According to my boyfriend who is going after a comp sci degree, CompTIA changed their A+ certification so that you need to renew it every 3 years now. My boyfriend is pretty upset, mostly because he says its a waste of time to renew it every three years but also apparently CompTIA said they'd never do that...and now they have. I figured being the computer guys you are, someone would have an opinion of this?

For those that don't know. CompTIA standardizes the A+ program so that regardless of how or where you take the training necessary, you will get the same education/information as everyone else in the industry. By no means is A+ certification where you're supposed to stop your education - after receiving certification many technicians go on to receive specialization in particular manufacturers or other standards.

>changed their A+ certification so that you need to renew it every 3 years now
about damn time. back when I had the opportunity to take it in 2004, everything was still based on windows 98 and dos. had I passed it then, there's no way it would prove anything now. What does matter IMO is when you last TOOK the exam.

I was personally hoping to get my Certs before the switch, but unfortunally I couldn't in time. D:

Certs mean nothing.

In most cases this is true, at least in NZ. Employers don't care whether you have A+ this or IBM cert that, they care about whether you can do the work. In some cases they want a specific qualification, but it's generally fairly rare.

That depends. If all you get is a cert, no they don't. But if you're going against twenty applicants with the same degree as you but you have a cert, your resume might look more favorable. Statistically, the certificate I'm going after pays an extra $10k a year, and I don't know many companies that would hire an accountant without a CPA behind them too.

Maybe for entry-level and graduate jobs, sure. Work experience is more important overall than certifications.

Having said that, though, more certifications are better than fewer certifications: if you could hire 1 of 2 people that seem to have about the same sort of job history and same sort of personality, would you hire the one that has 7 professional certifications or the guy that has 1 or 2? Having certifications proves a couple of things: you're dedicated enough to put in the effort to get a certification (mostly this is done in your own time), and also that you do actually know what you're talking about because you passed the cert. Again, for entry-level certifications they really don't mean much, because any monkey can do them, but the higher up the certification ladder you go, the more influence and prestige they have.

You'll get that entry level position much easier with a few certs than some guy with a diploma.

Yeah, that's probably pretty true. Multiple certificates, equal to or greater than the same length of time of a diploma would likely get you the job over the diploma. But I think a proper 3-4 year university degree would trump the multiple certs still, unless you were trying to get a specific job for which your certs were exactly the job you were doing (like linux server administration, or something).

Typically, it is in your best interests to have a degree plus certification(s) in something related to your degree. Of course, there is the argument right now that if you want a job you pretty much need a Master's.

Which frankly is ridiculous because masters degrees don't really prove much, except that you spent an extra 1-2 years doing them and could afford it, and you have sticktoitiveness.

In NZ our standard degree is 3 years, and doing a 4 year degree (with a research topic) is called honours. I could've chosen to do honours and paid an extra $5-6k in fees, or I could go get a job and get paid $40k for that same year. Which I did.

Once you get 2-3 years experience under your belt, having honours doesn't really mean anything (especially if your research topic was a useless academic wank-off that has nothing to do with the field you get a job in, as is often the case). It'd pretty much be the same with masters - the problem is getting the first job to begin with, and since the US has such a high unemployment rate you're going to be fighting stiff competition.

Kame, I'd seriously suggest you and your boyfriend emigrate to NZ once you've got your degrees - you should meet the visa requirements easily.

You sneaky agent you. Let the United States subsidize their education and whatnot, and then you swoop in and steal their expertise. NOT IN MY AMERICA.

nz is incredibly easy to get into

Aaaaand here's the other problem. Not all educational systems are considered equal. And all countries have their own measurements for what is the most important thing to take away from higher education.

When I was reading into it I thought NZ hated American emigrants. Besides I don't think he wants to move. Too bad too...I think I'd like Alaska.

No, we hate ignorant Americans. Generally 90% of people who choose to leave America can't be ignorant, by definition. They're wanting to leave the US, after all.

And I'm sure that statement held no ignorance

The average American is 50% richer than the average New Zealander. Just sayin'.

You know the difference between average and median, right?

Quick google results: top 1% of Amiercans own 34% of all of the wealth in the US. This significantly pulls the average up, but the 'average' American you pull off the street won't be sharing any of that wealth.

Also my American friend says that despite how much Americans like to tout the US as being the land of the free and being able to do what you want, that living in NZ is actually much more free than the US and there is significantly less government interference in day to day life here than there is in the US.

I haven't noticed any government interference in my day to day life. Weird.

If you really want to contest my claim that Americans are richer, then bring some actual statistics to compare - you know, if you bring 1% own 34% in US, gimme corresponding New Zealand figures. I expect that even taking that into account, Americans are richer. I also find it odd that you're condemning American inequality and interference in the same sentence, as they're essentially opposite problems. Inequality is lowest in countries with heavy government regulation, like Sweden, and highest in countries with less regulation. See, they tax the rich to give to the poor, decreasing inequality and increasing the government's "interference in day-to-day life".

I'd say your American friend is just telling you what you want to hear.

Here's how I see America: A huge, very rich country leading in military, nuclear, computer, space, etc etc etc technology. It may not be the very best at providing for its citizens, but it's pretty close. The United States maintains military bases and often peace around the world, is the largest donor of foreign aid, provides the bulk of the UN's budget, and does who knows what else. New Zealand doesn't really have a high tech industry, is small and geographically isolated, is poorer, and provide for the people is all the government does, because there's nothing else to do. In short, I understand why someone would be proud to be an American; I don't why one would be proud to be a New Zealander. It sounds to me like you do it just because you like calling people ignorant.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 22 2011, 6:49 am by Centreri.

Lol.