as a programmer. It's not hip or sexy anymore and there's a severe shortage of good programmers in the states. If you want a middle ground, go for some sort of AS degree in networking. It's harder to configure a Cisco router than being a windows admin, but not as difficult as programming.

Re:slashdot summary is just plain wrong

Not to mention, MCDST is brand new. It's the like easy-cheezy Microsoft cert. The consulting place I used to work wanted me to get a cert every year, but they didn't care which one, and they paid... so... whatever.

The Microsoft Certified Desktop Support Technician cert is exactly that. It's what you'd want the kid behind the counter at the local pee-cee store to have before he works on your next door neighbor's computer. Like, how Windows XP Home works; how email works; how Office works. That stuff.

The bonus to the MCDST is that if you're going for your MCSA (refresher: MCP -> MCSA -> MCSE, in order of knowledge and number of tests), you can substitute the Desktop Cert (which is 2 tests) for the "elective" test. The MCSA is Windows XP Pro, Windows 2003 Server, Windows 2003 Server Network Infrastructure, and an elective. The 2 Desktop tests are easier than the options you're given for electives (SUS Server, etc).

And yes, an MCSA / MCSE is still worth something. People say you can just glance at a book and pass it, but the thing takes 9 tests, some of which are so anal that you do actually have to study, and it helps to have seen it in practice. How many people do you actually know with an up to date MCSE? I know 1. I'm sure on slashdot a lot of people actually have one, or work with a lot of people that have one, but when someone says "Oh, MCSE is a breeze, 10 minutes of studying and I could take it", take them up on it, offer to pay the $100 if they can pass "Exam 70-294: Planning, Implementing, and Maintaining a Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Active Directory Infrastructure" or "Exam 70-285: Implementing and Managing Microsoft Exchange Server 2003". I bet you 95 out of 100 can't do it without studying.

On the other hand, I am glad I'm back to being a Linux admin, where things make sense.

~W

You are correct.

Oh, I don't expect there will ever be parity on pay. In fact, there are lots of reasons for not having that - the supply and demand of skills, as you mention, would be an example. As you increase the availability of a skill, you decrease its value. The only way to escape this is to increase the range of skills available, such that as many people as practical have a skill of significant market value.

Ideally, what you want is for the basic pay of the lowest paid to be comparable to the cost of living at an acceptable standard. (By that, I mean you can get an apartment that shouldn't be condemned, you can afford to meet your nutritional requirements, you can meet reasonable medical expenses, that sort of thing.) At present, there are many below "minimum wage" workers in the US who probably earn half to a third of what I consider an acceptable minimum.

True, there will always be a bottom of the pyramid. That is why you want automation. Machines don't need much, so put them at the bottom and raise humans to a more human level. It's not a perfect solution. I don't have any perfect solutions. But as a temporary fix, whilst society figures out what a perfect solution would look like, it sounds a lot better than what we have now.

When it comes to degrees and certifications, I do understand why rarity affects value. Again, it is supply and demand. On the other hand, breadth and depth of knowledge defines understanding. Merely knowing a formula by rote is nothing more than alchemy or religious indoctrination. It doesn't tell you anything of substance and the moment you fall outside of the straight and narrow, your knowledge becomes worthless.

(This is true of ANY educational program. I am definitely much more in favour of "Classical" or "Renaissance" thinking there, where context and diversity of knowledge was of the utmost importance. "Modern" education does better on the depth, which is important too. Knowing everything about nothing is just as useless as knowing nothing about everything.)

I'd prefer a system that provided continuous education and rolling tests throughout a person's life, or at least provide sabbaticals to approximate that. That way, you can dispense with a lot of the redundancies in the degree program and you can link certifications to a significant quality and quantity of knowledge.

I believe Britain has something like 60% of the population go through the University system now. That's not a bad start, provided the diversity is great enough that the degree has no value. It seems to work OK, but there are still more areas that need work than don't.

(By comparison, there are States in America which barely manage to get 54% of their population to even graduate High School. And, no, that's not because American standards are higher, when something like a third of those can't even find America on a map!)

Re:slashdot summary is just plain wrong

A bachelor degree means 4 years of a wide variety of courses and grades from a variety of professors.

Considering the number of deadweight lab partners I had, who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag, but were quite excellent at reading the book and regurgitating for the test the sort of knowledge that is only useful in the context of the actual application which they were incapable of, I myself have little or no faith in a simple degree. A lot of people graduated higher in their class than I did, but most people didn't do four years in two.

In short, the ability to pass a practical skills test trumps any and all pieces of paper, short of the doctoral level. I'd much rather an excellent programmer with no formal education (not the kind with weird ass logic loops and utterly non-standard syntax...a good one), than someone with a bs BS who can't do anything but wave his diploma around.

Re:slashdot summary is just plain wrong

Moral of the story: Experience matters more than certs. This has always been the case.

Re:slashdot summary is just plain wrong

Let me know which school you went to and I'll be sure to not hire anyone from there without testing them heavily first. Don't generalize your experience at one bad school to the entire higher education system.

Opinions, all of them

Some companies like people with certs. Some don't.

Some companies like people with advanced degrees. Some don't.

Some companies like people in suits. Some don't.

Do what you want, be how you want, and network. That's how you get a job (and more likely how you get one that you'll fit into).

Rule of thumb

Rule of thumb: Anything that allows you to "level up" is out to fuck you, take your money, or both. Examples: School, military, corporate hierarchy, catholic church, world of warcraft, scientology, etc.

Re:Rule of thumb

Rule of thumb: Anything that allows you to "level up" is out to fuck you

Although I agree with you in principle...

In practice, the Mauve Dragons of the Middle Management Plateau still yield before my mighty +3 sword of Spam Slaying (and other "useless" security expertise); My dual-classed L2AA/L4BS Geek-of-Many-Colors Resume still slays the trolls of HR; My numerous cross-platform Certs of Knowledge tame the most pernicious NixClone Daemons; And my White Male +30 racial modifier grants me (fair to the other players or not) a bonus to all rolls for find-treasure/performance-evaluation (nullified by any zone of EEOC or an attractive Half-Succubus apprentice competing for limited treasure apportionment).



Now if only I could apply that to WoW, I'd study my ass off for a PhD in Auriculture with a minor in Ebaynics. But let's not get too silly, here!

Someone tell this to HR.

I don't know about the rest of the Slashdotters here, but I still see lots of job postings that ask for the alphabet soup of certifications. Now though, as opposed to around the time of the Dot Com boom, I see lots of "certifications requested" or "certifications a plus" rather than "certification required".

Re:Someone tell this to HR.

I suppose that explains it being absolutely impossible to google stuff about routers as in woodworking tools. Even if you specify woodworking tool, you'll end up getting some case mod where the person used a coping saw and put a router right into the case.

Great...

So now what? All the new bloods have to wait until all the experienced folk die off before they can get a shot at the industry?

Re:Great...

... or maybe the problem is you type your resume in that font.

Growth

pay premiums for non-certified IT skills grew three times faster than for certified ones

What I would like to know is, does this growth mean non-certified employees are getting paid MORE than certified ones.

If non-certs start with low pay, then it is just natural that they will get a bigger pay rise once they have proven themselves.

Re:Growth

No, and if you read the article it doesn't really say that certification is hurting anyone, just that they're not worth as much as they once were.

I suppose if you factor in the opportunity cost of getting a certification (versus doing something else with that time that's more "real world" experience) maybe it could be thought of as 'hurting' you, but I didn't see any indication that people are paying less for certified employees than uncertified ones. They're just not paying more.

Who does these studies

pay premiums for non-certified IT skills grew three times faster than for certified ones in a six-month period spanning 2005-2006.

That could indicate that certifications are less important to these companies... if they were all getting paid the same salary at the beginning of the six month period. But since we don't have that information, this study is pretty much worthless...

"This is a clear indication that employers are not placing the same emphasis on certification that they once did.

I wish I got paid to make ridiculous statements...

Not Necessarily

I've been on the hiring end of the stick a few times, just enough to decide that it's in my best interest to toss away any resumes that have nothing but certifications listed in the education section.

I think most people who've done a few rounds of hiring will easily note that people in that category simply don't have the required knowledge. Nor do they have the work ethic. A university degree certainly doesn't guarantee intelligence, but it does guarantee you that a person can make it through four continuous years of hard work.

Another point of note is that I once worked at a testing center where they administered many of the popular IT certification exams. It became obvious very quickly that those certifications are designed merely as a money making tool for the companies that produce them. They give you an idea that the person you're hiring can memorize screens and their uses, along with a few technical concepts, and their applications, but that's all they do. (It's also fairly common to find bootleg copies of the exams on the internet).

In the future if I see a long list of certs I'll probably just toss the resume away without going any further. There's no shortage of people out there, but there aren't that many good people, just more and more people with certifications and educations from silly little diploma farm colleges.

I know that I'm not the only who thinks this way too... so yeah I'd say it could hurt.

Given a choice between cert and degree

It depends what you're looking for. If you're hiring based primarily on COST, go for the cert. If you're hiring based on PERFORMANCE- go for the degree holder. He'll cost you more per year- but less per project.

In other words, this is the cheap labor debate all over again. Those who are short sighted (looking only at the money-per-unit-of-time number) will go for the cert still.

I sold my soul to Microsoft

About ten years ago, I got my assorted MS certifications, taking 10 different tests at a cost of $1,000 total. I was new to my current job and found that while it didn't immediately raise my salary, it did get my foot in the door.

Within six months, I was our company's first SQL Server admin. A year after that, I was the sole developer on the newly formed Web Services team. Long-term, the certifications were a very wise investment.

Still, the bottom-line is that people were most impressed by my performance. Being able to study and pass ten different tests probably reflects on my sometimes insane degree of focus, rather than full comprehension. I barely passed my NT certification and only now fully understand the wacky security model.

Never really were important where I am

It all comes down to who is making the decision. I have found in research and university settings the people doing the interviewing and making the hiring decisions are well aquatinted with the details and technology involved. Thus, they can effectively interview someone and make an informed decision on how much competence that person may or may not posses.

Contrast to many (not all) businesses, especially large ones, where techno-clueless HR reps or upper level management are handling this duty. They cannot tell the difference between someone who can BS a bunch of buzzwords and someone who actually knows what they are talking about, so certifications are their crutch.

In hiring decisions I have been involved in, MCSE was sometimes viewed negatively. Not because of any anti-MS bias, but because generally people who cheerlead that aspect of their resume seem to have little else to offer.

Finkployd

As with anything...

...the value depends on the credibility of the certifying authority. Microsoft Certifications have become almost worthless because MS was printing money with the MCP program in the 1990's. Now the tests are (a little) harder, but the barrier to getting certified is still really low in the MS world. Result? MCSE is basically worthless to have these days.

On the other hand, TFA points out the going-rate for certain Cisco certifications is on the rise. Not coincidentally, some of the Cisco certs they refer to are among the hardest to get. MCPs are easy to get, are more common, and thus do not denote any exceptional level of expertise.

Of course, I'd rather hire somebody with a mile-long list of successful projects they've accomplished than an alphabet-soup of certifications. In every hiring scenario I've been involved in so-far, I have always put the people who have DONE something ahead of the certification monkeys. Of crouse, if somebody with experience and "hard" certifications comes along, it doesn't hurt matters.

A+ certification looks bad, imo..

When I was in high school, working at a computer store, I though maybe an A+ certification could help me get paid more and maybe look 'more experienced' to potential clients.

Then I looked at the requirements.. It's a joke. To be certified in A+, you're basically acting like the sole set of computing solutions is the Windows platform. The example tests had questions that seem to attempt to lock you into the idea that only Microsoft products exist and all computer hardware is used to run Microsoft software. So, I decided not to waste my money to get certified.

It looks to me that if someone is willing to waste their time to get A+, the lowliest of certifications, that they probably are not worth much for their time. I think about 80% of the average Slashdot readers could pass the A+ exam no problem just by taking the exam. So, imo, the certification doesn't say much other than you waste your time.

I mean.. if someone put 'passed driver's license test' on his resume, wouldn't that maybe make you think he was 'special?' A+ is the 'special' persons' computer certification. It says, 'even though Bob doesn't look like he can function like a normal Internet user, he actually can because he's A+ certified.'

Re:A+ certification looks bad, imo..

Funny story. Once, at a job interview, I was actually asked if I was "A+ Certified"

My response was, "No, but I don't really think that matters."
They asked immediately (and in a snippy tone of voice), "Why not?"
I shrugged and said, "I used to teach the course."

If anyone asks for A+ for anything other than a simple benchtech position, they obviously have no idea what they need.

Skills

Skills and expirence always trump paper.

But paper often gets you in the door for the interview.

Let's not even have

this discussion... EVERY time this comes up on slashdot, people make the same stupid assumptions and generalizations and trot out the same tired lines.

".. those who don't' have experience or can't "do", get certified...""

Yes, I'm sure they do... but SO DO plenty of people who CAN "do." This is not an "either / or" situation people, where you either have experience, are smart/talented/whatever, OR you get certified. Some very smart, talented people realize that *some* employers do put significant weight on paper credentials, and choose to get certified as just one more part of the overall picture.

Evaluating job candidates is, at best, very difficult... any tool that give an employer any visibility into a candidates abilities is a Good Thing, IMO. No, just being certified by itself doesn't mean you get the job... but if you have to weigh two otherwise equally qualified candidates, and one has passed a difficult certification exam and one hasn't, maybe that tips the balance. Or maybe you have a guy with 2 associate degrees, two relevant certifications, and 4 years of experience, vs. a guy with a bachelors degree who's just out of school... it's not an obvious choice... again, you have to look at the *whole* picture.

Are certifications a panachea; for employers or employees? No, but to suggest that they have no value is just ignorant.

My Recent Experience Concerning Certifications

I think this "argument" has come up 10 times since I started reading slashdot. I had a recent opportunity to test what my certifications did for me. I believe they helped me, and please follow along as I explain.

When I first decided to get certs, I was a college dropout. I had reached mid-junior level in a CompSci track, and taken a local developer job. I was working at a local company doing web application development. This was in the same small town (50k pop) in which I went to school, and was looking to be a well paid fish in a bigger pond. My route was the MCSD (Microsoft Certified Solution Developer) track. In 1999, that meant doing a track with 5 tests, two of which would be VB or C++ centric, a couple of electives, and the two hour "solutions architecture" test. Since I had done of ton of C++ in college but no MS C++, and had a lot of VB and ASP experience, I went the VB route. After passing all of the tests (self study), I soon found a well paying job out of state and took it. I was told that my certs got my foot in the door, and my interview and technical skills I demonstrated got me the job.

Now it is 2006, and I have almost 9 years of professional software development experience under my belt. I take pride in the fact that I have continued my self education sans BS CompSci. Recently, things got craptacular at work and I decided I needed to look for new employment. I pulled the old .doc resume files out, and seriously thought about removing all of the old MCSD crap. However, I left it in. And it worked really well for me. I found that recruiters still look for this stuff. I cannot believe how many interviews started with questions or comments on my certs. It got my foot in the door, again.

In the end, I am more than certain that it was my experience and my answers to some tough technical questions that got me my new job. However, I would recommend certs to anyone looking to prove their technical merit.

Cisco entry and mid level certs are whored out

http://testking.com/ [testking.com]

  You can download most any current Cisco exam, cram it, and become a 'professional'. I got my CCNP and CCDP the old fashion way - worked, studied, worked, studied, worked, worked, worked, recertified, completed three of four exams for the CCIP, worked some more. Now you can just download 'em. Cisco resellers are required to have people with certain levels of different things and most jobs I see wanting Cisco qualify the position based on the ticket you need to have to get it.

  I've taken my first halting steps towards studying for the CCIE. Those words are in italics because I feel like I've just typed arranging a circle jerk every time I use them. There are so many guys six months into the process with no real skills and none of the talent needed who are circle jerking on their theoretical CCIE. Or worse, the guys who are six years into it, they've got their whole self esteem invested in getting those four letters after their names, and they just don't have what it takes. Its sad to see.

  Whatever the case, CCIE still has value, and my job puts me in front of everything on the exam except multicast and I'm slutting about taking multicasting jobs at half of market rate just so I can tune up for that area.

I don't get the attitude about certs

Does an MD guarantee a great physician? Does a JD guarantee a great lawyer? Does an MBA guarantee a business man? Need I go on?

If somebody in high school (for whatever reason) wants to be a computer tech; 90% of the posters here on slashdot, would post that five years of experience is much more valuable than an A+ cert. Well duh, thanks for being so insightful, and all. But how is somebody supposed to get started?

Practically every real profession relies on degrees, certs, licenses, and the like. IT has always been a major exception.

Then the IT pros piss and moan about how their not treated like real professionals, and certainly not paid like other professionals. Imagine if a BSEE was optional for an electrical engineer.

You can't just hire somebody off the street to fix your toilet, or clean your swimming pool. Those jobs require licenses, certs, etc. But, hiring somebody to write life-and-death critic software, whose only credential is that he's the PHB's nephew . . . hell, that's done all the time.

It is true

A number of years ago I was placed on a MCSE boot camp, the company was thoughtful enough to negotiate a cut price with the training company as a result of not including the actual certification but just sticking me on the course. At the time I was the Systems Administrator, 6 months prior I had migrated the Netware data centre to Windows 2000 as a result of political pressure. I wasn't too keen on attending the courses as I had numerous other projects running at the time but thought that it would be an opportunity. On my arrival I was greeted by three members of middle (non-tech) management from my organisation and a large group of Helpdesk operatives from an outsourcing company. The course bored me to tears and fortunately or unfortunately I was removed after 3 days to oversee an impromptu acquisition back at the ranch.

Two weeks later the middle management returned, all having been certified. Upon questioning the certification I was told "It is not in the companies benefit to invest in your certification, you can do the job without the certification. Why should we invest in something you can already do?" The individuals who recieved the certification shot up the management chain and after a number of months left the organisation. I wouldn't have employed them to defrag a disk, yet their CV's were certainly much rosier than mine. From that point on I have always questioned certification, not one member of my current team is certified but they all have a proven track record and a degree...

A piece of paper sets expectations.

In large corporations, HR doesn't give a crap about the facts; they want the documentation that protects the corporation from lawsuits. Legal protection is HR's sole contribution to the effort. Once that's satisfied, they'll let someone else (engineering department, IT department, etc.) worry about whether the person can actually do the job.

In smaller companies (what's the limit now?--less than 25 folks?), significantly less restrictive employment reuglations apply. There's usually not an "HR" department because it's not necessary. Folks making hiring decisions can use more practical criteria, if they choose.

If anyone beyond HR actually looks at the piece of paper, they'll be looking it as a promise. Whatever you present--degree, certification, license, etc. sets expectations.

If you don't fulfill the expectations that your piece of paper sets, there's going to be disappointment.
Once you're in, nobody cares if you satisfied the hiring requirements.
Once you're in, nobody cares that the job is not what was advertised.
In a technical field, once you show up, you just do the job. If you fail that, you can usually milk it for a year or two, by which time you'll have more experience to put on your resume (another piece of paper), and get hired by the next sucker.
And, yeah, I know lots of guys that play that game, too.

Re:but seriously

"But I never understood the need for certification"

Sometimes, certification isn't for you - it's for your employer, and their customers. Unfair as it may appear to you, it establishes a baseline, one which I'm sure you far surpass.

"I preferred (and still prefer) to let my skills do the talking instead of jacking around taking some prefab test that any monkey could study for and pass."

No offense, but, if you're as good as you think, then certainly you should be able to pass some "prefab tests that any monkey could study for and pass"? And, I'm sure your company would be pleased not to have to pay to send you for training, but simply pay for those tests you can pass simply because you're so good?

If you're self-employed, then, not only do you get a certification, but, the costs are a tax write-off, too.

Just a thought: Why not try? Certainly, if some monkey can pass them, you should be able to as well.

There's only one way to find out :) Then, not only can your skills do the talking, but you can claim certification, on top of that, too, which can only be a plus for you.

You graduated in 2000, yet you're so uber skilled that you don't think you need to be certified?

Hell, I've been doing computer service for over 20 years, I GREW UP with the PC industry [1], learned it as I went as did many others of my generation, and I STILL take tests, mostly to re-certify, and am often surprised by what I don't know, as I tend to take them cold since I rarely have time now to study (and, I like to see what I've learned, by experience, and compare that to what I don't know, against what they're testing for.. and many times, I learn new things that way, which I always enjoy).

Regards,

dj

[1] Started as a technician, in 1986, doing field service for a local PC sales and service company. Installed my first PC-based LAN in 1987. Server was an IBM PC-AT, 8 Mhz (the "fast" one, *grin*). Had a Seagate ST-4096 80 MB MFM drive, and we had to replace the BIOS on the motherboard, with EPROMS whose drive table we'd altered to support the drive natively, as IBM didn't support it... there wasn't such a thing as user-settable hard drive parameters back then.

Oh, and the NOS was NetWare 286, v2.0a. Compiled it myself, from copies of the masters... and does anyone besides me remember COMPSURF? *grin*

Ethernet was 'way too expensive back back then for our customers (small-medium sized companies)... we used ARCNET, running on coax... and while it was "only" 2.5 Mbps, it was token-based, and scaled well as node population per segment increased... unlike Ethernet, at that time, which didn't have switches available to mitigate collisions.

Now, of course, everyone calls Ethernet switches "hubs", even though they aren't... and we all ignore the performance loss that results from a collision-based topology, 'cause the hardware handles it, pretty much transparently now... except when it doesn't.

But, I'd be willing to bet, that as network speeds scale, eventually, collision-based Ethernet will be replaced with something that is non-collision based - probably token-passing based... but, it'll probably still be called "Ethernet", so as to placate the masses.

However, I'm wandering now.

Guess the last thing I'd say is this: If you're so good, go get certified... costs you nothing to do so, really.

And, it proves that you're at least as good as those that just passed :)

Me, I had the EXACT same attitude as you, back in 1992... I'd already been doing NetWare network installs for over 5 years by that point... why should I get certified?

Well, my boss wanted to become a Novell Reseller... and, that meant that someone had to get certified.

So, I did: He was cheap, and wouldn't pay for training... so, I just went and took the tests. They weren't offered in our city, so, I had to drive an hour and a half to where they were available... and, since I was the head tech, I couldn't stay away l