Is MCSE worth pursuing?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steve Young, Oct 22, 2003.

  1. Steve Young

    nrf Guest

    But not like flycaster's.
    nrf, Oct 29, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Steve Young

    Charlie Self Guest

    nrf states:
    Marvelous. Get back to? When did such a single criterion exist?

    Charlie Self
    "Ain't no man can avoid being born average, but there ain't no man got to be
    common." Satchel Paige
    Charlie Self, Oct 29, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Steve Young

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Even if your sole purpose is money. Just having the degree is the
    important part; the subject matters far less. An easy-to-obtain degree
    is thus more cost-effective than a difficult-to-obtain degree, as a
    general rule.
    Yes, all else being equal, and as long as the compensation is not too
    Engineers are in shorter supply, as compared to demand.
    It doesn't matter much at that level. Like I said, they graduate in any
    That depends on what questions they ask.

    I do know from direct experience that study is often unimportant.
    Yes, really, in most cases.
    Some people use them; most people don't.
    Someone checked his.
    I don't know. They'd be hard to locate.
    I don't speak for Microsoft, but they would probably not be as impressed
    by such a résumé as by many others.
    If you are among the "sometimes," that's all that matters.
    Tell me again about thinking in black and white?
    It's not luck, it's more likely to be talent and skill.
    I believe what I've seen, which I consider more reliable than what you
    Careful research.
    Mxsmanic, Oct 29, 2003
  4. Steve Young

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I rest my case.
    Mxsmanic, Oct 29, 2003
  5. Steve Young

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I "hang around" hundreds of newsgroups and discussion forums of all
    kinds. I don't try to separate the "regulars" from anyone else. I
    participate for discussion, not for singing songs around the campfire.
    Mxsmanic, Oct 29, 2003
  6. Steve Young

    Mxsmanic Guest

    The smart ones do, many others don't.
    What other interviews have you attended, besides your own?
    Who knows how many offers you've missed, then?
    But he wasn't good prior to that, and you seem to assert that once one
    has stopped practicing, one can never be good again. But if that is
    true, one can never be good to begin with.
    That depends on the guy.
    There is much individual variation. Perhaps you are speaking only for
    See above.
    Because PhDs look better on a résumé.
    Most prospective sandwich makers don't submit résumés.
    There's room for complexity in all sorts of things.
    I haven't seen evidence of it myself.
    They aren't "breaking into" IT, though.
    Mxsmanic, Oct 29, 2003
  7. nrf () wrote:
    : To elaborate on what has turned out to be an argumentative morass, let me
    : just say that I agree with Flycaster's general thesis, which is that
    : athletics plays too much of a role in college admissions decisions. But I
    : extend that argument further to say that all fuzzy decisions should be
    : removed from the process. I believe that colleges should get back to using
    : academics as the sole criterion of deciding who gets admitted and who
    : doesn't.


    Now that you've edited the Subject: header, why don't you trim the
    Newsgroups: while you're at it? That, or explain why any of this has
    anything at all to do with roller coasters.

    --Dave Althoff, Jr.
    Dave Althoff Jr, Oct 29, 2003
  8. Steve Young

    Bernie Guest

    I don't know that it is an integrity issue necessarily. If you
    compromise on an issue of personal character because of pressure, sure
    it is a demonstration of a lack of integrity. If it is a compromise
    in other arenas, it may not be. If they felt that admitting the
    athlete was not the worst thing in the world for the school, then
    maybe they compromise to keep some of the peace around the university.
    "It is five people right--a small price to pay to keep my job and have
    some semblance of peace around here..." Or if they compromise because
    their boss tells them to, then it isn't necessarily an integrity
    problem either. What if they personally hold the value of submitting
    to authority even if they don't agree with them? Obviously if they
    are a concentration camp guard, they can't hide behind "just following
    orders", but this situation is hardly that kind of dilemma.
    Submitting is the higher value than "what is best for the university"
    from the perspective, and thus it would be a lack of integrity to do
    what they felt was best for the school in that scenario.

    Anyway, I think you are being a little unfair in your categorization
    or simplification of this issue down to logical facts.

    Bernie, Oct 29, 2003
  9. Steve Young

    Lance Guest

    How the hell does this relate to Cisco certifications?
    Lance, Oct 29, 2003
  10. Mxsmanic () wrote:
    : nrf writes:

    : > You hang around a particular ng awhile, it's inevitable that you get to know
    : > the regulars.

    : I "hang around" hundreds of newsgroups and discussion forums of all
    : kinds. I don't try to separate the "regulars" from anyone else. I
    : participate for discussion, not for singing songs around the campfire.

    The last time I saw a bunch of rec.roller-coaster people around a campfire
    was at Knoebels a little less than a month ago.

    I don't recall anybody singing songs, though.

    --Dave Althoff, Jr.
    Dave Althoff Jr, Oct 30, 2003
  11. Steve Young

    Bernie Guest

    While *I* think he may have misread your post or misread what you
    meant to say, I wouldn't jump to classifying him as "just like <insert
    person here>". Nrf is usually pretty good at not twisting words
    around. He is usually pretty on target when he summarizes someone's
    position. Now, I haven't read every word of this part of the thread,
    but it does *appear* that he may have done some misreading (or
    twisting) here. I'm not going to make an excuse here for Nrf, but I
    can say that while he may tend to debate vigorously, he doesn't employ
    unfair tactics, word twisting, etc. Maybe you feel like he did here,
    and who knows maybe he did. But I do know him well enough to say that
    it was not intentional if that is what happened.

    Also some people are just very analytical. That isn't a character
    flaw either. If you are a very analytical person, it isn't something
    you just turn off after work. You experience life through those
    lenses. Sometimes that causes friction in discussions as personality
    types collide. I don't know if that happened here, but Nrf is not a
    Usenet butthole as you seemed to have concluded.
    Ok, this is not exactly fair either. The meaning of words is
    important. Not that I am justifying semantic games, word twisting,
    and grammar olympics, but let me give you an illustration. Suppose I
    say XYZ. You accuse me of saying ABC. Well, the only way to
    straighten that out is to clarify the meanings of my words, so maybe
    we refer back to a dictionary. It happened here when Mxsmaniac
    accused me of attacking his character. I clearly made no such attack,
    and referred to the definition of "character" to defend against the
    accusation as it related to what I really said.

    I think it is fair to refer to word definitions in certain contexts,
    mostly in the context where there is miscommunication, i.e. one says
    XYZ and the other reads ABC and responds to ABC instead of XYZ
    Actually, I wish you would. I am curious.

    Bernie, Oct 30, 2003
  12. Steve Young

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Why is this cross-posted to rec.roller-coaster?

    What do you think of Top Thrill Dragster?
    Mxsmanic, Oct 30, 2003
  13. Steve Young

    Bernie Guest

    I didn't see that coming...
    That only happens if you deliberately *try* to lump everyone in
    together. So you are saying that if over time you see 50 posts from
    person A, and two posts from person B, that you don't know anything
    more about the person A than B? That only is possible if you
    deliberately try to forget what you have read from person A. Over
    time you end up finding where A went to school, where A works, where A
    used to work, etc. But if you intentionally forget all that you have
    read from A, then sure, the net effect is that you don't know anything
    more about A than about B. So do you set out to forget what you see
    posted, or does it just come naturally? Either way, it makes sense
    because you forget your own posts 24 hours later, much less those from
    any particular person.
    See above.

    Bernie, Oct 30, 2003
  14. Steve Young

    nrf Guest

    Oh believe me, if I was to get emotional, it would be obvious to anybody.
    nrf, Oct 30, 2003
  15. Steve Young

    nrf Guest

    I don't think so. You can have a hard 4 years of study or an easy 4 years.
    Once those 4 years are done, it's done. The hard 4 years will land you
    nearly double the starting salary of an easy 4 years. And the salaries tend
    to stay higher over time, usually significantly higher. So we're talking
    about investing more time within those 4 years to get a significantly
    heightened salary over a long length of time. So which one is really more
    If engineering companies could save money by hiring psych majors for
    engineering jobs (and thereby not paying that engineering premium), then why
    aren't they doing that now? Doesn't the doubling of salary mean that the
    compensation is highly variable?
    Exactly. Bottom line - an individual who decides to become an engineer will
    make less money. Or conversely, an individual who opts out of engineering
    is leaving money on the table. Ergo, that individual is not making a
    money-maximizing choice. Or even a cost-effective choice.
    Answer the question - are you or are you not going to tell your children to
    study? Yes or no.
    So if your son comes up to you and asks whether he should study hard in
    school, you will say?
    I see - "often", but not always?
    Oh, I thought you said before that nobody ever checked. Hmmm..
    I see. Allrighty then.
    And if you are not among the 'sometimes', then that's all that matters too.

    Sure, you can say that some people win the lottery ,and if you happen to be
    one of those people, then that's all that matters. But that doesn't make
    the lottery a good investment of your life savings.
    Why, when you are apparently the expert on it.
    And luck to get your resume even noticed among the thousands that get
    submitted. Einstein could submit his resume, but if it gets tossed because
    the company decides to read only the first 100 resumes that get submitted,
    or decides to read resumes that survive a keyword search, then that doesn't
    really help Einstein.
    Umm, well, I used to work as a hiring manager. Twice. So I think my own
    eyes are very reliable.
    Research into what?
    nrf, Oct 30, 2003
  16. Steve Young

    nrf Guest

    So even it's true there there aren't very many smart companies, then if you
    happen to be a smart individual, you would know that if you want to get a
    job, you would have to cater to the demands of all these dumb companies,
    right? Therefore smart people are making a rational choice by graduating,
    simply because that's what dumb companies (which you have conceded are the
    majority of the companies) want. Correct? Actually, you can say that it
    would be quite dumb for an individual to ignore the demands of the majority
    of companies, correct?
    Exactly. So if you want a job, you have to cater to what the market wants.
    Whether you think the market is dumb or not, that's neither here nor there.
    What exactly do you mean by that. Isn't the mere fact that I am attending
    an interview mean that the interview is necessarily mine? If it isn't mine,
    then why am I attending?
    And who knows how much time I have saved by not interviewing for jobs that I
    know I have no chance. Hey, I watch a lot of football - should I then go
    interview to be the next NFL head coach?
    I said that through long diligent practice he got good. Once he stops, he
    becomes progressively worse. If he wants to build back to his old level, he
    will have to go through long practice once again. Will he eventually get
    there? Sure. But if we're talking about 15 years of practice followed by
    20 years of nothing, then he won't get back there in a month. That's my
    I would say that a month is not going to cut it for the situation we're
    talking about.
    And perhaps you are speaking only for yourself.
    See above.
    And if they did, that would somehow change things?
    How does sandwich making get complex enough to be able to support a PhD
    Speak for yourself.
    Ok, then how about all these newbies who constantly complain that they can't
    find a way to get their first IT job?
    nrf, Oct 30, 2003
  17. Steve Young

    nrf Guest

    Look, this thread got ugly, and I didn't want it to get there, because I
    thought flycaster and I were going to have this extremely interesting
    discussion about college admissions, and that obviously didn't happen. So
    it's probably best if this thread stops. But I think you know what I'm
    getting at - which is that I don't see athletics as a special case that can
    stand apart from other admissions criteria. To me, it's simply too
    convenient that on the one hand, questionable decisions about athletes are
    always made via pressure and over the objections of admissions officers, but
    questionable decisions of every other kind are made because the officers
    were taking into account what is best for the university and never because
    of pressure. It seems to me that there are 1 of 2 possibilities - that
    questionable decisions of ALL kinds (including athletes) can be made taking
    into account what is best for the university. Or questionable decisions of
    ALL kinds are sometimes made via pressure. In short, I simply don't see how
    athletics are this truly truly super-special case.
    nrf, Oct 30, 2003
  18. Steve Young

    Bernie Guest

    Haven't you seen the old Subway commercials? They are "artists" with
    skills, man!

    Bernie, Oct 30, 2003
  19. Steve Young

    Bernie Guest

    You know I am not sure that I agree with the general position. I'm
    not sure I disagree either. On one hand, I can see how some less than
    objective criteria might be beneficial to the school. On the other
    hand that does open the door to unfairness. But fairness isn't
    something I think is a desirable end goal so I don't think it is a big
    deal. So I am on the fence in many regards. But I am really not
    arguing for or against here. I am more taking the stance of devil's
    Well, I think there was another point that you aren't considering.
    Flycaster broke it down on economic lines too. He pointed out that
    some criteria resulted in more money for the school to reinvested in
    academics. Now whether this is true is another story, but that is a
    plausible reason on the surface. And I know you would not deny that
    admitting a candidate that would put tons of money into a new science
    facility might not be fair, but in the end the school benefits more
    from the facility than it loses from having one more dumb student. To
    me I would not fault them for doing so, even if it isn't fair or

    On the other hand, Flycaster pointed out that money flowing in from a
    winning football team does not benefit the academic program as it goes
    back into building a new weight room.

    Now if these two things are true, then I can certainly understand why
    someone would see them as different. One, although subjective, builds
    the academic structure, the other, although subjective, does not. So
    if it is true, then sure, I can see the point.
    Maybe it is not. Maybe it is just a shade of gray different. But if
    I were working at a job, and I was supposedly empowered to "do what is
    best for my company", I would resent having someone make those
    judgement calls for me, especially if I knew they were bad.

    And I know that you would also agree that while there may be a common
    element to all (subjective standards), that you can still find lines
    of differences among them. Frankly, I don't know the data on this
    subject, and haven't explored it much. But I can see Flycaster's
    point of view on the subject.

    Bernie, Oct 30, 2003
  20. Steve Young

    Bernie Guest

    Maybe the average reader might be fooled by this statement, but uh,
    you are mixing issues here. If you are comparing two schools, Harvard
    to Pudunk Community College, then sure, one costs dramatically less.
    This particular question about why some choose lesser degrees implies
    the students being compared are at the same school. Now if you are
    already at Harvard, is the BS in Physics really that much more
    *expensive* than the BA in Psychology? No. So you cannot say that
    the lesser degree is more "cost effective" to choose, unless you throw
    in the hidden qualification that the lesser degree was also obtained
    at the lesser college. So this still neglects why one student would
    choose a lesser degree at the same school as a student that is
    choosing the better degree. If it was all about money, they would all
    choose the degree with the highest payoff for their *same* money. But
    they don't.

    If you had claimed one requires less effort than the other while
    costing the same, then sure, that is true. But that means laziness is
    a factor, and hey that is something other than money is it not?

    Bernie, Oct 30, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.