Re: cheating
- From: kpg <ipost@thereforeiam>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:18:50 -0800
JaR <lakabuxstetson@xxxxxxxxx> said something like
> # Name resolution details: file://c:\temp\181858.htm (12/20/2005
> 12:15:34 PM) # In microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, kpg spewed across
> the ether:
>
>> As an employer, If a candidate has an MCSE I would test
>> their knowledge with appropriate questions and even some
>> hands on situations (especially if she were cute) and I
>> would expect to be very impressed with their knowledge or
>> I would dismiss them as a fraud.
>
> So the purpose of having that MCSE would be...?
>
> What you seem to be saying is: if you don't have any practical
> experience, then go ahead and do the studies to gain the "baseline"
> knowledge. But save your money and don't bother with the tests
> themselves, as if you interview as an MCSE, and can't pass the Q&A,
> you will be considered a fraud, and be worse off than if you had never
> claimed to be certified!
>
> IOW--The freaking certs are worthless without the relevent experience
> to back them up. And if an employer can verify the experience, what is
> the point of asking for the cert as a pre-hire requirement?
I see your dilemma, but yes. The cert acts as a truth detector!
You had better have the qualifications your cert claims you have
or you will not work for me.
It is a self correcting system, and I am in control.
It's really a beautiful thing.
kpg
.
- References:
- Re: cheating
- From: WSUS
- Re: cheating
- From: kpg
- Re: cheating
- From: JaR
- Re: cheating
- Prev by Date: Re: Need Study Guide / Book in PDF format for 70-290 Exam
- Next by Date: Re: cheating
- Previous by thread: Re: cheating
- Next by thread: Re: cheating
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|