MCSE 2003 + MCSE 2003 Security

Hi,

I've passed 70-270/70-290/70-291/70-293. Next up are 70-294/70-297/70-089
and I'd have MCSE 2003.

I'd also like to have MCSE Security. I'd take 70-298/70-299/70-350 in
addition. On a resume, would I mention MCSE 2003 and MCSE 2003 Security
separately or just include MCSE 2003 Security?

Thanks.

=?Utf-8?B?SW5vZmZlbnNpdmU=?=

>>Did you see what Inoffensive ()
graced us with in C60DF8C6-E267-474E-82D2-?<<
> Hi,
>
> I've passed 70-270/70-290/70-291/70-293. Next up are
> 70-294/70-297/70-089 and I'd have MCSE 2003.
>
> I'd also like to have MCSE Security. I'd take 70-298/70-299/70-350 in
> addition. On a resume, would I mention MCSE 2003 and MCSE 2003
> Security separately or just include MCSE 2003 Security?
>
> Thanks.
>
Just an opinion here, but I would see having MCSE2003 and MCSE2003+Security as
being redundant. Redundancy is inefficient, Inefficiency is Lame, Lameness is
Stupid, and Stupidity is not what people are looking to hire.

--
BD
MCNGP #51
-- MCNGP.com - You know IT!?
-- www.CertGuard.com; www.SWPPM.com

BD [MCNGP]

I'd also add - Don't take 297. Use 298 instead that way you wont have to
take 2 design exams.

--
..rev - mct.mcngp.44
..
"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it"
~Aristotle.
..
"BD [MCNGP]" <BD@CertGuard> wrote in message
news:%...
>>>Did you see what Inoffensive ()
> graced us with in C60DF8C6-E267-474E-82D2-?<<
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've passed 70-270/70-290/70-291/70-293. Next up are
>> 70-294/70-297/70-089 and I'd have MCSE 2003.
>>
>> I'd also like to have MCSE Security. I'd take 70-298/70-299/70-350 in
>> addition. On a resume, would I mention MCSE 2003 and MCSE 2003
>> Security separately or just include MCSE 2003 Security?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> Just an opinion here, but I would see having MCSE2003 and
> MCSE2003+Security as
> being redundant. Redundancy is inefficient, Inefficiency is Lame, Lameness
> is
> Stupid, and Stupidity is not what people are looking to hire.
>
> --
> BD
> MCNGP #51
> -- MCNGP.com - You know IT!?
> -- www.CertGuard.com; www.SWPPM.com
>
>

The Rev [MCT]

"The Rev [MCT]" <> wrote in message
news:u%...
> I'd also add - Don't take 297. Use 298 instead that way you wont have to
> take 2 design exams.
>

Rev,

Can you explain for me what you mean? Does taking 298 instead of 297 reduce
the # of exams needed?

Thanks,

Jonathan

Jonathan Roberts

"Jonathan Roberts" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "The Rev [MCT]" <> wrote in message
> news:u%...
> > I'd also add - Don't take 297. Use 298 instead that way you wont have to
> > take 2 design exams.
> >
>
> Rev,
>
> Can you explain for me what you mean? Does taking 298 instead of 297
reduce
> the # of exams needed?

Never mind... I see. This is specific to +Security.

Jonathan Roberts

Yes 298 is for the Security Designator, but it counts as your normal design
exam as well, so you don't have to take 297 and 298. You can just take 298.

--
..rev - mct.mcngp.44
..
"It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it"
~Aristotle.
..
"Jonathan Roberts" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Jonathan Roberts" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> "The Rev [MCT]" <> wrote in message
>> news:u%...
>> > I'd also add - Don't take 297. Use 298 instead that way you wont have
>> > to
>> > take 2 design exams.
>> >
>>
>> Rev,
>>
>> Can you explain for me what you mean? Does taking 298 instead of 297
> reduce
>> the # of exams needed?
>
> Never mind... I see. This is specific to +Security.
>
>

The Rev [MCT]

Thank you for clarifying

"The Rev [MCT]" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Yes 298 is for the Security Designator, but it counts as your normal
design
> exam as well, so you don't have to take 297 and 298. You can just take
298.
>
> --
> .rev - mct.mcngp.44
> .
> "It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought
without
> accepting it"
> ~Aristotle.
> .
> "Jonathan Roberts" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> >
> > "Jonathan Roberts" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >>
> >> "The Rev [MCT]" <> wrote in message
> >> news:u%...
> >> > I'd also add - Don't take 297. Use 298 instead that way you wont have
> >> > to
> >> > take 2 design exams.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Rev,
> >>
> >> Can you explain for me what you mean? Does taking 298 instead of 297
> > reduce
> >> the # of exams needed?
> >
> > Never mind... I see. This is specific to +Security.
> >
> >
>

Jonathan Roberts

just wondering. do i receive every certificate for every mcp i pass. also
how many questions were there for the exam 70-291?

"Inoffensive" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've passed 70-270/70-290/70-291/70-293. Next up are 70-294/70-297/70-089
> and I'd have MCSE 2003.
>
> I'd also like to have MCSE Security. I'd take 70-298/70-299/70-350 in
> addition. On a resume, would I mention MCSE 2003 and MCSE 2003 Security
> separately or just include MCSE 2003 Security?
>
> Thanks.

=?Utf-8?B?bWFu?=

I received a printout of the test score along with a summary of how I did in
each sections. I believe there were 40 questions.

Good luck!

"man" wrote:

> just wondering. do i receive every certificate for every mcp i pass. also
> how many questions were there for the exam 70-291?
>
> "Inoffensive" wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've passed 70-270/70-290/70-291/70-293. Next up are 70-294/70-297/70-089
> > and I'd have MCSE 2003.
> >
> > I'd also like to have MCSE Security. I'd take 70-298/70-299/70-350 in
> > addition. On a resume, would I mention MCSE 2003 and MCSE 2003 Security
> > separately or just include MCSE 2003 Security?
> >
> > Thanks.

=?Utf-8?B?SW5vZmZlbnNpdmU=?=

>>Did you see what man () graced us with
in C568F48B-28B6-4435-A2B5-?<<
> just wondering. do i receive every certificate for every mcp i pass.
> also how many questions were there for the exam 70-291?
>
Fu©king tool.
--
BD
MCNGP #51
-- MCNGP.com - You know IT!?
-- www.CertGuard.com; www.SWPPM.com

BD [MCNGP]