[lpi-discuss] Re: General comments on LPI levels -- after 14 years,
they still call me an "Intern"
john at johnallsopp.co.uk
john at johnallsopp.co.uk
Wed Sep 14 12:50:53 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!
LOL, no, I enjoy learning, I handle exams easily, so I enjoy getting
the markers every now and then, is all.
>> 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.
Not sure I'm getting the difference, but no matter.
>> 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."
I agree the first exam needs to be called "Basic Linux Administrator"
or similar. I'm just balking on the word Junior, is all. So yes, I
agreed, I think.
>> 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
No, because it carries with it implications that the others higher up
in the hierarchy are looking down upon the 'juniors'. Obviously
everyone is aware of each other's position, but ..
this is a marketing issue, and I spent ten years of my life as a
marketing consultant. What I'm wriggling on is that if we want LPI to
become more popular, more accepted, more standard, more known about,
we need people to look at the qualifications and decide to take the
first step. If the first step is a slog to get to 'junior' I think 90%
of people (just a guess, 85% maybe :-) ) will reject it because after
all that work, they're still just the dogsbody. It may be the case, we
just shouldn't wave it in front of their faces if we want them to join
Incidentally, is anyone from LPI listening to this or are we just
blathering to ourselves? :-) Sorry, I don't know if you are involved
with them directly or not.
> **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
You have far more experience and knowledge of all that than I do. I'm
just coming at it from a marketing point of view. We can probably
agree on a term such as "basic linux administrator" that does reflect
the, well, basic level of knowledge without the other implications
that 'junior' brings, for me at least.
The point is, really, whether LPI are taking any of this on board and
aim to do anything about it, or not.
More information about the lpi-discuss