Re: eBay is looking for network heavies...
On 6/6/2015 05:43, shawn wilson wrote:
My first thought on reading that was "who the hell cares if a person knows about internet culture". But than I had to reconsider - it's a very apt way of telling if someone read the right books :)
I would also add Ritchie, Thompson, and Diffie to that list (since you ask about Larry, it's only appropriate).
I find it interesting that I have not note a mention of people like Radia Pearlman and [name advancing years have stolen from me] that wrote a 3 volume set (I think it was) (that I can not find in the post-great-downsizing-bookshelves-disarray at the moment*). *did a little Binging--Not W. Richard Stevens although the subconscious thinks "steven" might have been the first name. NO! Douglas E. Comer "Internetworking with TCP/IP" (Nice try subconscious! Volume 3 is co-authored by David L. Stevens.) -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
As someone studying their first CCIE (RS), I sometimes find these kind of discussions disheartening. They come up every now and again, and the opinions seem vary anywhere between 'a good interview tool' and 'less than worthless'. It took me a long time to get started in certifications once I began working in IT, because I questioned why I needed a piece of paper to prove what I knew.After I've started, I realised that following a certification track isn't perfect, but it gives (at least to me) the structure to cover areas of knowledge that you might not if you were doing 100% on the job training or some other methods. It gives you something to aim for, and helps with motivation and setting goals. Does a certification mean that you are an expert? No. Does it mean you are devoid of skill? No. All it means is that the person has studied the curriculum, and passed the tests.No more, no less. Now from what I understand of the CCIE lab exam (which I haven't attempted yet), it is a practical exam and you need to know your stuff to pass. I'm sure people think up ways to cheat and devalue it, that's bound to happen. I've sat on both sides of the interview table, and I've had plenty of both certified an uncertified people come through that don't know their stuff.I've also had plenty of both certified and uncertified people who have been great. When I see someone who has a certification, and they can follow it up with actual skills, it indicates they have a certain level of dedication to improving themselves and their education. (In my experience it takes more time to study a certification track than to learn just what you need to get a job done.) Just my 2c... Cheers,Josh
On Jun 7, 2015 4:12 AM, "Joshua Riesenweber" <joshua.riesenweber@outlook.com> wrote:
(In my experience it takes more time to study a certification track than to learn just what you need to get a job done.)
Stated different, no job is going to teach you how to pass a cert. And no cert is going to teach a job. One can help with the other, but different skills are involved.
On 06/07/2015 01:10 AM, Joshua Riesenweber wrote:
Now from what I understand of the CCIE lab exam (which I haven't attempted yet), it is a practical exam and you need to know your stuff to pass. I'm sure people think up ways to cheat and devalue it, that's bound to happen. I've sat on both sides of the interview table, and I've had plenty of both certified an uncertified people come through that don't know their stuff.I've also had plenty of both certified and uncertified people who have been great. When I see someone who has a certification, and they can follow it up with actual skills, it indicates they have a certain level of dedication to improving themselves and their education. (In my experience it takes more time to study a certification track than to learn just what you need to get a job done.)
The R&S CCIE lab exame is a timed practical exam, and as certification tests goes it does a fair job measuring the ability of the candidate to implement routers and switches to obtain certain results, ON CISCO EQUIPMENT. (This is also true of the other Cisco certification tracks.) The companies that sell preparation services coach the customers and provide hands-on instruction on how to streamline the prep for the actual setting up of the equipment -- that pesky time limit. (By the way, don't get me started on CompTIA. I used to belong to that organization. Talk about sausage being made...) One can learn how to do almost anything. The real trick is being able to finish tasks quickly, and that's damn hard to do without practice, practice, practice. Also, how to approach understanding the lab exercises so you *can* finish each task quickly and demonstrability correctly (taking into consideration automated grading of your work, by the way) is a big part of it. That said, certifications show that the candidate can turn a wrench. It shows nothing about the candidate's ability to handle ARIN, to troubleshoot political snafus, how to deal with management that is severely clue-deficient, and most important play nice with colleagues at other network operator centers. Not to mention one's own customers, and even sometimes co-workers. And all the other (arguably) non-technical parts of being a member of a network operations team.
Shop class can also teach you how to turn a wrench. How many people out of that area go on to be the best mechanics you¹ve ever seen? Some do, some don¹t. Certifications aren¹t any different. They are around to establish a benchmark of minimally qualified knowledge. We all should know the difference between hands-on and multiple-choice things. ANY knowledge is useless unless you know how to actually use it. Looking at your previous post about all the Layer1 things actually made me smile. But that was based on my experience, not something an IE exam taught me. (You were the first person I have ever heard refer to the 30cm with ethernet in the almost 30 years I¹ve been doing cabling stuff. I loved it!) We all should know the specifics of what is (or more importantly IS NOT) being tested on in the various exams. And ask questions accordingly. While I¹m happy that someone could spout off particular names and their functional contributions to the world, it likewise does not have any indication about someone¹s ability to actually program Perl or configure/use/whatever to BIND. Quit bitching about the certifications and simply make your interviews appropriate to what you want to know that a candidate can actually DO on the job. Certs or no certs, there are people who know things and people who do not. If you discount people simply because they have a certification, then you are missing out IMHO. But I guess take that as you will since I have several of these certifications. :) Scott -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> Date: Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 8:28 AM To: <joshua.riesenweber@outlook.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: eBay is looking for network heavies...
That said, certifications show that the candidate can turn a wrench. It shows nothing about the candidate's ability to handle ARIN, to troubleshoot political snafus, how to deal with management that is severely clue-deficient, and most important play nice with colleagues at other network operator centers. Not to mention one's own customers, and even sometimes co-workers. And all the other (arguably) non-technical parts of being a member of a network operations team.
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> wrote:
On 06/07/2015 01:10 AM, Joshua Riesenweber wrote: [snip]
What the industry could probably use most for entry-level certs is a technical reading comprehension requirement on the certs, or a requirement of GRE scores e.g. 145 Verbal, 160 Math, before being able to obtain the certs, to demonstrate an ability to read and understand documentation, including BNF, and the ability to lookup something from a technical manual, read, understand, and apply it properly using qualified background knowledge at the level being certified. Too often, certs concentrate on trivial minutia that is "trivially tested", but also not frequently used, so the population has a bunch of people who just paid copious $$$ for in-person coaching on _just the specifics of the exam_, or people who memorized answers from stolen copies of exams. So even in that, many of the tests lose their ability, due to the intervention of 3rd party "learning providers" who are just making a quick buck training candidates directly to exams, instead of teaching the subject. In short: In regards to the use of certifications when hiring --- they can be used by non-technical reviewers to help filter candidates, where there are more applicants than desired. Consider it a "bulk" filtering criteria that can be done instantly without wasting as much time, and the final filter might be an internal quiz and human interviewers. The certs are no definitive measure, but candidates with Both experience and industry certs to help confirm the quality of that experience are more likely to be applicants worth committing serious time to evaluate, And they can be used to help break ties between otherwise equal applicants in favor of those certified. As to if it matters whether the certification is for Cisco equipment and you use X vendor equipment instead, I would refer to semi-relevant link here: http://www.jasonbock.net/jb/News/Item/7c334037d1a9437d9fa6506e2f35eaac If Carpenters were hired like engineers.... 'I see here, you have experience with cutting timber with "Makita and Milwaukee brand Skillsaws" Unfortunately, we need someone with 25 years experience using the DeWalts.' Certifications can also be used by consultants/contractors to market services, or assure end customers that their services are by people "qualified by the vendor of their equipment".
The R&S CCIE lab exame is a timed practical exam, and as certification tests goes it does a fair job measuring the ability of the candidate to implement routers and switches to obtain certain results, ON CISCO EQUIPMENT. (This is also true of the other Cisco certification tracks.)
Correct. However, earning a certification such as CCIE demonstrates that you are not one of those clueless folks who completely lacks understanding and ability to learn basic config and troubleshooting. Earning the cert would require a great deal of practice due to their time limits, therefore the candidate that holds one shows proof of a certain level of dedication to advancement or learning within the field. And sufficient technical aptitude and ability to learn is implied by the certificate to deal with other vendor's equipment, even though Cisco's certifications only address Cisco equipment directly; there are many vendor-neutral concepts which should have been understood for success. The specifics of configuration language and hardware are "implementation details". No certification measures a candidate's ability to quickly learn novel configuration syntax or special rules of arbitrary $new_vendor's equipment.
One can learn how to do almost anything. The real trick is being able to finish tasks quickly, and that's damn hard to do without practice, practice,
Ability to finish tasks *accurately* is what matters. But very simple things should be done quickly. The results of non-repetitive tasks should always be looked at carefully to help validate accuracy,, And the practice required to do any tasks that are frequent and repetitive should be gained by anyone qualified on the job fairly quickly.
That said, certifications show that the candidate can turn a wrench. It shows nothing about the candidate's ability to handle ARIN, to troubleshoot political snafus, how to deal with management that is severely
All of these are things that can be learned without a large amount of grief, you need reading comprehension; ARIN's policies and tools are fairly well documented in writing. The candidate who can't even learn and pass a cert test might actually be incapable of learning what is required on their own. It's not cost-effective to buy in-person training or certify for *every little thing* that comes up later.
clue-deficient, and most important play nice with colleagues at other
-- -JH
When I was asked the default BGP timers across three different vendor platforms as measure of my networking ability during an interview, I replied saying I'd look them up if needed them. I was told I didn't understand BGP in enough detail, despite being able to describe all the steps of BGP session establishment and route exchange. Certs have ruined the industry. On Jun 7, 2015 11:20 PM, "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> wrote:
On 06/07/2015 01:10 AM, Joshua Riesenweber wrote: [snip]
What the industry could probably use most for entry-level certs is a technical reading comprehension requirement on the certs, or a requirement of GRE scores e.g. 145 Verbal, 160 Math, before being able to obtain the certs, to demonstrate an ability to read and understand documentation, including BNF, and the ability to lookup something from a technical manual, read, understand, and apply it properly using qualified background knowledge at the level being certified.
Too often, certs concentrate on trivial minutia that is "trivially tested", but also not frequently used, so the population has a bunch of people who just paid copious $$$ for in-person coaching on _just the specifics of the exam_, or people who memorized answers from stolen copies of exams.
So even in that, many of the tests lose their ability, due to the intervention of 3rd party "learning providers" who are just making a quick buck training candidates directly to exams, instead of teaching the subject.
In short: In regards to the use of certifications when hiring --- they can be used by non-technical reviewers to help filter candidates, where there are more applicants than desired. Consider it a "bulk" filtering criteria that can be done instantly without wasting as much time, and the final filter might be an internal quiz and human interviewers.
The certs are no definitive measure, but candidates with Both experience and industry certs to help confirm the quality of that experience are more likely to be applicants worth committing serious time to evaluate, And they can be used to help break ties between otherwise equal applicants in favor of those certified.
As to if it matters whether the certification is for Cisco equipment and you use X vendor equipment instead, I would refer to semi-relevant link here: http://www.jasonbock.net/jb/News/Item/7c334037d1a9437d9fa6506e2f35eaac
If Carpenters were hired like engineers.... 'I see here, you have experience with cutting timber with "Makita and Milwaukee brand Skillsaws" Unfortunately, we need someone with 25 years experience using the DeWalts.'
Certifications can also be used by consultants/contractors to market services, or assure end customers that their services are by people "qualified by the vendor of their equipment".
The R&S CCIE lab exame is a timed practical exam, and as certification tests goes it does a fair job measuring the ability of the candidate to implement routers and switches to obtain certain results, ON CISCO EQUIPMENT. (This is also true of the other Cisco certification tracks.)
Correct. However, earning a certification such as CCIE demonstrates that you are not one of those clueless folks who completely lacks understanding and ability to learn basic config and troubleshooting. Earning the cert would require a great deal of practice due to their time limits, therefore the candidate that holds one shows proof of a certain level of dedication to advancement or learning within the field.
And sufficient technical aptitude and ability to learn is implied by the certificate to deal with other vendor's equipment, even though Cisco's certifications only address Cisco equipment directly; there are many vendor-neutral concepts which should have been understood for success.
The specifics of configuration language and hardware are "implementation details". No certification measures a candidate's ability to quickly learn novel configuration syntax or special rules of arbitrary $new_vendor's equipment.
One can learn how to do almost anything. The real trick is being able to finish tasks quickly, and that's damn hard to do without practice, practice,
Ability to finish tasks *accurately* is what matters. But very simple things should be done quickly.
The results of non-repetitive tasks should always be looked at carefully to help validate accuracy,,
And the practice required to do any tasks that are frequent and repetitive should be gained by anyone qualified on the job fairly quickly.
That said, certifications show that the candidate can turn a wrench. It shows nothing about the candidate's ability to handle ARIN, to troubleshoot political snafus, how to deal with management that is severely
All of these are things that can be learned without a large amount of grief, you need reading comprehension; ARIN's policies and tools are fairly well documented in writing.
The candidate who can't even learn and pass a cert test might actually be incapable of learning what is required on their own.
It's not cost-effective to buy in-person training or certify for *every little thing* that comes up later.
clue-deficient, and most important play nice with colleagues at other
-- -JH
On Jun 8, 2015 10:11 PM, "Shane Ronan" <shane@ronan-online.com> wrote:
Certs have ruined the industry.
Certs have made the industry more interesting. After all, without certs, we'd have less stupid to point at and laugh (or scream). And HR screeners would need to know something about the position they're screening.
On 06/08/2015 07:34 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
On Jun 8, 2015 10:11 PM, "Shane Ronan" <shane@ronan-online.com> wrote:
Certs have ruined the industry.
Certs have made the industry more interesting. After all, without certs, we'd have less stupid to point at and laugh (or scream). And HR screeners would need to know something about the position they're screening.
I think that some people here don't realize just who benefits from vendor-specific certifications. It's the *vendors*. It's why companies like Microsoft, Red Hat, Cisco, Juniper, &c spend the money to develop certification programs: to ensure there are a pool of people who can effectively use [some of] their products without having to call technical support all the time. Certification programs are expensive, time- and resource-intensive, and a pain to keep up to date as products mature and grow. The job is even more of a pain when large companies like Cisco end up buying other companies to add their products to the Cisco line to allow customers to solve particular problems and "stay in the family". It's like a tech business wanting to locate in places like San Jose, Cambridge, or Autin...because that's where they can find workers ready to slot into their game. Vendors like to have a large enough certified people so that management can feel comfortable buying vendor hardware and software -- it reduces risk for both customer *and* vendor. Reduced risks means more profits. For everyone.
i don't think certs have ruined the industry. bad interviewing and recruiting, maybe... asking encyclopedia-type "gotcha" questions are the most inane test of someone's ability to perform well at the job. i promise you - you didn't want to work for this person anyways. got a cert? great. but let's whiteboard a real-world problem and see how you do. i won't play you into a trap. On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 7:11 PM Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com> wrote:
When I was asked the default BGP timers across three different vendor platforms as measure of my networking ability during an interview, I replied saying I'd look them up if needed them.
I was told I didn't understand BGP in enough detail, despite being able to describe all the steps of BGP session establishment and route exchange.
Certs have ruined the industry.
Hi,
Certs have ruined the industry.
Certifications are great keywords for recruiters. If you're a hiring manager, why create a huge list of all routing protocols you'd like the ideal candidate to understand? Saying "I need a JNCIE with 5 years experience" is a lot easier than "the ideal candidate has an expert-level understanding of OSPF/ISIS, MPLS signaling protocols such as LDP and RSVP, BGP, IPv4/IPv6 and $vendor equipment. You get a bunch of resumes where you look for the experience needed for the position and off you go to do your phone screening. Those who are really experts will be able to pass the certification exams without too much trouble, and those who made it through 20 bootcamps prior to taking their 6th attempt at CCIE R&S before passing are easily weed out by a quick chat on the phone. That said, there is a constant devaluation when it comes to certifications. They start off as being very difficult and only achievable for the real experts, and then the makers get directed by the company to make them easier as too few people pass them. I was part of the development team for the IP certification track of a major telecommunications vendor. The entire team was actually surprised that people passed the professional level exams (2 required) and some even passed the expert level lab exam. They have since made it easier, after I left that company. The same happened with JNCIE. Initially it was a two day exam. Then one had to pass the one day JNCIP-M and the one day JNCIE-M exam. And now even the JNCIP is a written exam, with the JNCIE-SP being a lot easier (so I've been told). Anyway, out of experience I can recommend all of you looking for good network engineers to hire out of your extended network. Someone who comes recommended by someone that I respect will be on top of my list to get in for an interview. Thanks, Sabri JNCIE-M/SP #261 JNCSP-SP JNCIS-ER ECE-IPN #2 ECE-FB #2 (sorry, had to ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Ronan" <shane@ronan-online.com>
When I was asked the default BGP timers across three different vendor platforms as measure of my networking ability during an interview, I replied saying I'd look them up if needed them.
I was told I didn't understand BGP in enough detail, despite being able to describe all the steps of BGP session establishment and route exchange.
Certs have ruined the industry.
Maybe. But they certainly saved you from having to work for an asshole with misplaced priorities... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shane Ronan" <shane@ronan-online.com> When I was asked the default BGP timers across three different vendor platforms as measure of my networking ability during an interview, I replied saying I'd look them up if needed them.
I was told I didn't understand BGP in enough detail, despite being able to describe all the steps of BGP session establishment and route exchange. Certs have ruined the industry. Maybe. But they certainly saved you from having to work for an asshole with misplaced priorities...
Indeed, the interview process is a two way street. Lets you evaluate who you would be working for -- or if you really would want to. -Dan
On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:18 AM, goemon@anime.net wrote:
Indeed, the interview process is a two way street. Lets you evaluate who you would be working for -- or if you really would want to.
I wrote most of a very long follow-up to this. But what it boils down to is: +10,000 For all of you sitting across the table, consider that you are being interviewed even more intensely than you think you are interviewing us. (By anyone who has been in the game for a while, at least. Which means the people you have short-listed, right?) Over the past 25 years or so, I can think of a half-dozen offers I've turned down because the employer failed the interview. (Which doesn't make me a geeenious ... just someone who values low blood pressure, and prefers an interesting work environment over $$$) --lyndon
On 06/10/2015 07:47 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Over the past 25 years or so, I can think of a half-dozen offers I've turned down because the employer failed the interview. (Which doesn't make me a geeenious ... just someone who values low blood pressure, and prefers an interesting work environment over $$$)
OK, can't ignore a straight line like that... When I was living in Chicago, a head-hunter steered me to a consulting firm that had a hot project. They were looking for young hot programmers for a top-secret project. After the phone screen, the company called me in for the face-to-face "interview". I put the word "interview" in quotes because, for 25 minutes, the chief programmer of the place played a video game he wrote. That was the extent of the interview! The company? A game studio (back when game studios were new) who had a contract to develop games for the to-be-introduced Coleco Adam. Um, that was a surprise, and not my thing. I ran out of there...
On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> wrote:
After the phone screen, the company called me in for the face-to-face "interview". I put the word "interview" in quotes because, for 25 minutes, the chief programmer of the place played a video game he wrote. That was the extent of the interview!
Mmm hmm. E.g. I spent half+ an hour being grilled on the internals and efficiencies of various regular expression library implementations. '[a-z]' vs. '[:islower:]' or something equally irrelevant to the interview at hand, for a position creating/managing the kernel - not apps - for an email spam filtering appliance. The second half hour devolved into a rant by the interviewer about 'volatile' in whatever was the latest version of the ANSI C standard. You can have a lot of fun, though, by playing the interviewers. When you discover your interest in the company is a noop, steering things into the Brazil regime can generate endless entertainment ;-) In fact, fishing for silliness can produce plenty of results. --lyndon
On 6/7/2015 4:10 AM, Joshua Riesenweber wrote:
As someone studying their first CCIE (RS), I sometimes find these kind of discussions disheartening. They come up every now and again, and the opinions seem vary anywhere between 'a good interview tool' and 'less than worthless'. A certification is like anything else a person puts on their resume -- I assume its value is overstated and follow the "trust, but verify" protocol.
I expect candidates to have the same body of knowledge regardless of whether or not they're certified -- I need them to do a job, and that job requires certain skills. If getting that piece of paper taught you those skills -- great, though very unlikely. If you acquired the skills without the paper, also great. Generally I find that candidates with no/few certs are the more well-rounded (real-life experience + practical knowledge) candidates. The School of Hard Knocks is a great institution of learning.
following a certification track isn't perfect, but it gives (at least to me) the structure to cover areas of knowledge that you might not if you were doing 100% on the job training or some other methods. It gives you something to aim for, and helps with motivation and setting goals. In many ways, certification tracks are something like getting a PhD. Completely useless information (and very few skills) to anything you'll do in the "real world", but if it makes your clock tick, go for it. Just don't expect me to be impressed when I'm interviewing you, because it has no direct relationship with your ability to do this job.
As a personal growth tool -- great. As a professional growth tool -- meh.
When I see someone who has a certification, and they can follow it up with actual skills, it indicates they have a certain level of dedication to improving themselves and their education. (In my experience it takes more time to study a certification track than to learn just what you need to get a job done.) My favourite question to ask candidates during an interview is "Tell me about a cool technology project you've done outside of work." I don't even really care what the answer is, it's more about "do they get revved up while they're talking about it?"
If they fire up to 110% and get super excited to tell you about the super-awesome $THING they built/coded/hacked, it bodes well for their motivation about all things tech, including learning about it. The "geek" type, if you will. If they shrivel up and say "I dunno... Uhh... I installed Exchange once." then I know all I need to know about their dedication to improving their knowledge & skills. They're here for a day job and really aren't passionate about technology. I often ask this question early in the interview process -- I find it helps the really-awesome-but-with-poor-interview-skills geeks to relax and do well with the rest of the interview, and it it provides me with a pretty damned reliable barometer reading of the candidate from the get-go.
i assume, but have zero actual knowledge/experience, that certification courses/programs actually cover all the corners and minutiae of a subject such as is-is. so you come out knowing all the options and details, 42% of which you will use; or maybe 24% if you are parsimonious. while i no longer have spare room in my head for a lot of stuff i will not use, having some clue about what's outside my current practice zone would be useful. if i was young and had spare brain cells and time, i might read through the course ware and do some playing in the lab. but you can't move packets on pieces of paper.
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
i assume, but have zero actual knowledge/experience, that certification courses/programs actually cover all the corners and minutiae of a subject such as is-is. so you come out knowing all the options and details, 42% of which you will use; or maybe 24% if you are parsimonious.
while i no longer have spare room in my head for a lot of stuff i will not use, having some clue about what's outside my current practice zone would be useful. if i was young and had spare brain cells and time, i might read through the course ware and do some playing in the lab. but you can't move packets on pieces of paper.
Normally a lurker, I agree. I feel that most of us fall into some range below. - New Build-out / Startupish: All that cool stuff and proper tech is the go forward until the money runs out. - ENTERPRISE: PHB demands you use vendor X and solution Y for no technical reason. - Mom-Pop / Third World / NPO: Do what we can with what we have. - Out Sourcing Vendor Manager: juggling so many vendors doing different things. - IXP: What ever can support the legacy and current tech in a safe way. - Add your own. Certificates are a fun topic. I think if a 17 year old wanted to prove their technical knowledge a certificate would be a good method. Certificates are also looked at as "structure" the same way a degree might be by hiring managers (don't really know how I feel on this). I think Randy touched on a good topic of how do the established people take time to pull in some related knowledge that is not part of their normal roll at this time. Learning ahead of time vs implementing on demand. All in all, silly questions like "describe traceroute" show real world knowledge and communication skill. The later may be more useful at times. -- ~ Andrew "lathama" Latham ~
On 06/07/2015 09:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
i assume, but have zero actual knowledge/experience, that certification courses/programs actually cover all the corners and minutiae of a subject such as is-is. so you come out knowing all the options and details, 42% of which you will use; or maybe 24% if you are parsimonious.
while i no longer have spare room in my head for a lot of stuff i will not use, having some clue about what's outside my current practice zone would be useful. if i was young and had spare brain cells and time, i might read through the course ware and do some playing in the lab. but you can't move packets on pieces of paper.
Putting on my "professor's kid" hat: Education is *supposed* to be about learning how to find answers when you need them. How to understand what you find. Yes, there are a number of basic things you need to do "by rote" and from memory (especially "muscle memory"), but when you run into the one-percent cases, you need to know where to look and how to apply what your search turns up. "[I do not] carry such information in my mind since it is readily available in books. ...The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think." -- Albert Einstein
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
but you can't move packets on pieces of paper. Or can you? RFC's 6214 2549 1149
Sure, but rfc1149 needs some work before it could be a viable way of moving packets. For example: the rfc calls for printing a diagram on paper, which is error-prone, and the ink is expensive. Instead they should be using a hole punch to encode the message on the paper tape, bit by bit, with check bits for error correction. Transport of the tapes by truck or car would be more suitable for bandwidth requirements of bulk transfer. Also, the paper can be recycled more easily by reinserting punched and gluing back punched holes from previous message exchanges, than attempting to rewet and bottle ink.
;) -- -JH
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:
Randy Bush wrote: ....
but you can't move packets on pieces of paper.
Or can you? RFC's 6214 2549 1149
But how many avian carriers would you need to move the packets current pushed around per second, and how many Mercedes' would have their paint ruined from that number of carriers, or would the number be large enough to collapse into a star (obligatory what-if xkcd reference: http://what-if.xkcd.com/99/)
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Peter Kristolaitis <alter3d@alter3d.ca> wrote:
In many ways, certification tracks are something like getting a PhD. Completely useless information (and very few skills) to anything you'll do in the "real world", but if it makes your clock tick, go for it. Just don't expect me to be impressed when I'm interviewing you, because it has no direct relationship with your ability to do this job.
Certs are a good way to get selected by the HR people and have your CV forwarded to the people that will actually do the interviewing part. Some companies actually put out job listings with required mandatory certifications so from their point of view, you only qualify if you have a piece of paper saying that you know X,Y,Z.
My favourite question to ask candidates during an interview is "Tell me about a cool technology project you've done outside of work." I don't even really care what the answer is, it's more about "do they get revved up while they're talking about it?"
Cool idea, never thought of this type of questions when gauging peoples interest in motivation and the desire to learn. Eugeniu
On Sun, 7 Jun 2015, Joshua Riesenweber wrote:
As someone studying their first CCIE (RS), I sometimes find these kind of discussions disheartening. They come up every now and again, and the opinions seem vary anywhere between 'a good interview tool' and 'less than worthless'. [snip] Does a certification mean that you are an expert? No. Does it mean you are devoid of skill? No. All it means is that the person has studied the curriculum, and passed the tests.No more, no less. [snip] When I see someone who has a certification, and they can follow it up with actual skills, it indicates they have a certain level of dedication to improving themselves and their education. (In my experience it takes more time to study a certification track than to learn just what you need to get a job done.)
Agreed. I don't think certs are completely worthless, nor do I make a professional judgment on someone based solely on the alphabet soup they append to their name (or don't). I've been working in the technology world for over 20 years and have had the opportunity to work with people who had the papers and were top-notch, and people who had those same papers and were complete tools in an "*I* have a CCIE... my excrement can't *possibly* stink!" kind of way. Likewise, some of the sharpest people I've ever worked with had no certs at all, but there were lots of tools there, too. Certs are nice, but someone who has them on their resume had better be prepared to walk the walk in a technical interview. As the OP mentioned, the alphabet soup just puts someone at the head of the line for a phone interview. Nothing more. jms
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Sheldon" <larrysheldon@cox.net>
I find it interesting that I have not note a mention of people like Radia Pearlman and [name advancing years have stolen from me] that wrote a 3 volume set (I think it was) (that I can not find in the post-great-downsizing-bookshelves-disarray at the moment*).
*did a little Binging--Not W. Richard Stevens although the subconscious thinks "steven" might have been the first name.
NO! Douglas E. Comer "Internetworking with TCP/IP" (Nice try subconscious! Volume 3 is co-authored by David L. Stevens.)
No, W Richard was a layer up the stack: http://www.kohala.com/start/ Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
participants (19)
-
Andrew Latham -
Eugeniu Patrascu -
Gary Buhrmaster -
goemon＠anime.net -
Jay Ashworth -
Jimmy Hess -
Joshua Riesenweber -
Justin M. Streiner -
Larry Sheldon -
Lyndon Nerenberg -
Peter Kristolaitis -
Randy Bush -
ryanL -
Sabri Berisha -
Scott Morris -
Shane Ronan -
shawn wilson -
Stephen Satchell -
Tony Hain