Network Engineer - let's define our terms!

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by newsreader, Sep 7, 2003.

  1. newsreader

    Sean Guest

    The word "engineer" is extremely misused. A real engineer is someone who
    MS and Cisco people, etc. *do* pay to keep their certs recent. Just not
    to the state. Even the state certified engineers, etc. have to take
    similar tests to stay certified. Bar exams, again same type of test.
    Granted that more of them require essay type answers at some point or
    another. But I don't see a difference.
    Yes. Too many people expect an extremely well paying job for little or no
    amount of knowledge. *Exactly* like doctors. You just don't find many
    "specialists" for removing blood clots in the brain, (and that's all they
    can do). Those specialists have studied every aspect of the human body,
    and understand it very well. It just so happens that they focus on a
    specific type of procedure.
    "Network Engineers" should be the same. That person should be extremely
    knowledgable in all aspects of the network, though they may specialize in
    one area or another.
     
    Sean, Sep 10, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. :And the
    :boss actually told me: "Certs don't mean anything for my staff, only
    :performance, but the certs decide who gets an interview and who doesn't"

    Consider the matter from the flip side, from the position of someone
    trying to do a hire. A position is advertised, and even with only
    a single insertion in each of the local papers, 50+ people apply
    in a mid-sized city (125+ in a larger city.) [For an accounting
    position we ran within the last year, more than 300 people applied.]

    Now, some of the applicants will be -obviously- unsuited for the
    position from their resume, but if the position is not one in which
    it is crucial that the person "hit the ground running" then as
    the employer one must suppose that some of the applicants might not
    have all the necessary skills and experience to start with, but
    might be able to "grow" into the job and end up performing it better
    than someone else that meets the requirements on paper. Thus, to be
    "fair" to each of the applicants and to get the best -possible- person
    for the job, one should probably in theory end up interviewing more
    than 2/3 of the applicants.

    I don't know what it's like in private enterprise these days, but for us
    in the Canadian Government, an interview for a key technical position
    is almost certainly going to be 2+ hours per person, with all the
    questions having been set forth in advance, and with a hiring panel
    of at least 3 people (one HR and two above the rank of the new position)
    that has to write down key points of the answers and "mark" each
    response according to a pre-devised point scale (oh, and all the
    correct answers have to have been written out in advance too.) What it
    works out to is getting through only about 3 interviews per day, at
    a direct cost of about 1 person-day per person interviewed.

    If one is indeed trying to be inclusive, trying to take into account
    that people can learn etc., etc., then there would probably be 40+ people
    to interview. 40 times 1 person-day per interview equals two person-months
    worth of interviews held over 3 weeks (during which other work is
    not being done.)

    At this point, a business decision has to be made: if it costs us
    two months of work to hire the best possible candidate using the
    inclusive-practices hiring model, then is that best-possible candidate
    going to be two person-months-worth better for the organization
    than a merely fairly-good alternative?


    Once it is understood that finding the "global optimum" candidate might
    cost more than the benefit received, then we have to start looking at
    *objective* filters to narrow down the field of whom to interview.
    Government hiring policies here do not allow subjective assessments
    based upon the application: we cannot, for example, include one person
    who does not have (say) VOIP experience but "looks interesting" while
    at the same time excluding someone else on the grounds that they don't
    have VOIP. Whatever criteria we use, we have to apply evenly, and
    anyone who passes all the criteria gets an interview and anyone who
    fails even one of the criterium does not get an interview.

    The relative worth of work history and experience is considered
    subjective, so in order to weed down to a manageable number of
    candidates to be able to finish the interviews in a reasonable time, we
    have to end up strictly applying factors such as whether the candidate
    has particular courses of post-secondary study or particular certs. We
    have turned down people with PhD's in computer programming or
    electrical engineering because those weren't the exact -right- fields
    of study for an entry-level PC administration position: interviewing
    all the applicants who had -some- post-secondary technology-related
    credentials would have been too expensive, so we had to be strict on
    the objective measures.

    So.... as you can see, for practical reasons in dealing with the hiring
    legal requirements we are under, we are driven towards a situation in
    which, indeed, the certs decide who gets the interview and who doesn't.
    It is not a fun situation to be in, but we live with what we are dealt.
     
    Walter Roberson, Sep 10, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. One of the first things we do in an interview is to ask the canidate
    to describe a major problem they encountered and how they solved it.
    If they can't, they are inexperienced, no matter what their resume
    says. Of course, that only applies to advanced positions. Entry
    level positions wouldn't get subjected to that.

    Mike
     
    Mike Gallagher, Sep 10, 2003
    #23
  4. :One of the first things we do in an interview is to ask the canidate
    :to describe a major problem they encountered and how they solved it.
    :If they can't, they are inexperienced, no matter what their resume
    :says.

    That's a very good question in a number of ways, but it doesn't address
    the issue of who gets to the interview stage.

    Once an organization gets large enough (or old enough) to have been
    the target of a discrimination-in-hiring lawsuit, then Policies
    tend to be enacted, and those Policies tend to favour objective
    measures (such as presence of an appropriate cert) in decisions about
    who reaches the interview stage. "You didn't interview me because
    I'm <racial/sexual/religious/ethnic attribute>!" is more easily answered
    with "We only interviewed people with CCIE" than it is answered with
    "We didn't get a good feeling from your resume so we didn't seriously
    consider you."
     
    Walter Roberson, Sep 10, 2003
    #24
  5. newsreader

    nrf Guest

    Your (and I guess Sean's) experience is indeed different from how I believe
    most companies in the world hire. Surely the fact that you happen to be
    working for the government has a lot to do with it - governments are always
    notoriously paranoid of presenting even the appearance of impropriety.

    I think you give short shrift to the fact that far and away the easiest and
    most heavily utilized method of getting a job, any job, is through personal
    contacts - basically, knowing the right people. The world is ruled by the
    'who-you-know' paradigm. In my years of contracting, I can say that I got a
    job through public job postings a grand total of twice, whereas the number I
    got through people I know numbers in the high double digits. Most
    contractors will tell you the same. I was also employed at a company where
    everybody basically was brought in by somebody who was already there. Nor
    is this atypical of the way most companies actually honestly work.

    If you don't believe me, consider this. CNN once estimated that at least
    90% of all available jobs are never publicly posted. They are 'stealth'
    jobs, available only to people who happen to be connected on the inside.
    Every single website, magazine, book, or whatever publication that doles out
    advice on how to find employment always advises as the #1 tactic, that
    people should use their networks (the people kind). Why? Because only by
    using your contacts can you gain access to those stealth jobs that represent
    the vast majority of available employment.

    Still don't believe me? Ask yourself, how exactly did Steve Ballmer, long
    time prez and now CEO of Microsoft, get into Microsoft in the first place?
    Did the fact that he was Bill Gates's old roommate and poker buddy at
    Harvard have anything to do with it? Nah. When Microsoft was starting out,
    was the fact that practically every single employee at that time seemed to
    be an old school chum of Gates from Lakeside High just a coincidence? When
    Intel first started out, was it really a coincidence that all of the
    original founders and most of the initial employees all happened to have
    worked together closely for years at Fairchild and Shockley Semiconductor?
    When Larry Ellison decided to found the company that would later be known as
    Oracle, he chose Ed Oates and Bob Minor to join him. Did those guys get
    picked because of a grueling interview process? Or Larry pick them because
    they just so happened to be his 2 best friends back from Larry's days at
    Ampex? How exactly did the legendary CEO of IBM, Tom Watson Jr., become
    CEO in the first place? Heck, how did he even get hired in the first place?
    Did it have anything to do with the fact that the founder of IBM just so
    happened to be Tom Watson, Sr.? Nah, I'm sure that had nothing to do with
    it.

    Even in the highest levels of government, what you might call 'nepotism'
    tends to run wild. Consider the 2000 US Presidential election. Let's be
    honest, George W. Bush could never have become the Republican nominee if not
    for his last name. Al Gore (actually, Al Gore Jr.) just so happened to be
    the son of legendary longtime US Senator Al Gore Sr., and he enjoyed a
    childhood life of privilege just as lavish, if not more so, than George W.
    Bush. Think about this - Al Gore graduated 25th out of 51 in his high
    school class and he got into Harvard. How many other people could get into
    Harvard with similar mediocre high school performance? Did Daddy make a few
    phone calls? Draw your own conclusions.

    I agree that certs are indeed useful in getting past HR filters to land an
    interview. But the simple fact is the vast majority of hiring is done
    through your personal contacts, and in these circumstances, certs become
    almost irrelevant. By knowing the right people, you have already secured
    yourself an interview and a strong inside track to getting the job. If
    Gates or Ballmer decides to hire one of their old friends, he will be
    hired, simple as that. Rarely if ever do I encounter an organization where
    some people (and actually, I would say most people) got in because they
    already knew people on the inside.

    Some of you might call this irresponsible nepotism. I agree that taken too
    far, it can be irresponsible. But simply put, people want to work with
    others that they get along with, and that's why it's only natural that
    people tend to bring in people they know. Surely anybody who's been around
    the industry for awhile has encountered the situation where a candidate
    looks great on paper and is hired, and then it turns out that nobody in the
    company likes him. Nothing kills the productivity of a workplace more than
    a situation where the employees simply don't like each other. I don't care
    how brilliant you are, if you can't get along with others in your workplace,
    it's just not going to work. By performing 'insider hiring', you greatly
    reduce (not guarantee, but greatly reduce) the chances of this nightmare
    possibility.



     
    nrf, Sep 11, 2003
    #25
  6. newsreader

    nrf Guest

    Again, I think this behavior is endemic in lower-level government, which
    tends to be paranoid about notions of equality and the appearance of
    impropriety. The fact is, most hiring is still done ad-hoc. I don't seem
    to recall anybody suing Microsoft when Ballmer was promoted to CEO, despite
    the fact that Microsoft's cash in the bank makes them a big juicy target. I
    know for a fact that if want to get hired by Microsoft, you enjoy a huge leg
    up if you know certain insiders. Heck, this is the way most hiring is done
    in corporations.
     
    nrf, Sep 11, 2003
    #26
  7. newsreader

    Hansang Bae Guest

    You guys are all missing the point. Certification is a benefit to the
    vendor. They can claim "we have XYZ people certified who can service
    your network/PC/widget!"

    Some more thoughts on the matter

    1) nrf, University on the Corner of Lexington Avenue (UCLA) doesn't
    count! :) Yeh...I know you're more north of UCLA...I can almost guess
    the school though.

    2) With every certification I got (Novell, Microsoft, Cisco, CNX, and
    NAI) I learned something new. Not earth shattering, but I did learn
    *something*. So it's not *all* bad.

    3) People with experience - who can converse w/o the propeller head -
    will make money....with or without certifications.

    4) Experience is good. Experience with certification is also good. It
    certainly cannot hurt if you have the experience to back it up.

    5) On the flipside, just because you've been doing it for 10 years
    doesn't mean you've been doing it right. Food for thought.


    --

    hsb

    "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
    *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
    ********************************************************************
    Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
    reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
    ********************************************************************
     
    Hansang Bae, Sep 11, 2003
    #27
  8. newsreader

    Hansang Bae Guest

    The content is the authority. As far as I know Barry is not a CCCIE.
    Would you discount his advice? Because I don't.


    I always knew you were a slacker! ;)

    But who will answer the PIX related questions!!!

    Terry,
    When you read news enough, you will quickly learn who is reliable and
    who is not. Regardless of certification.

    --

    hsb

    "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
    *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
    ********************************************************************
    Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
    reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
    ********************************************************************
     
    Hansang Bae, Sep 11, 2003
    #28
  9. newsreader

    Bernie Guest

    A typical reply, lol. Your response justifies the original gripe
    about how systems people haven't a clue as to what the difference
    between a network and a system is. It isn't self centered so much as
    it is technically correct.
    And last time I checked, layer 3 was the "network" layer. Your
    response shows a clear lack of education on the subject of the OSI RM,
    or on any other model for that matter. In fact, I don't have any idea
    why you would insist on using the OSI model as any kind of reference
    point here. Are you one of the five companies in the world using ISO
    protocols? That isn't unusual for a systems person though. Half of
    you guys think it is the "OSI Networking Model." The other half has
    no idea that the OSI model is only of academic interest today, and
    that they really should be talking about the DoD model.

    If you don't believe me about the OSI RM, then lets just see what ISO
    has to say about their model. Here is the abstract for document
    ISO/IEC 7498-1:1994:

    Cancels and replaces the first edition (1984). The model provides a
    common basis for the coordination of standards development for the
    purpose of systems interconnection, while allowing existing standards
    to be placed into perspective within the overall Reference Model. The
    model identifies areas for developing or improving standards. It does
    not intend to serve as an implementation specification.
    http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=20269&ICS1=35&ICS2=100&ICS3=1

    Nope, no mention of "this is the 7 layer model for *networking*" or
    anything of that sort. Ok, if that isn't enough, lets look at the doc
    itself:

    Information Processing Systems - OSI Reference Model -
    The Basic Model


    1. Scope

    1.1 The purpose of this Reference Model of Open Systems
    Interconnection is to provide a
    common basis for the coordination of standards development for the
    purpose of systems
    interconnection, while allowing existing standards to be placed into
    perspective within the
    overall Reference Model.

    1.2 The term Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) qualifies standards
    for the exchange of
    information among systems that are "open" to one another for this
    purpose by virtue of their
    mutual use of the applicable standards.

    ad nauseam....


    The term "network" is not used except in reference to layer 3. Read
    it sometime and learn a little about where the network fits into the
    overall model for interconnecting "systems"


    Ok, now lets look briefly at the DOD model which is the model you
    probably should have referenced. The model is described in section 3.2
    of the DDN Protocol Handbook 1985 Volume 1. That section is titled
    "DoD Architectural Model", not "DOD Network Model". Within that
    model, the bottom layer is the Network Access layer followed by the
    Internet layer. Host-to-host, and Process/Application follow. Notice
    that the term network is still only applied to the bottom two layers.
    In fact, according to this model we get the definition of a network as
    some sort of layer 2 domain which is tied together by routers forming
    an internet.


    Lastly, what is an application in any of these models? It is the
    thing that uses the Application layer. The Application layer is not
    the application itself. So from a systems point of view, even the top
    layer doesn't really equate to applications as you seem to infer.


    For good reason too. All the models support this reasoning. None of
    the models support the reasoning that the "network" consists of all
    layers. But of course if it makes systems guys feel better to think
    that they are "network engineers", then by all means lets redefine all
    the terms to make them feel better about themselves...
    So have I. That is how I know what the difference between a network
    and a system is.
    Not really. Some of this is systems/application engineering, some
    parts are software engineering, and other parts are network
    engineering.
    Well, those would be the "network access" and "internet" layers,
    wouldn't they? They certainly aren't host-to-host or application
    layers, and they certainly aren't applications either.
    Why is it wrong? It is technically correct to think of them as
    systems people. The two main data communication models refers to what
    they work on as systems. And that goes back to the original point...
    In the past applications were deployed to fit the characteristics of
    the network. If you had a low speed WAN link, you took that into
    account. Today, applications are simply deployed (by systems folks),
    period. The network people then have to make the network fit around
    the applications that are installed ad hoc. So if the new application
    hogs all the WAN bandwidth, well the network people better just get on
    that problem... Oh, and yeah those same clueless systems people are
    now calling themselves network people. At least in the past systems
    people knew enough about the network to work around it's strengths and
    weaknesses. Now the network people have to take on that role as well
    because the systems people can't be counted on to do their jobs well
    anymore.

    And that validates a small part of your post--that network people
    cannot just be oblivious to the applications that are running. I am
    certainly not making the case that a network person should only be
    concerned with the lower layers! Yes, they need to know a little
    about the applications. But just because it is a slight shade of gray
    doesn't mean that all the terms are equivalent either. There is still
    a clear difference between the network and the systems and
    applications that use the network.
    Correct. But why does that mean that those particular jobs need to
    take titles other than "systems engineer" or "MS Exchange engineer"
    etc. Once upon a time I saw a job ad for a "WAN engineer" that had
    the description of MS NT administration. So now are MCSEs stealing
    telecom engineering titles too???

    --Bernie
     
    Bernie, Sep 11, 2003
    #29
  10. newsreader

    Hans Pauly Guest

    Hear ya brother. I've been doing the consulting thing for a while now.
    And if truth be told, the guys who are driving the servers seem to be
    around a lot longer.

    I guess that if you do the "traditional" role. How long does it take to
    light up an totally new infrastructre. Do it right and it doesn't too
    long and its going to work just fine for years. Try selling net
    managemnet services then...

    The MS mouse jockeys seem to be putzing around for ever. Which as an
    independant really means $$$$. SO, to but bread on the table you either
    need to fake the MS stuff. Trust me, its not that tricky.
     
    Hans Pauly, Sep 11, 2003
    #30
  11. newsreader

    Bernie Guest

    You mean to say that when I go to Sylvan to take my next cert test
    that I am going to be sitting next to a lawyer taking a multiple
    choice bar exam?
    How do you not see the difference between something that takes four
    years of study to attain vs. something that takes one book, a week of
    reading, and a couple of braindumps to attain???

    --Bernie
     
    Bernie, Sep 11, 2003
    #31
  12. newsreader

    Bernie Guest

    Ok, suppose I am a CCNA and answer your question. What level of
    authority do I have in your opinion. Now suppose I am a CCNP. Tell
    me what you expect me to know about BGP. If you can define an
    appropriate level of knowledge that each cert carries with it such
    that there is a reasonable probability that such person has that level
    of expertise, then maybe you can make that point that the cert is a
    badge of authority.
    *Some* work hard for them. Others cheat hard for them. Even some
    cheat on the CCIE. Just ask Hansang about when he was approached
    directly with a copy of the lab. Albeit, he had already passed, and
    even if he hadn't, I trust his integrity that he would have turned the
    person down because I think I know him well enough. But the point is
    that you can't trust that everybody passes legitimately unless you
    believe everyone has the highest degree of integrity.
    I'm not sure where you get this idea.
    Why brag at all? Oh I know it is now culturally acceptable behavior,
    but it doesn't make it the best thing to do.
    They aren't getting paid to brag either...ooops, nrf already said
    that! But it bears repeating...
    That is fine if you want to demean yourself with such statements. It
    is probably not true, but it is certainly your right to say it.

    --Bernie
     
    Bernie, Sep 11, 2003
    #32
  13. newsreader

    Bernie Guest

    Exactly right!!!
    3.1) And if you are the type that can't converse, you might also be
    the type that makes blanket statements and then backs them with a
    series of acronyms as "proof" that you are telling the truth. E.g.
    "Li didn't invent BGP, it was an intern working for him that did and
    Li and Rehktor stole all the credit....oh, how do I know that you ask?
    Because I am a CCNP, that's why!"

    --Bernie
     
    Bernie, Sep 11, 2003
    #33
  14. :In article <bjnhk8$3lr$>, -
    :cnrc.gc.ca says...
    :> You might as well put me in your global kill file, then -- all I
    :> have is a general science degree from a third-tier university nearly
    :> 20 years ago.

    :I always knew you were a slacker! ;)

    Oh my, now I'm starting to have flashbacks to the few 08:30
    classes that I managed to get myself up in time for. Couldn't you
    have left me with the comforting illusion that those years were
    entirely spent playing AD&D?
     
    Walter Roberson, Sep 11, 2003
    #34
  15. Prehaps you don't know what it takes to become a CCIE.

    I don't know about CCNPs, or MCSEs, etc. but the CCIE cert is not a walk in
    the park. It is called a Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert. No, we are
    not engineers. But I have studied harder and my lab exam was more detailed
    and on-the-job than any bar exam. I have three friends who are BS graduates,
    and they all agree that getting a CCIE certification was far more difficult.
    Admittedly, it's very focussed whereas a BS is much wider.

    I recertify every two years and our recert exams are not easy and certainly
    can not be passed with "one book, a week of reading, and a couple of
    braindumps". I'm busy with a Business Bachelor's degree, and it is nowhere
    as difficult as a CCIE attempt. Don't lump a CCIE with the other cert
    kiddies. It's not the same thing! Checking out the average salaries,
    industry agrees.

    So Bernie, don't display your ignorance so publicly!

    PS, we're CCIE people, not "ccie" people. Don't get it wrong.
     
    Terry Pattinson, Sep 11, 2003
    #35
  16. There is a huge difference. The State does not have a vested interest
    in
    promoting a particular product. Cisco/Novell/Microsoft/Sun and all
    the
    rest of them all mix their vendor certifications in with their sales
    efforts. They promote to prospective customers that their
    certification
    programs help the customer to save money if they buy their products,
    because
    then the customer is assured of being able to use the vendor
    certification
    to get someone "competent"

    These companies also give perks to their certified people which are
    aimed specifically at assisting the certification holder to sell
    product.

    As a result of this, these companies have a vested interest in getting
    as many bodies run through their certification programs as possible.
    The
    more people running around with MCSE's the more chance that when
    someone somewhere has a networking problem to solve, that some MCSE
    will
    pop out of the woodwork offering a Microsoft solution. It works the
    same way with the othe vendor certs.

    Now I'll give credit to Cisco for being better than Novell and
    Microsoft
    for attempting to maintain the integrity of the certification program.
    But
    the fact of the matter is that these vendor certification programs all
    have no independent accreditation process, such as a typical public
    university has for it's engineering programs. Thus, they cannot be
    trusted
    as accurate barometers of the skill of the individual holding the
    certificate.

    And furthermore, all of these certification programs focus on 1
    vendors
    particular product. Imagine for example if a doctor's certification
    was
    issued by a major drug company, like Eli-Lilly. How would you know
    that
    the doctor even knew about drugs manufactured and sold by other drug
    companies? Would you want to be treated by a doctor that only was
    familiar with 1 drug companies product line?

    I think that it is clearly obvious that the major networking companies
    and the major networking hardware vendors could get together and work
    with
    one of the major accrediting organizations such as ABET to get them to
    design a networking engineering accrediting program. Then we would
    see
    the major universities be able to offer Bachelors of Science in
    Network Engineering, or some such. But right now there is little
    interest
    among these companies in doing this, simply because training is big
    business,
    they make too much money off training programs, and they don't want
    the universities cutting into their business. But until this is done,
    these vendor certifications don't hold a candle to a BS in EE or some
    such.
     
    Ted Mittelstaedt, Sep 11, 2003
    #36
  17. newsreader

    nrf Guest

    Well, obviously I can't speak for your friends, but I can say that none of
    my CCIE attempts can hold a candle to my engineering degrees. Heck, I would
    say that the lab exam isn't even as difficult as a single engineering class
    I took, much less the whole darn engineering major. And I too have several
    friends who graduated with me who are CCIE's who don't consider the CCIE in
    the same league as their degree. Granted, (not to pat myself on the back),
    I did study at one of the most prestigious engineering programs in the
    world, but still...
    Uh, sure they can. The recerts are really not that hard. Especially now,
    when all they are are just the basic CCIE-written exam, which have been
    brain-dumped ad-nauseaum.
    Generally, the most difficult part of getting a degree from a school of any
    half-decent caliber is getting admitted in the first place. The Ivy League,
    for example, isn't ridiculously hard to complete, what's hard is actually
    getting in.
    Average salaries aren't terribly meaningful because they don't statistically
    regress the extraordinarily important factor of experience. Guys with
    CCIE's tend to have more experience than others - so is it really the cert,
    or is it the experience that's really doing the talking? I would bet you
    it's mostly the latter. Failure to properly account for this fact has
    caused the lab-rat phenomena to proliferate - people see that CCIE's have
    higher salaries and conclude that if they get the CCIE then they can get
    that salary too, not realizing that those CCIE's also have lots of
    experience which are really driving those salaries, and not so much the
    cert. This is why a big reason why CCIE unemployment has remained
    stubbornly high. Certs can never substitute for proper experience.
    I don't mind. I'm fairly certain Hansang doesn't mind. I don't think you'd
    find too many who would get worked up over a lack of capitalization.
     
    nrf, Sep 11, 2003
    #37
  18. newsreader

    Bernie Guest

    Umm, did I say anything about CCIE? No. So try to reply to what was
    said next time. Recognize that I replied to a guy that said nothing
    about the CCIE, but talked in general about the MS and Cisco certs
    being equivalent to the bar exam.
    That all depends on the degree and the school too. I'd be careful of
    making such blanket statements.
    Obviously I was referring to the CCNA or any individual MCP exam. It
    was a response to the general point that Cisco and MS certs are
    equivalent to a bar exam or any other state engineering exam. [And
    last I checked MS didn't have a lab exam so you can't make the point
    that he was implicitly talking only about the grueling lab exams when
    he said "MS and Cisco".] Why do you insist on taking my reply out of
    the rather clear context it was in? And why do are you taking it as a
    personal attack on the CCIE? Insecure perhaps?
    Yeah, last I saw the CCIE was averaging somewhere around 60k, not too
    far from some starting true engineering salaries, lol. [Good thing
    I'm not paid for my certs or I'd be looking at some pay cuts!] Of
    course that is still apples to oranges as a CCIE probably has
    experience and the starting engineering salary does not reflect
    experience.

    But regardless of that, what does a salary survey show? Not much
    because certs don't pay your check, your experience does. And does a
    CCIE with ten years experience make as little as a CCIE with two? I
    should hope not.
    Huh? Was I not responding to the person that compared both "MS" and
    "Cisco" certs (in the generic sense) to the bar exam and to state
    engineering exams? If he had said something about the CCIE and I
    replied like this, then sure, I could see your point. But he didn't.
    A simple word search reveals that Sean made no mention of CCIE. So
    Terry, take your own advice and don't display your inability to read
    and comprehend simple English words so publicly, lol!
    I didn't get that wrong either. I think you are experiencing a case
    of mistaken identity. See Usenet posts carry this little piece of
    information that identifies the author of a post. If you spent a
    second looking at it you might not be so embarrassed when you make
    points to the wrong people.


    --Bernie
     
    Bernie, Sep 11, 2003
    #38
  19. newsreader

    Bernie Guest

    Nrf, I think this guy was saying that his friends who were Geology
    majors (you know..."rocks for jocks") thought the CCIE was harder than
    their field trips identifying various types of igneous rocks....
    Well, it should also be mentioned that if the goal is "D's get
    degrees" then no program is really *that* tough. If the goal is to
    graduate with honors and learn something along the way, most degree
    programs become tough at some point.
    You are gracious to give him the benefit of having a clue here. He
    has already stated at least twice that it is the cert that pays the
    salary, lol.

    --Bernie
     
    Bernie, Sep 11, 2003
    #39
  20. newsreader

    Bernie Guest

    LOL. Or Supremacy, Nuclear War, etc. etc.

    --Bernie
     
    Bernie, Sep 11, 2003
    #40
    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.