IMO: Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies. Why would you devote your career to learning a vendor's command line or IOS? Cisco has done an excellent job @ brainwashing the IT community. The have (unfortunately) set the standard for "Network Engineers". What do you think is more respected, a masters degree in Networking Engineering or a CCIE. In most circles it would be the latter. Cisco's certification program has effected the entire IT community. Their CCIE's are required to recertify every few years, thus forcing them to stay true to the Cisco lifestyle. I've met some CCIE's who don't know any programming languages or any experience with Unix. It's clear that they are one dimensional and unfocused. Why study the same thing over and over? Do you really have X amount of years experience, or do you have 1 years experience X times? Think about it. If you have been in the field for over 5 years and someone new to the industry by way of certification can handle your work load, that is a serious problem. If anything certs should be used as a stepping stone or advancement to new technologies or areas. Then again, the question of CERTS vs. DEGREES might apply differently to someone without any experience. I guess it really depends on what your looking for. --- Nigel Clarke Network Security Engineer nigel@forever-networks.com
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Nigel Clarke wrote:
What do you think is more respected, a masters degree in Networking Engineering or a CCIE. In most
One of my arguments is that this doesn't exist but at a FEW schools around the world and only at the MS level. I've been looking for a network engineering program because personally I don't see myself being required to design a processor, as long as I know how it behaves and operates. Sure some believe its required to know how to build a processor and I think its really cool (Yes I do know) but to some this is not important because they will never be required to build one. This would be the perfect curriculum. I know Valdis is from VT, so I hope he's listening. Why couldn't we as a networking community sit down and come up with a degree program that goes from BS to PhD? Sure it can touch on basic programming and basic processor design, but it would be more heavily weighted towards utilizing technologies on the market and creating solutions to the common programs. It could be a mix between the CCIE, Net+, etc. Because I know my Comp Engineering program doesn't touch on anything related at all to networking, and never even mentions the idea of security. So why not create a focused area for this? - Andrew --- <zerocool@netpath.net> http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself."
I see ucsd extension offers a communication engineering cert, which altho a cert is not vendor specific. Seems to deal with typical hi level EE stuff, and offers a shot to get into their masters program. Bri On Wed, 22 May 2002, Andrew Dorsett wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Nigel Clarke wrote:
What do you think is more respected, a masters degree in Networking Engineering or a CCIE. In most
One of my arguments is that this doesn't exist but at a FEW schools around the world and only at the MS level. I've been looking for a network engineering program because personally I don't see myself being required to design a processor, as long as I know how it behaves and operates. Sure some believe its required to know how to build a processor and I think its really cool (Yes I do know) but to some this is not important because they will never be required to build one. This would be the perfect curriculum. I know Valdis is from VT, so I hope he's listening. Why couldn't we as a networking community sit down and come up with a degree program that goes from BS to PhD? Sure it can touch on basic programming and basic processor design, but it would be more heavily weighted towards utilizing technologies on the market and creating solutions to the common programs. It could be a mix between the CCIE, Net+, etc. Because I know my Comp Engineering program doesn't touch on anything related at all to networking, and never even mentions the idea of security. So why not create a focused area for this?
- Andrew --- <zerocool@netpath.net> http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate
"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself."
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Brian wrote:
I see ucsd extension offers a communication engineering cert, which altho a cert is not vendor specific. Seems to deal with typical hi level EE stuff, and offers a shot to get into their masters program.
Exactly! It is high level EE stuff..... That's not the same thing. It's the engineering method of making a round peg fit in a triangular hole. Andrew --- <zerocool@netpath.net> http://www.andrewsworld.net/ ICQ: 2895251 Cisco Certified Network Associate "Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to make all of them yourself."
On Wed, 22 May 2002 18:56:49 EDT, Andrew Dorsett <zerocool@netpath.net> said:
never be required to build one. This would be the perfect curriculum. I know Valdis is from VT, so I hope he's listening. Why
I just work at VT - my BS is in mathematics, with a physics minor, Clarkson University '84. (OK, to be *really* technical, it's a math degree because there wasn't a separate CS program/degree till '86, but as a result I got zinged with a lot more calculus and related than the average CS major)
my Comp Engineering program doesn't touch on anything related at all to networking, and never even mentions the idea of security. So why not create a focused area for this?
Stop by and talk to me or Randy Marchany about security - he taught a grad-level class on it this semester. The biggest problem we're facing in getting a full-fledged academic program going is that most of the people who have a clue are the CIRT team, and we're all network operations and sysadmin types - Randy's the only one of us who does much teaching and lecturing. We get hit with a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. We can't scare up enough warm bodies(*) to teach more than one or two grad-level courses a year in security. Meanwhile, the number of grad students who have enough free course slots to *take* more than one or two classes is limited, since all of the current "focused areas" have prerequisite lists of classes. And creating a new "focused area" is a challenge - it sort of presupposes having 2 or 3 PhD-level professors to teach the classes, and given that VT is currently trying to trim it's budget by $25M, it's unclear who'd pay for THAT... /Valdis (*) For some reason, the number of people who will teach a grad-level course for free is quite limited - *I* certainly won't do it for free ;)
Hi all, I've read this thread with quite a bit of interest, I must admit. I must say that after reading it all, I see alot of ... misguided perceptions. Certifications, of any kind, be it university degrees, or other generic certifications, or even the product specific ones, are just a way to ascertain material knowledge. Nothing, nothing more. By no means are they any good at ascertaining the persons ability to implement knowledge (no matter what Cisco says about its hands on lab test). Like any other program, they are built around a specific structure. That doesn't predict the ability of a person to implement knowledge in new situations, adapt it to his/her needs, and find a solution to a new problem. If the original question that started this thread meant to ask which is better for getting a job, then I don't know, it depends on who's hiring. Ideally though, a persons resume is built upon a few factors. You have the core knowledge, which is - as some put it here - just data you accumulate. Unless you practice with it, it stays fresh in your mind for a few months tops, and then fades (remember those university mid terms ?). For knowledge to be useful, one needs to apply it. Thus, a resume should mainly point out, apart from the "what you read from books" part, and what toys you played with (be it routers, servers, and so on) how you have implemented that knowledge, and where. This is, the "experience" part. This includes references from former employers, whom you can call, and other pertinent stuff. One of the qualities I look for most in people, is the ability to learn and adapt, self motivation and independence. Of course there are other personality issues taken into consideration, but this is off topic. For the degree vs. certification bit, I'd say I treat them with the same suspicion. The ability to learn from books and take tests is not really a good predictor of a successful network engineer, or a successful anything for that matter. IT environment tends to be very flexible and fast paced. Technologies and products change at a fast pace, and at this point, only the ability to learn and adapt, and I mean, learn by yourself, not have me push you from behind, this predicts, IMHO, much better, the chance of being able to hire someone that will last more than a short while. Learning never stops. It's a never ending process, and that's the beauty of it. Patting yourself on the back while looking at your resume, where you see that you have X Y and Z diplomas will do no one any good. I have nothing against college degrees, or vendor based (or independant based) certifications. People should learn, and for all I care, as much as they can. What matters, in the end, is their ability to implement what they have learned. So, experience and abilities based on character and intelect are the most important job ingredients you'll ever have. That doesn't mean knowledge is not important. The IT business is not medicine, or engineering of structures. The reason those require certifications up front is because they deal with human lives. And yet, most doctors I know are incompetent, despite the fact they passed their exams, and have their doctors license. my 2 cents, --Ariel -- Ariel Biener e-mail: ariel@post.tau.ac.il PGP(6.5.8) public key http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 02:18:37AM +0300, ariel@fireball.tau.ac.il said:
Hi all,
I've read this thread with quite a bit of interest, I must admit. I must say that after reading it all, I see alot of ... misguided perceptions.
Certifications, of any kind, be it university degrees, or other generic certifications, or even the product specific ones, are just a way to ascertain material knowledge. Nothing, nothing more. By no means are they any good at ascertaining the persons ability to implement knowledge (no matter what Cisco says about its hands on lab test). Like any other program, they are built around a specific structure. That doesn't predict the ability of a person to implement knowledge in new situations, adapt it to his/her needs, and find a solution to a new problem. [snip]
*nod* I'm by no means qualified to give any kind of authoritative (or even very experienced) opinion on this issue, but from my limited experience to date, it appears to me that the most important qualities in a system or network admin, at pretty much any level, are the ability to know how to efficiently search for answers, and how to troubleshoot problems in unfamiliar situations. Anybody that knows how to find answers quickly and accurately, and knows how to effectively and logically troubleshoot problems, even if they have no prior exposure to the problem in question, will do well in pretty much any situation you put them in, whether they have certifications, degrees or even prior experience, or not.
my 2 cents,
--Ariel
My $0.005 (not qualified to give a full $0.02 yet). -- Scott Francis darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t Systems/Network Manager sfrancis@ [work:] t o n o s . c o m GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
In a message written on Wed, May 22, 2002 at 06:37:35PM -0400, Nigel Clarke wrote:
Why would you devote your career to learning a vendor's command line or IOS?
Selling your soul to a vendor is not always a bad decision. It happens in all industries as well. If the vendor is popular, there will always be people willing to pay for detailed experience with that vendor, or for esoteric knowledge about that vendor.
Cisco has done an excellent job @ brainwashing the IT community. The have (unfortunately) set the standard for "Network Engineers".
I'm biased, see .sig, but having been through the process, and seen what other vendors (eg, Microsoft, Novell) do with their programs I do believe that Cisco wants their certifications to mean something. No, that doesn't mean everyone who is certified is an expert. It does mean the odds that someone with a Cisco certification knows something are probably an order of magnitude better than a Microsoft certified person.
What do you think is more respected, a masters degree in Networking Engineering or a CCIE. In most circles it would be the latter.
What I really want to address is that you don't get something like a CCIE for the "respect". Believe me, I don't get any for having it. When I got it, I was a consultant. The reality was if I had a CCIE my employer could bill me at a significantly higher rate, some of which they passed on to me. Why did people pay these rates? The answer was simple, they had better odds of getting someone good. These people would go through 4-5 "Network Engineers", get frustrated because they really and truly didn't know anything, they would then pay for a CCIE and, more often than not, be happy. I really don't think Cisco is better or worse than other industries. Are all ASE Certified Master Mechanics people you want working on your car? No. Are there some non-certified mechanics who could run circles around the certified ones? Of course. That said, your odds are much better that your car will run again if you have a certified mechanic. Many have said business is simply risk management, and certifications are a way of managing that risk. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Thus spake "Nigel Clarke" <nigel@forever-networks.com>
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
If you're looking to write software, sure. A CompSci degree won't help you in the slightest at operating networks.
Why would you devote your career to learning a vendor's command line or IOS?
You don't. You devote your career to learning networking. IOS is a base skill which is necessary (today) to utilize that knowledge and, more importantly, get a job. A person with lots of knowledge and no skills is a liberal arts major, not an engineer.
Cisco has done an excellent job @ brainwashing the IT community. The have (unfortunately) set the standard for "Network Engineers".
What do you think is more respected, a masters degree in Networking Engineering or a CCIE. In most circles it would be the latter.
In the academic community, the former. In the professional community, the latter. Academic respect doesn't pay the bills.
Cisco's certification program has effected the entire IT community. Their CCIE's are required to recertify every few years, thus forcing them to stay true to the Cisco lifestyle.
No, they're required to stay knowledgeable with current technical advances in the field. That's hardly unreasonable.
I've met some CCIE's who don't know any programming languages or any experience with Unix. It's clear that they are one dimensional and unfocused.
Unfocused? People with a single skill set are usually considered "highly focused". Now, I find that folks with Unix experience tend to make better networkers, but it's hardly a required skill.
Why study the same thing over and over? Do you really have X amount of years experience, or do you have 1 years experience X times?
Think about it. If you have been in the field for over 5 years and someone new to the industry by way of certification can handle your work load, that is a serious problem.
That's not a problem with the certification; that's a problem with your lack of initiative. I don't think I've ever done the same thing for five months, much less five years.
Then again, the question of CERTS vs. DEGREES might apply differently to someone without any experience. I guess it really depends on what your looking for.
Degrees are, in essence, a certificate that you are capable of learning things by rote and regurgitating them later, possibly applying a small amount of thought (but not too much). In most industries, that's a highly valuable thing to know, and businesses hire college grads with the assumption they'll spend the first year doing little but training them to do useful work. The IT industry does not have the patience or luxury of hiring a completely cluess college grad, sending them to the dozens of required classes, giving them a mentor to help them with their first year of work, etc. People want someone who can solve the problem today, period. Certifications are a crude but often effective means for non-technical people to determine if technical people meet their needs. S
On Wed, 22 May 2002 18:29:52 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Degrees are, in essence, a certificate that you are capable of learning things by rote and regurgitating them later, possibly applying a small amount of thought (but not too much). In most industries, that's a highly valuable thing to know, and businesses hire college grads with the assumption they'll spend the first year doing little but training them to do useful work.
The IT industry does not have the patience or luxury of hiring a completely cluess college grad, sending them to the dozens of required classes, giving them a mentor to help them with their first year of work, etc. People want someone who can solve the problem today, period. Certifications are a crude but often effective means for non-technical people to determine if technical people meet their needs.
S
If that is what you or anyone else got from obtaining a degree then you were shortchanged and are probably (understandably) bitter. But you have noone to blame but yourself either. Every consumer should count their change. Your description of learning things by rote and regurgitation is the method practiced by so many folks following your employer's certification system. That is why the system and the certified individuals are looked down upon so often. Anyone that received a cert this way was similarly shortchanged. Maybe individuals should think of degrees and certifications as tools used for the purpose of advancing through life/world/career. They are certainly not the only tools. You can have replacements or alternatives. You can (and should) supplement your toolset at different points in your life. Choose your tools carefully, use the right one(s) at the apropos time and good luck in life and career. I personally would want to accumulate as many tools as possible to give me a wide array of knowledge and options to address any particular problem/circumstance. Regards, Sharif
Degrees are, in essence, a certificate that you are capable of learning things by rote and regurgitating them later, possibly applying a small amount of thought (but not too much).
I can completely attest to that. I've got a degree in theoretical astrophysics and did graduate work in Quantum Physics. If you ever try to apply more than a small amount of thinking to Quantum Mechanics, you'll explode faster than an electron and a positron having sex! Now, you may be asking - "How does this relate to NANOG" or "How does Eric's understanding of how Quantum Mechanics impacted the early Universe relate to his ability to run or design a network"? It doesn't, but neither does this thread.... Just my $0.02. Flame on. Eric :) "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." -- Richard Feynman:
On Wed, 22 May 2002 18:29:52 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Degrees are, in essence, a certificate that you are capable of learning things by rote and regurgitating them later, possibly applying a small amount of thought (but not too much). In most industries, that's a highly valuable thing to know, and businesses hire college grads with the assumption they'll spend the first year doing little but training them to do useful work.
The IT industry does not have the patience or luxury of hiring a completely cluess college grad, sending them to the dozens of required classes, giving them a mentor to help them with their first year of work, etc. People want someone who can solve the problem today, period. Certifications are a crude but often effective means for non-technical people to determine if technical people meet their needs.
S
If that is what you or anyone else got from obtaining a degree then you were shortchanged and are probably (understandably) bitter. But you have noone to blame but yourself either. Every consumer should count their change. Your description of learning things by rote and regurgitation is the method practiced by so many folks following your employer's certification system. That is why the system and the certified individuals are looked down upon so often. Anyone that received a cert this way was similarly shortchanged. Maybe individuals should think of degrees and certifications as tools used for the purpose of advancing through life/world/career. They are certainly not the only tools. You can have replacements or alternatives. You can (and should) supplement your toolset at different points in your life. Choose your tools carefully, use the right one(s) at the apropos time and good luck in life and career. I personally would want to accumulate as many tools as possible to give me a wide array of knowledge and options to address any particular problem/circumstance. Regards, Sharif
On Wed, 22 May 2002 18:29:52 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Nigel Clarke" <nigel@forever-networks.com>
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
If you're looking to write software, sure. A CompSci degree won't help you in the slightest at operating networks.
Don't forget to tell all the kids that smoking doesn't cause cancer either. A CompSci degree will help one inordinately to operate a network. It is sad that so few in this field realize this. Regards, Sharif
On Wed, 22 May 2002 17:56:24 PDT, Sharif Torpis said:
Don't forget to tell all the kids that smoking doesn't cause cancer either. A CompSci degree will help one inordinately to operate a network. It is sad that so few in this field realize this.
Graph Theory. Routing Protocols. 'Nuff Said. ;)
On Wed, 22 May 2002 16:40:27 -0400, Kristian P. Jackson wrote:
New England) focus their BCS studies on programing. Completely unrelated to the area of anything network related. This may not be the case everywhere. Maybe the industry leaders should assist the education scene in developing a degree program for future network engineers that beter prepares them for this field. It doesn't help the industry if a bunch of programers are running around acting like network engineers, just as a bunch of network engineers are no more qualified to program. Perhaps a bachelors in network engineering is in order?
I am currently studying a BSc degree in merry old England. I have just finished my second year (well I'm part way through the exams). When I applied to do my degree I found two universities whose course were anything related to Networking. Mine is called Computing (Networks and Communications). I think we've pretty much been the guinea pigs for the course and guess what, they didn't get it right first time. Our first year entailed the following modules: Business & Professional Skills The Business & Professional Environment Programming Mathematics for Computing Systems Analysis & Design Principals of Computing Technologies Not a single one of these modules made any effort to be network related. The first two were similar and involved basic GCSE level literature stuff along with spending a whole semester pretending to run a company that made paint stripper out of pigeon excrement. Programming was a very basic grounding in C++ Maths was again GCSE level with a bit of Matrices thrown in for the Visualisation students. Systems Analysis and Design involved theorising about making computerised versions of a couple of forms for an obscure activities holiday company whilst Principals of Computing Technologies tought us how to write assembler for the 8085 chip. In year two we have done the following: Networking Technologies Unix Networking and Administration Unix, Linux and X Web Based Systems Software Development: Concepts and Methods Databases Here we are getting there, but it isn't exactly serious stuff and is the kind of thing you learn by spending your spare time fiddling about with stuff. Networking tech involved mostly installing Windows 95 systems to do peer2peer stuff and client server stuff. One experiment involved a basic Novell server install and another involved a basic Cisco router configuration. Unix Net & Admin is how to add/remove accounts, file permissions and giving an adapter an ip address. Unix Linux and X is literally bash shell scripting on a server with a weird configuration. Web Based Systems, ahh yes. First semester was html and javascript. They got as far as form tags and input checking. Second semester involved being given some perl code for connecting to a database and integrating it (putting a website in front of it). SDCM is all about how Billy Bojo and Frank Redneck came up with X theory about Y. I think about 80% of our course a) didn't see the point in the subject b) didn't understand any of the teachers (it was a rarety that they could speak English anywhere near properly) and c) have failed this subject. Databases was mysql. That was fairly useful in that it went into a fair bit of depth about the commands. Third year (next year) we are all on placements yet the uni still charges £1000 for tuition fees. I don't know what we're supposed to be doing in the fourth year because all trace of our course description has been eradicated from the website. It would appear, however that the people who started their course this year have it better than us in that they are doing all the networking stuff we did this year in the first year. A list of next years networking degree is here: http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cms/ug/courses.html I would provide a link to the actual course but I can't be bothered looking at their javascript. If its anything like the uni network, it'll be hours of fun (took them and Novell two months to realise that all the serious login problems were due to all the computers trying to use a server that had been removed). Oh well, I hope noone from the CIS or CMS departments read this list or I might end up not coming back next year. That is just an example of how little a degree in networks might actually mean. I worked 7 months nightshift at an ISP and learned far more relevant stuff than the two years on a networking degree have taught me. Several times I have considered giving it up and looking around for industry certifications but I keep hoping that the next year will be better...though that depends on whether I can find a placement that doesn't just involve writing websites. If anyone around here knows of a decent networking related company that might offer an at least half decent placement then do let me know. It seems this kind of placement is rather sparse this year. -- O- cw, security@fidei.co.uk on 23/05/2002 "Part man, part monkey. Baby that's me"
On Wed, 22 May 2002 16:40:27 -0400, Kristian P. Jackson wrote:
New England) focus their BCS studies on programing. Completely unrelated to the area of anything network related. This may not be the case everywhere. Maybe the industry leaders should assist the education scene in developing a degree program for future network engineers that beter prepares them for this field. It doesn't help the industry if a bunch of programers are running around acting like network engineers, just as a bunch of network engineers are no more qualified to program. Perhaps a bachelors in network engineering is in order?
I am currently studying a BSc degree in merry old England. I have just finished my second year (well I'm part way through the exams). When I applied to do my degree I found two universities whose course were anything related to Networking. Mine is called Computing (Networks and Communications). I think we've pretty much been the guinea pigs for the course and guess what, they didn't get it right first time. Our first year entailed the following modules: Business & Professional Skills The Business & Professional Environment Programming Mathematics for Computing Systems Analysis & Design Principals of Computing Technologies Not a single one of these modules made any effort to be network related. The first two were similar and involved basic GCSE level literature stuff along with spending a whole semester pretending to run a company that made paint stripper out of pigeon excrement. Programming was a very basic grounding in C++ Maths was again GCSE level with a bit of Matrices thrown in for the Visualisation students. Systems Analysis and Design involved theorising about making computerised versions of a couple of forms for an obscure activities holiday company whilst Principals of Computing Technologies tought us how to write assembler for the 8085 chip. In year two we have done the following: Networking Technologies Unix Networking and Administration Unix, Linux and X Web Based Systems Software Development: Concepts and Methods Databases Here we are getting there, but it isn't exactly serious stuff and is the kind of thing you learn by spending your spare time fiddling about with stuff. Networking tech involved mostly installing Windows 95 systems to do peer2peer stuff and client server stuff. One experiment involved a basic Novell server install and another involved a basic Cisco router configuration. Unix Net & Admin is how to add/remove accounts, file permissions and giving an adapter an ip address. Unix Linux and X is literally bash shell scripting on a server with a weird configuration. Web Based Systems, ahh yes. First semester was html and javascript. They got as far as form tags and input checking. Second semester involved being given some perl code for connecting to a database and integrating it (putting a website in front of it). SDCM is all about how Billy Bojo and Frank Redneck came up with X theory about Y. I think about 80% of our course a) didn't see the point in the subject b) didn't understand any of the teachers (it was a rarety that they could speak English anywhere near properly) and c) have failed this subject. Databases was mysql. That was fairly useful in that it went into a fair bit of depth about the commands. Third year (next year) we are all on placements yet the uni still charges £1000 for tuition fees. I don't know what we're supposed to be doing in the fourth year because all trace of our course description has been eradicated from the website. It would appear, however that the people who started their course this year have it better than us in that they are doing all the networking stuff we did this year in the first year. A list of next years networking degree is here: http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cms/ug/courses.html I would provide a link to the actual course but I can't be bothered looking at their javascript. If its anything like the uni network, it'll be hours of fun (took them and Novell two months to realise that all the serious login problems were due to all the computers trying to use a server that had been removed). Oh well, I hope noone from the CIS or CMS departments read this list or I might end up not coming back next year. That is just an example of how little a degree in networks might actually mean. I worked 7 months nightshift at an ISP and learned far more relevant stuff than the two years on a networking degree have taught me. Several times I have considered giving it up and looking around for industry certifications but I keep hoping that the next year will be better...though that depends on whether I can find a placement that doesn't just involve writing websites. If anyone around here knows of a decent networking related company that might offer an at least half decent placement then do let me know. It seems this kind of placement is rather sparse this year. -- O- cw, security@fidei.co.uk on 23/05/2002 "Part man, part monkey. Baby that's me"
(this is actually my first NANOG post ever...) --On Thursday, May 23, 2002 03:07:55 +0100 cw <security@fidei.co.uk> wrote:
I am currently studying a BSc degree in merry old England. I have just finished my second year (well I'm part way through the exams). When I applied to do my degree I found two universities whose course were anything related to Networking. Mine is called Computing (Networks and Communications).
<snip explanation of curriculum that I'd avoid> At the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, we have a series of courses that focus on networking. The starting one can be seen as "getting the programmer to know IP's quirks", but as we progress, we teach deeper and deeper into the technicalities of routing, including theory of routing (discussion of Dijkstra, and similar) and practice; we have a routing lab where we first make them understand that static routes don't work and then progress into understanding first OSPF, then BGP. The entire package runs over a period of half a year. Prereqisites are that the student is at her/his third year in a Master of Science path aiming for one of Computer Science, Technical Physics or Electric Engineering; i.e. we want people to have a solid ground in theory before we teach them the dirty details of networking. The best students are encouraged to write their final paper in the field of networking. Some of these are later found working at KTHNOC operating the NREN Sunet and the pan-Nordic REN NorduNet. Myself, I teach DNS in the introductory classes, including such novelties as DNSSEC, which we have the students sweat over in the lab. I've been somewhat depressed by the point-and-click generation, who don't understand classic Unix, (because the DNS part does border quite a bit on sysadmin stuff, which we do not teach) but on the whole, it's been successful. -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 08:33:11AM +0200, M?ns Nilsson wrote:
(this is actually my first NANOG post ever...)
At the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, we have a series of courses that focus on networking. The starting one can be seen as "getting the programmer to know IP's quirks", but as we progress, we teach deeper and deeper into the technicalities of routing, including theory of routing (discussion of Dijkstra, and similar) and practice; we have a routing lab where we first make them understand that static routes don't work and then progress into understanding first OSPF, then BGP.
Nothing is more stable and cuases less pain than static routing. And it always works. Ofc ourse it doesn't scale very and also doesn't support alternate paths very well ;-)) -- Arnold Nipper / nIPper consulting mailto:arnold@nipper.de
On Wed, 22 May 2002 18:29:52 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Nigel Clarke" <nigel@forever-networks.com>
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
If you're looking to write software, sure. A CompSci degree won't help you in the slightest at operating networks.
Don't forget to tell all the kids that smoking doesn't cause cancer either. A CompSci degree will help one inordinately to operate a network. It is sad that so few in this field realize this. Regards, Sharif
Stephen Sprunk Thus spake "Nigel Clarke" <nigel@forever-networks.com>
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
If you're looking to write software, sure. A CompSci degree won't help you in the slightest at operating networks.
Usually what you say is helpful. I have to disagree with you here though. A few things I learned in a CIS degree program which apply to networking: bits/bytes/megabytes queueing/stacks/buffers/ring buffers data structures undirected/directed graphs - routing shortest path (Dijkstra's) algorithm = OSPF spanning tree algorithm ping :) scheme - command line compilers bash/csh/tcsh/X - all useful in network management. telnet patience I could go on... Plus, when you are in the labs, and if you have the slightest bit of geek curiosity, the mind wanders and you inevitably have to find out how everything is connected. Luckily the curiosity blossomed from there. -- blake
Thus spake "Blake Fithen" <fithen@networksplus.net>
Stephen Sprunk Thus spake "Nigel Clarke" <nigel@forever-networks.com>
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
If you're looking to write software, sure. A CompSci degree won't help you in the slightest at operating networks.
Usually what you say is helpful. I have to disagree with you here though. A few things I learned in a CIS degree program which apply to networking:
With the exception of Scheme (yuck) and patience (yuck), I learned everything on that list long before I graduated high school. I understand many others didn't have the opportunities or interests I did, but it's hardly necessary to major in CS to understand basic data structures, logical processes, and a few useful Unix skills. A CS degree (or other BS) may be useful to some who have no other means of learning. However, I can't agree that it's the best way of obtaining that knowledge, or that it gives you any immediate way to apply that knowledge. Likewise, a cert doesn't demonstrate knowledge, it demonstrates a particular skill. Obviously, the best engineer will be one with knowledge and skills.
Plus, when you are in the labs, and if you have the slightest bit of geek curiosity, the mind wanders and you inevitably have to find out how everything is connected. Luckily the curiosity blossomed from there.
I was a unix hack until I got to college; I made the mistake of mouthing off to the network guru (hi cvk!) about the school's network, and got a rapid and thorough education about all the useful stuff that my professors weren't teaching. I was hooked. S
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Nigel Clarke" <nigel@forever-networks.com>
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
If you're looking to write software, sure. A CompSci degree won't help you in the slightest at operating networks.
Stephen - I bet I can do networks much much better than most cisco CCIEs, even after years of doing network-unrelated work :) That's because I understand _why_ the stuff is working, not only how to make cisco box to jump through hoops.
Why would you devote your career to learning a vendor's command line or IOS?
You don't. You devote your career to learning networking. IOS is a base skill which is necessary (today) to utilize that knowledge and, more importantly, get a job.
Yawn. Are you serious? Sure, you need to have some idea of what things are and how they work, but finding a magic incantation in IOS manual is not something which only ceritified cisco "engineers" can do. Unless both IOS and documentation deteriorated much much further than I think.
A person with lots of knowledge and no skills is a liberal arts major, not an engineer.
One of the best network engineers is the world is a liberal arts major :)
Academic respect doesn't pay the bills.
Sure, being a trained _technician_ pays bills. Just about. In my experience, having a real education does much more. Also, need I to remind you where the cisco (the company) came from? :) [hint - it was a certain university which had a need of IP routing boxes, and developed them in house; they also created workstations along the way, known nowadays only by the abbreviation from "Stanford University Network"]
Then again, the question of CERTS vs. DEGREES might apply differently to someone without any experience. I guess it really depends on what your looking for.
Degrees are, in essence, a certificate that you are capable of learning things by rote and regurgitating them later, possibly applying a small amount of thought (but not too much).
Depends on where you got it. Try to get through MIT or Stanford by learning thing by rote :) I think you'll find yourself with self-esteem below the floor, and a ticket home after the very first exams. --vadim
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Nigel Clarke" <nigel@forever-networks.com>
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
If you're looking to write software, sure. A CompSci degree won't help you in the slightest at operating networks.
Stephen - I bet I can do networks much much better than most cisco CCIEs, even after years of doing network-unrelated work :) That's because I understand _why_ the stuff is working, not only how to make cisco box to jump through hoops.
Yes, but after you'll read a few books when you start working as a network engineer again (if -:)). CCIE just come and say _gays, you need Cisco XXX with IOS YY.YY and configure CEF, RED, packet inspection, bla bla bla... and he remember exact IOS commands. If people want a narrow edicated engineer, they need CCIE-only gay. If they weant someone who can do everything (may be, with extra time to learn specific piece of hardware) - they need someone like Vadim. And CCIE is not a good example - it's the BEST certification degree I ever know; other certifications are much worst - most of them are just _guess an answer_ tests. Of course, knowing _top change a domain, you need to reinstall the system_ (from some old MS exam) is very important one (because no one can guess an answer). Btw, a friend of mine, very (VERY) high skilled gay, is looking for the new job today. When I told about him with someone, I always explain _he worked with MS and CISCO for a 10 years; he teach Microsoft in Moscow, he designed a networks, he worked as a PS for a 2 years, he bring Ascends into the Russia, he know Everything about MS and Cisco. Oh, you need his credentials - btw, he is CCIE and MS certified engineer. I never start from certificates, because they say nothing except _gay can read a books and can learn to answer a questions_. (Do you need jobless CCIE + MS certified _do not remember who_? You can hire one just now).
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
CCIE just come and say _gays, you need Cisco XXX with IOS YY.YY and configure CEF, <snip> If people want a narrow edicated engineer, they need CCIE-only gay. If they weant <snip> Btw, a friend of mine, very (VERY) high skilled gay, is looking for the new job <snip> except _gay can read a books and can learn to answer a questions_. <snip>
I know you're not a native speaker, but that doesn't make this any less hilarious. Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
A highly skilled gay is *VERY* different than a highly skilled guy... :-) Apologies, I just couldn't restrain myself. scott On Thu, 23 May 2002, Andy Dills wrote: : On Thu, 23 May 2002, Alexei Roudnev wrote: : : : > CCIE just come and say _gays, you need Cisco XXX with IOS YY.YY and configure CEF, : <snip> : > If people want a narrow edicated engineer, they need CCIE-only gay. If they weant : <snip> : > Btw, a friend of mine, very (VERY) high skilled gay, is looking for the new job : <snip> : > except _gay can read a books and can learn to answer a questions_. : <snip> : : I know you're not a native speaker, but that doesn't make this any less : hilarious. : : Andy : : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx : Andy Dills 301-682-9972 : Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx : Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access : :
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Randy Bush wrote: : > A highly skilled gay is *VERY* different than a highly skilled guy... :-) : : not at work I guess it really depends on what he is highly skilled in. :-0 --B Both of which can get you ahead in the work place without certs sometimes... scott (just a joke. not a social commentary. back to lurking before I get in trouble... :-)
Ok, at least I introduced a little of fun into the academic conversation. -:) (it shows that you can make mistakes even when you know something very well... I specially was thinking if I wrote a _g?y_ correctly and by some unknown reason /first time in a few years/ decided that I was wrong and changed it -:)). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer@mauislanwanman.com> To: "Andy Dills" <andy@xecu.net> Cc: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex@relcom.EU.net>; "Nanog List" <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Certification or College degrees?
A highly skilled gay is *VERY* different than a highly skilled guy... :-)
Apologies, I just couldn't restrain myself. scott
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Andy Dills wrote:
: On Thu, 23 May 2002, Alexei Roudnev wrote: : : : > CCIE just come and say _gays, you need Cisco XXX with IOS YY.YY and
configure CEF,
: <snip> : > If people want a narrow edicated engineer, they need CCIE-only gay. If they weant : <snip> : > Btw, a friend of mine, very (VERY) high skilled gay, is looking for the new job : <snip> : > except _gay can read a books and can learn to answer a questions_. : <snip> : : I know you're not a native speaker, but that doesn't make this any less : hilarious. : : Andy : : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx : Andy Dills 301-682-9972 : Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx : Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access : :
Sorry, I did such mistake 5 years ago last time -:). Of course, I mean 'guys'...
except _gay can read a books and can learn to answer a questions_. <snip>
I know you're not a native speaker, but that doesn't make this any less hilarious.
Andy
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
Gee. I've know some CCIE's who seemed a little sexually ambiguous, but I'm not sure that a sweeping generalization is appropriate... :) - Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Alexei Roudnev Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 11:52 AM To: Vadim Antonov; Stephen Sprunk Cc: Nanog List Subject: Re: Certification or College degrees?
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Nigel Clarke" <nigel@forever-networks.com>
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
If you're looking to write software, sure. A CompSci degree
won't help you
in the slightest at operating networks.
Stephen - I bet I can do networks much much better than most cisco CCIEs, even after years of doing network-unrelated work :) That's because I understand _why_ the stuff is working, not only how to make cisco box to jump through hoops.
Yes, but after you'll read a few books when you start working as a network engineer again (if -:)).
CCIE just come and say _gays, you need Cisco XXX with IOS YY.YY and configure CEF, RED, packet inspection, bla bla bla... and he remember exact IOS commands.
If people want a narrow edicated engineer, they need CCIE-only gay. If they weant someone who can do everything (may be, with extra time to learn specific piece of hardware) - they need someone like Vadim.
And CCIE is not a good example - it's the BEST certification degree I ever know; other certifications are much worst - most of them are just _guess an answer_ tests. Of course, knowing _top change a domain, you need to reinstall the system_ (from some old MS exam) is very important one (because no one can guess an answer).
Btw, a friend of mine, very (VERY) high skilled gay, is looking for the new job today. When I told about him with someone, I always explain _he worked with MS and CISCO for a 10 years; he teach Microsoft in Moscow, he designed a networks, he worked as a PS for a 2 years, he bring Ascends into the Russia, he know Everything about MS and Cisco. Oh, you need his credentials - btw, he is CCIE and MS certified engineer. I never start from certificates, because they say nothing except _gay can read a books and can learn to answer a questions_. (Do you need jobless CCIE + MS certified _do not remember who_? You can hire one just now).
I know a few plumbers who know more about rooting than any Network Engineer on this list. Can we please drop this topic. http://www.rescuerooter.com/ thanks ak
Thus spake "Vadim Antonov" <avg@exigengroup.com>
Stephen - I bet I can do networks much much better than most cisco CCIEs, even after years of doing network-unrelated work :) That's because I understand _why_ the stuff is working, not only how to make cisco box to jump through hoops. ...
You don't. You devote your career to learning networking. IOS is a base skill which is necessary (today) to utilize that knowledge and, more importantly, get a job.
Yawn. Are you serious? Sure, you need to have some idea of what things are and how they work, but finding a magic incantation in IOS manual is not something which only ceritified cisco "engineers" can do. Unless both IOS and documentation deteriorated much much further than I think.
Where did I say that? Read my statement again; I think you're in violent agreement with me.
A person with lots of knowledge and no skills is a liberal arts major, not an engineer.
One of the best network engineers is the world is a liberal arts major :)
I find most of them make great fry cooks ;)
Academic respect doesn't pay the bills.
Sure, being a trained _technician_ pays bills. Just about. In my experience, having a real education does much more.
If you take a non-logical, non-visual, non-geeky technician and push him through a CS program, he'll emerge still a technician. Will a piece of paper make him a more valuable employee? Probably not.
Degrees are, in essence, a certificate that you are capable of learning things by rote and regurgitating them later, possibly applying a small amount of thought (but not too much).
Depends on where you got it. Try to get through MIT or Stanford by learning thing by rote :) I think you'll find yourself with self-esteem below the floor, and a ticket home after the very first exams.
I do have great respect for MIT, Stanford, and a few others. However, only a tiny fraction of 1% of CS grads come from those programs. I'm basing my stance on the rest of the population. S
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I do have great respect for MIT, Stanford, and a few others. However, only a tiny fraction of 1% of CS grads come from those programs. I'm basing my stance on the rest of the population.
Ah. 99% of everything is junk. Degrees included :) --vadim
Nigel, I think you are confusing software engineers with network engineers. As a rule of thumb, software / applications writers rarely understand how networks really work, in the same way that network engineers rarely understand how software / applications really work. IMHO, there is no mandatory reason a network engineer has to know a programming language, in the same way there's no mandatory reason that a top software engineer has to be able to configure a Cisco router. People who grok both worlds are critical for companies that are writing software that touches networks, and in general such people are versatile and valuable. But the real trick is getting a team of all three types to complement each other, not hiring a single skill / mindset. You also seem not to like Cisco for some reason. Perhaps this is why you have never looked at the curriculum for CCIE. It does require you to know the Cisco CLI, but that is to show you can correctly implement the solutions you devise -- a very practical consideration for someone purporting to be a network engineer. Knowing how to devise those solutions is the major focus of CCIE, not memorizing the Cisco CLI. You could equally translate the learned knowledge to, say, Juniper CLI. Finally, trying to paint re-certification in a very fast-moving industry as some kind of conspiracy is a real stretch. The title of this thread is part of the problem: "certification or degrees", as if they are mutually exclusive. Cheers, Mathew At 06:37 PM 5/22/2002 -0400, Nigel Clarke wrote:
IMO:
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
Why would you devote your career to learning a vendor's command line or IOS?
Cisco has done an excellent job @ brainwashing the IT community. The have (unfortunately) set the standard for "Network Engineers".
What do you think is more respected, a masters degree in Networking Engineering or a CCIE. In most circles it would be the latter.
Cisco's certification program has effected the entire IT community. Their CCIE's are required to recertify every few years, thus forcing them to stay true to the Cisco lifestyle.
I've met some CCIE's who don't know any programming languages or any experience with Unix. It's clear that they are one dimensional and unfocused.
Why study the same thing over and over? Do you really have X amount of years experience, or do you have 1 years experience X times?
Think about it. If you have been in the field for over 5 years and someone new to the industry by way of certification can handle your work load, that is a serious problem.
If anything certs should be used as a stepping stone or advancement to new technologies or areas.
Then again, the question of CERTS vs. DEGREES might apply differently to someone without any experience. I guess it really depends on what your looking for. ---
Nigel Clarke Network Security Engineer nigel@forever-networks.com
Computer science does enforce critical thinking skills, which are a very necessary part of any successful engineer's toolbox. Bri On Wed, 22 May 2002, Mathew Lodge wrote:
Nigel,
I think you are confusing software engineers with network engineers. As a rule of thumb, software / applications writers rarely understand how networks really work, in the same way that network engineers rarely understand how software / applications really work.
IMHO, there is no mandatory reason a network engineer has to know a programming language, in the same way there's no mandatory reason that a top software engineer has to be able to configure a Cisco router. People who grok both worlds are critical for companies that are writing software that touches networks, and in general such people are versatile and valuable. But the real trick is getting a team of all three types to complement each other, not hiring a single skill / mindset.
You also seem not to like Cisco for some reason. Perhaps this is why you have never looked at the curriculum for CCIE. It does require you to know the Cisco CLI, but that is to show you can correctly implement the solutions you devise -- a very practical consideration for someone purporting to be a network engineer. Knowing how to devise those solutions is the major focus of CCIE, not memorizing the Cisco CLI. You could equally translate the learned knowledge to, say, Juniper CLI. Finally, trying to paint re-certification in a very fast-moving industry as some kind of conspiracy is a real stretch.
The title of this thread is part of the problem: "certification or degrees", as if they are mutually exclusive.
Cheers,
Mathew
At 06:37 PM 5/22/2002 -0400, Nigel Clarke wrote:
IMO:
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
Why would you devote your career to learning a vendor's command line or IOS?
Cisco has done an excellent job @ brainwashing the IT community. The have (unfortunately) set the standard for "Network Engineers".
What do you think is more respected, a masters degree in Networking Engineering or a CCIE. In most circles it would be the latter.
Cisco's certification program has effected the entire IT community. Their CCIE's are required to recertify every few years, thus forcing them to stay true to the Cisco lifestyle.
I've met some CCIE's who don't know any programming languages or any experience with Unix. It's clear that they are one dimensional and unfocused.
Why study the same thing over and over? Do you really have X amount of years experience, or do you have 1 years experience X times?
Think about it. If you have been in the field for over 5 years and someone new to the industry by way of certification can handle your work load, that is a serious problem.
If anything certs should be used as a stepping stone or advancement to new technologies or areas.
Then again, the question of CERTS vs. DEGREES might apply differently to someone without any experience. I guess it really depends on what your looking for. ---
Nigel Clarke Network Security Engineer nigel@forever-networks.com
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Brian said:
Computer science does enforce critical thinking skills, which are a very necessary part of any successful engineer's toolbox.
Remember that "Learned everything in Kindergarten" book a while back? Well, a good engineering education teaches you less, but educates you more, than you might think. Specifically, you learn how to know what you [don't] know, and how to learn more as needed. But most pivotal, it hammers a *rigorous, systematic, problem solving approach* into you. If you can't grasp & embrace that, you'll be gone. As an older student, I watched lots of bright young faces, all smarter than YT, trip at that fence and change majors. (Me? I could never grok the sole philosophy course I tried...) Just like no one can ever really write a large program, no one can solve a large problem. Just like a soldier dives for a foxhole when he hears weapons fire, and THEN thinks; when your reflex is "how do I break up {whatever} into parts I can handle?" then you're over the hump. THAT won't be obsolete when Billy introduces Windows 20000, and we have 6ESS's & DMS 2500's. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Tis amazing as an engineering major to watch how many students drop as the calculus gets tougher and tougher.. Bri On Thu, 23 May 2002, David Lesher wrote:
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Brian said:
Computer science does enforce critical thinking skills, which are a very necessary part of any successful engineer's toolbox.
Remember that "Learned everything in Kindergarten" book a while back?
Well, a good engineering education teaches you less, but educates you more, than you might think.
Specifically, you learn how to know what you [don't] know, and how to learn more as needed.
But most pivotal, it hammers a *rigorous, systematic, problem solving approach* into you. If you can't grasp & embrace that, you'll be gone. As an older student, I watched lots of bright young faces, all smarter than YT, trip at that fence and change majors. (Me? I could never grok the sole philosophy course I tried...)
Just like no one can ever really write a large program, no one can solve a large problem. Just like a soldier dives for a foxhole when he hears weapons fire, and THEN thinks; when your reflex is "how do I break up {whatever} into parts I can handle?" then you're over the hump.
THAT won't be obsolete when Billy introduces Windows 20000, and we have 6ESS's & DMS 2500's.
-- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Mathew, Most very good network engineers (and I'm not saying there are many of these), are familiar with both network engineering, and, to at least a limited degree, coding. These guys tend not to be "software engineers" or developers, but can certainly crank out some perl, TCL, or C as the need arises, usually for network management purposes. Network Engineers who can't script their own monitoring or management apps are clearly not as useful as those who can. Additionally, a basic knowledge of software engineering/general comp sci concepts, such as queuing, sorting, hashing, SPF algorithms, and other discrete math areas are extremely useful to the network engineer who is attempting to troubleshoot a subtle equipment or network problem, perhaps one that is caused by the interaction of various vendor's equipment. I'm not saying all IT certs are bad - I think I've had most of them, at one time or another. However, if I had to pick between my degree, and any or all of them, there would be no question that an engineering degree is more useful. The biggest problem with these certs, and the lack of network engineering degree programs has been the lowest common denominator "network engineer", who has no basic knowledge of the principles that underlie the profession, but instead rely upon rote memorization or quick fixes. That's not to say that I haven't met a few very good engineers without degrees - I just think they would be much better engineers with them. - Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Mathew Lodge Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:53 PM To: Nigel Clarke Cc: Nanog List Subject: Re: Certification or College degrees?
Nigel,
I think you are confusing software engineers with network engineers. As a rule of thumb, software / applications writers rarely understand how networks really work, in the same way that network engineers rarely understand how software / applications really work.
IMHO, there is no mandatory reason a network engineer has to know a programming language, in the same way there's no mandatory reason that a top software engineer has to be able to configure a Cisco router. People who grok both worlds are critical for companies that are writing software that touches networks, and in general such people are versatile and valuable. But the real trick is getting a team of all three types to complement each other, not hiring a single skill / mindset.
You also seem not to like Cisco for some reason. Perhaps this is why you have never looked at the curriculum for CCIE. It does require you to know the Cisco CLI, but that is to show you can correctly implement the solutions you devise -- a very practical consideration for someone purporting to be a network engineer. Knowing how to devise those solutions is the major focus of CCIE, not memorizing the Cisco CLI. You could equally translate the learned knowledge to, say, Juniper CLI. Finally, trying to paint re-certification in a very fast-moving industry as some kind of conspiracy is a real stretch.
The title of this thread is part of the problem: "certification or degrees", as if they are mutually exclusive.
Cheers,
Mathew
At 06:37 PM 5/22/2002 -0400, Nigel Clarke wrote:
IMO:
Certifications are a waste of time. You'd be better off obtaining a Computer Science degree and focusing on the core technologies.
Why would you devote your career to learning a vendor's command line or IOS?
Cisco has done an excellent job @ brainwashing the IT community. The have (unfortunately) set the standard for "Network Engineers".
What do you think is more respected, a masters degree in Networking Engineering or a CCIE. In most circles it would be the latter.
Cisco's certification program has effected the entire IT community. Their CCIE's are required to recertify every few years, thus forcing them to stay true to the Cisco lifestyle.
I've met some CCIE's who don't know any programming languages or any experience with Unix. It's clear that they are one dimensional and unfocused.
Why study the same thing over and over? Do you really have X amount of years experience, or do you have 1 years experience X times?
Think about it. If you have been in the field for over 5 years and someone new to the industry by way of certification can handle your work load, that is a serious problem.
If anything certs should be used as a stepping stone or advancement to new technologies or areas.
Then again, the question of CERTS vs. DEGREES might apply differently to someone without any experience. I guess it really depends on what your looking for. ---
Nigel Clarke Network Security Engineer nigel@forever-networks.com
participants (23)
-
Alexei Roudnev -
Andrew Dorsett -
Andy Dills -
Ariel Biener -
Arman -
Arnold Nipper -
Blake Fithen -
Brian -
cw -
Daniel Golding -
David Lesher -
Eric Gauthier -
Leo Bicknell -
Mathew Lodge -
Måns Nilsson -
Nigel Clarke -
Randy Bush -
Scott Francis -
Scott Weeks -
Sharif Torpis -
Stephen Sprunk -
Vadim Antonov -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu