[lpi-discuss] Re: General comments on LPI levels -- after 14 years, they still call me an "Intern"

Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith at ieee.org
Wed Sep 14 11:54:12 EDT 2005

If you're looking for some sort of "professional affirmation"
from certifications, good luck!  In fact, I'm reguarly
despised by people for them, even though I have to have them
to get past the HR/procurement departments in my consulting
endeavors.  Utter Catch-22!

> I'm mature. I have my first class computing degree and my
> experience and my cpd and so on ..

And as far as "degree level" goes, that can be subjective as
well.  See my tangent far below ... **

> 'Junior' suggests immaturity as well as a basic level
> of knowledge.

The context is "Junior Linux Administrator."
It is not "Junior IT Professional" or anything else.

> The "we should all feel important" thing is complex. I've
> witnessed, years ago, people coming out of essentially low
> level training courses having been told that what they have
> received is degree level training, and they're daft enough
> to end up thinking they've got a degree equivalent.

Again, don't get me started.  See my tangent below ... **

> Obviously, that's not right, we need something that
> properly reflects the level that an LPIC-1 has achieved.

???  I'm confused  ???  Did you agree with me?  Because from
my standpoint, that's just more reason to call LPIC-1 a
"Junior Linux Administrator."

> That has to be motivating to the prospective LPIC-1 person
> as well as to the LPIC-2s and 3s who don't want a 1
> they're God's gift, and don't want their own level to be
> unclear to prospective employees.

Which is why I think the "Junior Linux Administrator" is

> At the same time, if you/we want people to take up the LPI
> qualifications, it should be something you are proud to put
> on your CV. Putting Junior ... on my CV .. well, I'd only
> it for a joke.

It should spur you to want to obtain a LPIC-2.

> Yeah, but you've got to get people over the hump of LPIC-1
> to get them to 2. LPIC-1 has to be something people want.
> The name should be something you can feel proud of, is all,
> and I personally feel strongly that 'junior' isn't
> I'd want to publicise. So yes, maybe I would start work
> straight away on 2 so I can say I'm "working
> towards intermediate level", but I think the percentages
> would show I'm in a minority.

I am a BSE with approximately 14 years of combined
engineering and technology experience.  I also have a who's
who of clients all over the US, took 40 exams with *0*
training in the summers of 2002 and 2003 to finally get
HR/procurement departments to look at me and ...

My Florida BoPE certificate on the wall _still_ says ...
  "Engineer Intern"

Does the word "Intern" that make me feel inadequate on the
wall enough that I want to blame the BoPE for it?  No!  The
title is appropriate (even if I blame the BoPE for being a
bunch of "bridge builders" who are still stuck in the 80s).

It just means I haven't submitted myself to the BoPE for
candidacy and, upon their ~4 month peer review of my
credentials, allowed me to take the 8 hour "Practices" exam.

Sooner or later I'll either get the guts to take the full
electrical engineering Practices exam, or maybe one state in
this great union of ours will finally introduce a full
software/systems engineering exam set for it.  So far, the
closest they have come is a "Control Systems" specialty that
is not quite enough of my experience.

But given the _qualifications_ required to be a licensed PE,
i have _not_ fulfilled them.  So I am, in the eyes of the
Florida Department of Regulation and Florida Board of
Professional Engineers a ... tada ... "Engineer Intern."  And
I feel, yes, that's 100% appropriate because only *I* can
change that if I want to.

-- Bryan

**TANGET:  What is "degree level"?!?!?!

E.g., engineering was a PhD level diploma with a typical 1-2
year "internship" like a doctor or lawyer until the British
decided that engineers should have 4-5 years experience.  So
what they did was cut the lower 60 semester hours to 15 or
so, so they could fit in a full 120 hours of an engineering
pre-core, core and specialty (40 hours each).

So is it fair that those with a BSE have 120 hours of
engineering (with only 15 hours of general ed), while most
other BS degrees only have 60 hours of their major (with 60
hours of general ed)?  Let alone the fact that I tire of
people who say "I don't know how you passed calculus" --
although I typically respond, "because you have to use
calculus for everything in engineering."  I get dumb stares
because of that, but in reality, I don't see how people can
understand even business, economics and risk analysis -- or
environmental impact (God, don't get me started ;-) --
without calculus -- but it's because we _all_ have our own

And what about the Engineering Technologist who has more
"practical experience" than a full-up, traditional Engineer? 
Is it fair that he is considered a "lower degree" than an
engineer, when he is _far_more_practical_ than a traditional
Engineer?  Out-of-school, an Engineering Technologist can
best most "Technicians" at the advanced usage aspects, while
the traditional "Engineers" know how the world interacts, but
has not actually touched it.  You don't need calculus to do
the majority of Engineering Technology or lower, which is
where things are most practical.  (although I'd argue you
need calculus for some of the business/impact/risk aspects --
although many go without it, because even the principles of
calculus become clear given enough experience).

We can play the "fair/appropriate" game forever.  If people
don't stop to recognize what is what, then no amount of
"title" can help that.  95% of the people I meet think I went
to school to "learn computers."  Or when I used to tell
people I was an Electrical Engineering (EE) major, most used
to respond, "you should rethink that" -- even though I
already had 4+ years of full-time technologist-level

Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)

More information about the lpi-discuss mailing list