Should I do N+ if i have CCNA

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Okay, let's do that. He got the CCNA, which isn't relevant to entry-level tech work. And, as he rightly stated on his original post, it'll look odd on his CV with no experience. But entry-level certs would look good on his CV.

Right. Which is why I recommend getting Network+. The CCNA won't be very useful for him getting an entry-level job, and he lacks the experience to get a job that IS relevant to what he learned in the CCNA.

Just because you're working on a single network (which, I probably need to remind you, not every tech is limited to) doesn't mean you're gonna forget all the other stuff you learned, nor does it mean that you can't practice the concepts that aren't live on your production network. Working in the real world enables you to pick up and remember those things easier - the concepts are no longer foreign to you, even if it's been a while since you worked with them. And the CCNA is rather basic as far as network administration goes... someone who is working with Cisco gear won't likely forget much of what's in there. But if you don't use ANY of it, you'll easily forget most of it.

I'd be surprised and concerned if one of my Network+ certified techs needed to "brush up" on the concepts covered in Network+. Just sayin'.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Thanks for all of your input, I am planning the following. First i am going to get my A+ before the end of August so i can sit the 2006 exams. Then i plan to do MCDST this way i have the best certs for an entry level support post.

Then i plan to do the N+ before the end of the year so I have the cert for life. As i have a CCNA it should be fairly easy to achieve and then i have the elective for my MCSA boxed off. Then i plan on sitting the MCSA core exams and then should be able to progress past the entry level support roles.

Anybody see any vast holes in my logic?

 

Not too bad! Although it doesn't matter much what order you do them in, I'd probably recommend Network+ before MCDST... the concepts learned in Network+ will help you with the MCDST. Plus, Network+ is one exam, whereas the MCDST is two - you don't want to risk not getting Network+ done by the end of 2010. Finally, the knowledge you gained in your CCNA studies will absolutely help you speed through Network+, so it won't delay your MCDST by long.

As far as the MCSA is concerned, I'd recommend waiting until you get about 6 months of light server admin experience. The experience you gain will help the MCSA knowledge stick much better. Plus, like the CCNA, the MCSA certification by itself won't mean much without the experience to go with it.

 

Just thought I'd chime about a conversation I had with my boss the other day. He took a course when he got out of the Navy to get the MCSE on Windows 2000; no experience, no college degree. After about 6 months of working for him, he told me a couple of weeks ago that he had never really considered my resume until I had the MCSA completed; the certifications were what showed him I knew something and was capable. I think about that in contrast to what some people on this board love to claim about "EXPERIENCE BEFORE CERTIFICATION!!!" (though to my pleasant surprise the tide seems to be turning in some ways against this philosophy) . I will never, ever understand how people can justify not giving the opportunity to a self-starter who went and got certified on his/her own (note that this does not include braindumpers - they are the IT equivalent of people who cheat in college); apparently silly soft skills like "initiative" and "self-motivation" don't matter in some people's IT world. If you saw how many times I've solved problems for the many-year "experienced gurus" around here (and I'll tell you what I did if you want to call my bluff), maybe you'd think that *gasp* experience wasn't the end-all, be-all. Maybe there are some people who actually are *further gasp* intelligent and capable without having worked in IT for 15+ years.

Yes, experience is important and useful. It's a great gauge of ability and "stick-to-it"-ness. But it should not be the only measuring stick. I've mentioned this before, but do you know how furious I'm going to be when I complete my engineering degrees with academic honors and hear "No, you don't have experience"? Are you encouraging people like me to not try as hard?

I have been told that a significant raise and probable promotion are in my future (next few months probably). I'm excited for the future, and you want to know how I got here? By doing my certifications and being persistent. I realize not everyone will have the same experience as me, but I think people reading this board need to know that it can happen if you work hard enough.

 

The problem is... on paper, the dumpers and non-dumpers look exactly the same.

Rather than waste my time on interviewing them to try to figure out whether they dumped or not, I'll interview someone who has real-world experience (and the certification would be a plus)... particularly in this economy, where experienced techs ARE available.

Gotta think like an employer... not like an aspiring tech.

I don't care to "call your bluff". There's no reason to. Because those "experienced gurus" that you work with may have years under their belt, but lack real knowledge. Dude... there's a LOT of idiots in IT who really ought not be in IT. Sure, a good tech can run circles around them. But that doesn't mean that being smart is a surefire ticket into an IT job. Will it help? Absolutely.

There absolutely are. But, like I said, if I'm reviewing your CV, remember, I don't know you from Adam.

No... I'm encouraging people like you to not have unrealistic expectations of what certifications will do for you. If I didn't believe in certifications, I wouldn't be in the IT certifications career field, doing what I'm doing.

 

Don't people with tons of "experience" who are morons look the same on paper as competent techs with tons of experience? What's the difference?

 

Sometimes. That's why you interview more than one candidate for a position whenever possible. I will say that it's probably easier to spot a "moron with experience" than it is to spot a competent tech with no experience on a resume.

As far as certifications displaying competence for someone new to IT...Simply getting a bunch of certifications isn't enough to tell me that you'd one day be a competent tech. Sure, it means that you're more committed than someone else who hasn't gone to the trouble of getting certified; but, that being said, if you don't have any experience, there's absolutely no way for me to tell whether you've braindumped the tests when I look at your resume. In fact, if you have no experience and have a higher-level certification, I'm more likely to believe that you've braindumped the certification. Whether I'm right or wrong doesn't much matter to you if I pass over your resume and look at someone else's.

A CCNA with no experience isn't any more competent to me than a n00b without the CCNA if my network goes down and the cause was not covered in the CCNA study material. You just can't simulate everything that can happen on a live network within a lab environment. That's where the experience comes in and why we recommend getting into IT as soon as possible.

Me and Michael's livelihood depends on people using our products to get certified. It would behoove us to tell everyone to get as certified as possible (using our products, of course!). However, we've both been in this business long enough to have seen how damaging paper certs are to the industry as a whole. That's why we recommend getting only the entry-level certifications until you've got some experience under your belt.

 

Usually, "morons" don't stay hired for long. But otherwise, yes, they do look the same. The difference is this: given the option to interview someone with experience ("moron" or not) or someone with no experience (certified or not, braindumper or not), an employer will typically interview the ones with experience. At that point, they can determine whether they're a "moron" or not.

See, years ago, employers used to hire on the basis of certification alone. And many of them got burned by hiring certified people who didn't know what they were doing. Thus, as employers have stopped hiring based on certifications alone and tend to favor those who have work experience.

Braindumping is part of the problem, but so are people who get certified who THINK that, because they hold a certification, they're able to administer a network. Now, I'm not saying that EVERYONE who gets a certification without experience can't administer a network. There are some people out there who can. But anyone who has been in the IT industry long enough knows that there's a big difference between theoretical book knowledge and actually DOING the job in the real world... so the people who can do the job well despite having no experience are few and far between. Most can't - even some of the "smart ones". Employers know this, and that is what colors their perception. They've seen and hired people without experience before, and been burnt.

The perception of employers, whether fair or not, is what will limit most people who decide to get overcertified without first getting the experience to back up their certifications. To an employer, they'll look just like another braindumper. Whether someone without experience can actually do the job or not is irrelevant if they don't get the opportunity to get the job. And thanks to overcertifiers and braindumpers, that's the environment we're in today.

Can people get lucky and "beat the odds"? Yep, they sure can. But it would be foolish for someone new to IT to expect that it'll happen to them.

I'll put it this way - if overcertifying worked more often, I'd urge everyone to get as many certifications as possible, as that would indirectly help my employer out by people buying study tools for the more advanced practice exams, like Cisco. But, see, I know that wouldn't be truthful... so I advise what I know to be true, based on my experiences and what I've heard of the experiences of other senior network admins on this forum and several others.

Disagree if you want, but when you become the one reviewing resumes for job openings, you'll understand what I'm saying... if not immediately, then you will after you take a chance on someone you shouldn't have.

 

Yep - this is my point. Well said, Joshman.

 

I totally agree with that statement. There are always going to be managers who throw someones CV in the bin as they have say a CCNA without commercial experience and on the flip side there will be managers who will give that person an interview as they see them as being proactive in their career. I think it's perfectly fine for someone to learn say a MCSA if they do it correctly with a lab and plenty of time.

We would all love to learn through hands on but it just doesn't work like that in the real world and sometimes you have to take matters into your own hands get off your backside and learn it yourself. Commercial experience isn't the only way to learn or gain knowledge. We shouldn't be discouraging people from bettering themselves.

 

We're not. In fact, we're giving them a clear plan so they can improve their chances to "better themselves." But you don't understand that.

 

Just because we say that they shouldn't take the certification exam doesn't mean we're saying that they shouldn't be trying to learn that material. Learning the material will only help you in the long run. We're just saying hold off on taking the certification exam until you have some experience under your belt.

 

I understand perfectly well but thanks for your concerns on my understanding of the English language

 

I agree for some people learning the material is fine but others like myself like to have a goal of gaining a cert at the end of it.

 

If you truly understood, you'd realize that we're not "discouraging people from bettering themselves".

Are you *really* gonna start this up again, Sly?

 

I'm not criticizing you for your opinions but they aren't necessarily right nor wrong. Having a cert isn't going to automatically mean that person isn't going to get employed. One recruitment managers view of a person with a cert and no experience might be very different from another's.

 

bazzawood30,
My only comment is why not go for the 2009 A+ instead of the 2006? If "life" happens and you miss the end of August deadline then you'd have to go for the 2009 anyway. Or if you just start working on '09 then "life" could happen (if it needed to) and you'd be prepared. The end of August is pretty darn soon!!!

 

That's not the problem. The problem is that you're telling us that we are "discouraging people from bettering themselves", when nothing could be further than the truth. You said it just to snipe at me, Sly - it's an obvious dig.

 

No it's not a dig and if you read it that way then sorry but it wasn't my intention. From my understanding you discourage people from doing certs without hands on experience and what I am saying is that is wrong. What works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another. There is nothing wrong with people learning skills on tech they haven't used in a commercial environment as long as they do it correctly.

 

I have already studied the 2006 material under the cisco IT essentails and passed, however that does not give me certification. I am really just revisting the material to gain the cert i should have taken 2 years ago.