 |
|
 |
|
 |
Greg Neilson
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
CompTIA: A Wasted Opportunity? |
| CompTIA's Linux+ and Server+ exams leave Greg questioning CompTIA's role in the vendor-neutral certification movement. |
| by Greg Neilson |
|
10/31/2001 -- In the past I've spoken very positively about the Computer Technology Industry Association (CompTIA) and its vendor-neutral certifications. In particular, A+ has been a great way to demonstrate PC hardware skills. For MCPs/MCSEs, this certification shows that they have the necessary hardware skills to perform their work (in contrast, Novell's CNE program has always required hardware skills). I had been hopeful that this industry body would give us the future of certification by taking us away from individual vendors testing candidates about their own technology in isolation.
However, having taken CompTIA's Linux+ and Server+ exams in the past few weeks, I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the way that CompTIA is headed. I commented last month that Linux+ seemed like a small subset of the material examined in the LPI Level 1 certification. However, the Server+ exam, which I just sat, bothered me even more. Like Kevin Kohut, who took the beta exam and reviewed it here on CertCities.com, I only just passed the exam despite my years of experience in this area. Why? Because many questions on this exam aren't a test of your technical ability, but rather whether you can recall what CompTIA feels are the best industry practices. In some cases the correct responses were a matter of common sense, but there were others where I obviously would do things differently than the SMEs who prepared the exam.
But what really bothered me was the lack of technical depth to the exam, and thus the certification. The same could be said of Linux+ and also i-Net+ (from my reading of the exam objectives). Without this in-depth testing, I don't understand what these certifications offer candidates or, more importantly, potential employers. Yes, these certifications are able to demonstrate that the candidate has dabbled in the area and has an elementary level of knowledge, but I can tell the same by asking a potential candidate a couple of questions, so as a hirer, what then does this give me?
And there's other problems, including an inability to adequately measure the theoretical knowledge of the candidate (yes, experience is king, but a good theoretical background is also important). Even worse, the exam objectives of many of these programs have a significant amount of overlap with each other. For example, this means asking networking and hardware questions in a Linux+ exam, which leaves less room in the exam for content on Linux.
I had been hoping -- and maybe my expectations were too high -- that CompTIA would give us the next generation of certification by expanding the limited view of technology that each vendor holds and testing real skills that employers need from their staff. But at the moment, I am struggling to see value in many of these new certification programs they are offering. These new programs are aiming themselves too low to be of any use. And let's face it – these exams aren't cheap. At $190 a pop, they're more expensive than your typical vendor exam, so anyone thinking of taking them would want to really ensure that they'll be getting something of value in return.
A few months ago I congratulated Novell for including CompTIA exams such as the Server+ and IT Project+ in their updated certification programs. Now that I've had a closer view of the Server+ exam, I'm not so sure how well this will work in practice. Similarly, the new Microsoft MCSA certification includes options for the A+ together with either Network+ or Server+ to satisfy the elective requirements. I'm still a fan of the A+ program: It will ensure that the MCSA that chooses this path can demonstrate good hardware knowledge. The Network+ exam covers similar territory to the old Network Essentials exams in the MCSE path, so this exam makes sense as part of a larger program. However, I'm sure those that take the Server+ option will wonder why they bothered.
What do you think? Are you happy with these CompTIA certifications as is, or would you like to see them change somehow? What are your plans to take a CompTIA certification? Was I just in a bad mood when I took the Server+ exam? Let me know by posting your comments below.
|
Greg Neilson, MCSE+Internet, MCNE, PCLP, is a Contributing Editor for Microsoft Certified Professional Magazine and a manager at a large IT services firm in Australia. He's the author of Lotus Domino Administration in a Nutshell (O'Reilly and Associates, ISBN 1-56592-717-6). You can reach him at Attn: Greg.
|
|
| |
|
More articles by Greg Neilson:
|
There are 25  user Comments for “CompTIA: A Wasted Opportunity?”
|
|
Page 1 of 3
|
| 10/31/01: alab says: |
Gerg-i think you were in a bad mood when you took the exam. I have been through both these exams and I dont share your opinions on both the linux and the server+ exams. Yes, there is an overlap but that is intended and actually provides better mapping among the programs. Your title is also misleading though - you talk of a missed opportunity without explaining at all WHAT is actually missed. All you have said is taht (you feel) the exams dont cover what is necessary. |
| 11/1/01: Gary says: |
Greg: I am currently studing for Server+ exam. I am a MCSE(4.0)who is also certified as A+, Network+ and I-Net+. My feeling on all CompTIA exams is that they are wide but not deep. That may be what you were talking about when you said, "But what really bothered me was the lack of technical depth to the exam ..." My feeling is that the strong point of these "vendor-neutral exams." I would not hire a person just because they were A+, Network+ and Server+ certified, However, if I was looking for a person to work on Microsoft servers and both candidates were MCSE, but one candidate had passed one or more CompTIA exams that person would have a leg up. Knowning the "HOW TO" of the NT 4.0 operating system is important, but so is knowing what a raid 50+1 is(even if you have never seen one) is also important. PS: I had never seen nor heard of anything higher than Raid 5 before studing for this exam. After taking the exam in two weeks, I will write back with my reaction to the actual exam. Gary |
| 11/2/01: Anonymous says: |
I haven't taken the Linux+ test (not sure that I will) but I have taken Server+. I found it tested my test taking abilities more than my admin abilities. The questions had multiple right answers and intentionally vague questions. A+ and Net+ are respectable. I-Net+ really has no reason for existing (if you know how to use a search engine and know what port 80 is your golden). |
| 11/6/01: another anonymous says: |
I agree that these tests are "wide, but not deep". I think that is appropriate for these exams. They are not intended as "engineer" class exams, but "technician" class exams. They SHOULD have a lot of breadth, but SHOULDN'T be too deep - else they would duplicate the myriad vendor "engineer" class exams. I respect the exams for what they are (though the Server+ was a bit wierdly focused). - Another Anonymous, MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA, CCDA, Network+, A+, Server+, etc, etc. |
| 11/6/01: Steven says: |
I currently hold MCSD, MCP (NT 4 core exams), A+, Network+, and I-Net+ certs. I have yet to see what these certifications really gain a prospective employee. I have over 9 years of IT experience, and I find that specific types of experience combined with a good personality is what really opens the door. The only revenue I have seen from earning my MCSD consisted of the $2400 I earned while teaching a Visual Basic course during the summer of 1998 at a local University. The only certs that I have seen within an employer's request list on any job site is MCSE, MCSD, A+, CCIE/CCNA, Oracle Certification, and occasionally MCDBA or Sun Java certification. The only real advantage I see for certification is for a tie-breaker situation, which to be frank, rarely occurs. I will probably still keep plodding on with earning certs, mainly because I believe that learning is a continuous process. However, a person can only be really good at a few things, and being good at something ultimately requires experience. |
| 11/7/01: Wade says: |
Being a multi-certified network admin I have experienced the reality of taking exams that don't seem to pan out for much in terms of equitable payback. The server+ exam was one I studied for for about 2 days before I realized it would take very little actual working knowledge of servers for passing, and had more to do with standard practices and definitions. Working professionals already have most of this knowledge already and passing this test would have been easy, too easy. I had passed A+, and Network+ already before ooking into this test and for those I found the subject matter to be fairly complicated at times, relevent to the subject and they rquired me to study and truly learn the subject matter. I did earn some recognition from my employer for these, even though the reward hardly covered the cost of the test and training. I still considered it to be a worthwhile learning process and the time and effort paid off in knowledge. I then took and passed my MCP+I and later the MCSE in NT4, and went right into the CNA 5 right after taking the MS courses before coming back for i-Net+ exam. Having looked at the i-Net+ study guide (ExamPrep had a book several hundreds of pages long) for about 2 hours while sitting at the bookstore one day waiting for my wife to find her own selections, I went out and passed the exam with flying colors the very next day. It was hardly a test of knowledge for someone who is already in the field, but my reasons for doing it were clear to me at the time (it got me the CIW associate level certification for free). That was what actually allowed me more leadway and recognition with employers than the i-Net+ cert has ever mustered. In fact one employer went so far as to mention it only proved I was willing to waste money on exams trhat didn't mean anything in the industry. While he failed to impress me with such a remark, it brought a serious point home. That being that in the end if it isn't considered a worthwhile test to those in the business, don't bother to spend the dime. As far as certs go I found the MCSE tests to be much harder than any I have taken so far (with the exception of CCNA which I just missed on first attempt by one question). For CCNA I have had to study for over a month and I already have 6 full years experience with LAN/WAN configs. The MS and Cisco certs have proven to take the most time in learning the subject matter. Having been selected as a free i-Net+ beta-tester for the new test I'll reserve my comments on that for until after it's been taken on Dec 10th, but if the last one is any indication this one isn't going to be the brainbuster I beleive it should be. You're right, they missed an opportunity to prove to the world that independent certification could be the greatest thing to hit the industry. On server+ and Linux+... I studied the texts for both and decided there was no practical reason to ever spend the money and test on them. I have no doubt I'd pass easily though given the subject matter I've reviewed in the books, and in relaity I have never interviewed where this would have made any difference for the level of jobs I would apply for. Anything above starting positions would never look at these and drop their jaws. The knowledge is basic, so unless I get the urge to start hanging up expensive certificates up just for show I don't beleive they offer me any more respect (or money) among my peers. Beacuse I am also in a hiring posiiton where I am know, you I'd say I also have never considered a prospective employee candidate to be any more qaulified for a position at our company because they have placed these particular certifications on a resume. We have servers, and we use Linux and Novell and MS NT4 and Win2K. I have, however given A+ and Network+ candidates more recognition and leadway becuase I know the subject matter is harder to learn and is more in-depth. That makes them a worthwhile investment and adds to their background skills. With server+ and Linux+ (as well as i-Net+) they get no further respect from me. While I can't say how the test will go, I do know that if the new beta-test weren't free I wouldn't be considering it at all. Wade Hoffarth MCSE(4), MCP+I(4), CNA(5), A+, Net+, i-Net+, CIW, IBM-CS, XDSL, CSS & NSS, Certified LAN/WAN Administrator |
| 11/29/01: Ray says: |
I have 3 and a half years of IT experience and Microsoft and Cisco certification and I found that the Server+ and INET+ an simple exam. We recieved the books, and after reviewing the table of contents,I pasted both of them the same afternoon. I would only consider theese exams completely intro level. |
| 12/11/01: Terrell says: |
Ok, let me ask you all something. For some normal joe (like me) wants to break into the field with becoming MCSE as end goal, where should he/she begin? |
| 12/31/01: Carolyn says: |
I thought the INET+ was really hard. I just passed it ( barely ) yesterday. I studied for months. It was my first certification. Really tough in my opinion, but of course, I am not a Net Admin or Cisco person, so for anyone without major networking ( hands on ) I advise lots of studying and many different resourses. |
| 3/3/05: mokter hossain from i am from the dhaka says: |
i have heard about the site and i fgind it somthing very good because it is providing free service fopr the student specially theae needt |
First Page Next Page Last Page
|
|
|
|
