How's the job market for networking and/or IT

[Deadhead420]

I'm kinda fucked up in school last semester failing everything but computer science which I got an A in. My parents may cut me off financially and I'm currently unemployed. What are the requirements to get into those type jobs? Maybe even server admin or something. I plan to take my A+ test soon which I've heard is really easy. And if I can afford it I'd like to go to Nashville State and get an associates degree in it. The classes teach the certifications like cisco is the main one.

 

[kingzblend]

IT is a great major to go into. Every business needs technology to make their business more effective and efficient. Although IT is an extremely popular and growing field, with it comes a host of issues.

1. Since it's such a popular field, competition in the IT market is FIERCE. Most companies only have a select few IT people and although it is a rewarding profession, those companies only want to hire the most qualified people.

2. There is always something new in IT, always. This means that in order to be successful, you must be willing to put forth substantial time to keeping up with the game (obtaining new and updated ceritifications, etc.

If you properly address these issues then you will have a fast paced and very rewarding career ahead of you.

Hope that helps.

 

[AfterGlow]

Yup, highly competitive. But like most business opportunities, it's more about WHO you know than WHAT you know. Get your foot in the door at a good company doing ANYTHING, and then you can get to know the decision makers and make a pitch to get the position you really want.

 

[RedLeader]

kingzblend makes good points. I'll add a few things:

1) Certifications ARE good, nearly as good as degrees these days. None of my degrees are in IT/CompSci, but I am a self-taught computer geek. And I am finding this hard to sell in job interviews, so I've actually thought about going for a certification or two to strengthen my resume.

2) A wide variety of job sectors need IT people. However, given that some sectors are growing and some are struggling right now, your chances of getting hired vary depending on where you idealize to work. Keep this in the back of your head as you work toward a career.

 

[Cyc]

Being the "IT guy" is either extremely stressful or extremely boring. There is no in-between. Either you're playing minesweeper or you're pulling your hair out. If that doesn't appeal to you, don't get into IT.

 

[kingzblend]

Adding on to what Redleader has said:

Be careful when deciding where you choose to get your education from. Many IT schools (ITTech, Devry, etc...) will prepare you with the technological skills that you need with an IT career but they will NOT prepare you with the leadership, management and communication skills that certain bachelor/degree programs will. That being said, many individuals who choose the vocational school path are also a dime a dozen because there will always be a surplus of techies/geeks.

Now I am speaking on a bit of bias here. Currently, I am a Business Information Systems major at a state university, and I still hold much respect for anyone who chooses the strict IT tech disciple route; however, I do feel that since this field is so competitive, it is absolutely necessary to differentiate yourself from your competition by use of communication/leadership skills.

Hope that helps

 

[RedLeader]

Be careful when deciding where you choose to get your education from. Many IT schools (ITTech, Devry, etc...) will prepare you with the technological skills that you need with an IT career but they will NOT prepare you with the leadership, management and communication skills that certain bachelor/degree programs will.

Yes, this is very important. The vocational route is mainly about teaching you the essential skills necessary to pass certifcation exams as quickly as possible. Mainly, it's designed for people who want to change careers, "get back on their feet," or don't have the funding for an academic college.

But you can actually find all of this learning material at your local bookstore (or if you're lucky, your local public library) for much cheaper than what you'd pay for the vocational training. For example, assuming you've got access to the appropriate technology (or a simulation of such), you can train yourself to be Cisco-certified through books purchased from Boarders (US-based bookstore chain) for a few hundred dollars. So if you are thinking of going the vocational route, and getting something akin to an Associate's Degree, ask yourself first Do I have the dilligence to train myself from home, or is imperative that I have an instructor and classroom setting? The title of "Associate's Degree" alone does not carry much weight - at best, it's a synonym that you've been properly trained to pass certification exams. Someone who has passed exams without having any degrees could easily be chosen over someone who also has passed and does have an Associate's Degree, given that the former seemed more mature or such*.

To borrow wording from kingzblend, you cannot so easily find a means to obtain "leadership, management and communication skills" in a bookstore. So another question to ask yourself is Have I gained these through prior life experiences, or do I need to consider such in how I am going to choose to be educated (academic, vocational, self, etc.)

*I leave myself open to the possibility that there could exist either:
1) An exam which requires a degree to sit it
2) A job which, for some reason, requires (at least an) Associate's Degree as well as certifcation(s)

 

[Cyc]

I am a vehement critic of 3rd party certifications. My political ideals push for public standards for all fields based on training in a national institute.

CCNA, A+, MCSE, etc. are private companies who are selling you a product in the form of a certification. Credentials should not favor a single private business. I feel it's pro-social to attend a state school (or in Canada any College or University that isn't on the back of a matchbook) and get your credentials exclusively from there.

On my resume, I clearly state that I do not support 3rd party certifications. I shouldn't need to lace Cisco's pockets to get a job, and I refuse to do so.

 

[RedLeader]

I am a vehement critic of 3rd party certifications. My political ideals push for public standards for all fields based on training in a national institute.

CCNA, A+, MCSE, etc. are private companies who are selling you a product in the form of a certification. Credentials should not favor a single private business. I feel it's pro-social to attend a state school (or in Canada any College or University that isn't on the back of a matchbook) and get your credentials exclusively from there.

On my resume, I clearly state that I do not support 3rd party certifications. I shouldn't need to lace Cisco's pockets to get a job, and I refuse to do so.

I understand the sociopolitical point you're making. And I generally agree with you. And not just about this issue, but about establishing better common denominators for higher-education. At the very least, to make things way less confusing (both for students and employers alike).

I think the problem that happens is that you don't really have any common test through which discretion can be made between graduates of different colleges or unis in a lot of disciplines. Different schools have different "graduation criteria" one must meet. Some give internal exams, some use the ETS field tests (or similar ones), some want a project, some just want all courses passed, etc. This is more vague to employers than certification. These third-party tests, Cisco as a headliner, allow for the individuality of one's college or uni to be removed from one's knowledge of an area of study, so in turn companies will better know "how good you truly are."

So ya, I guess this leads me back to my first sentence. Ideally, it would be initiated from within the academic community, but if politicians would step in and push for more unification in testing (for example, all students in a field take a certain exam, but better schools can demand students score in a higher percentile, etc), then I think it would be a start toward silencing such third-parties. Kind of like the bar exam for law (only at the undergraduate level).

Unfortunately it's kind of like grade-inflation. Schools will gravitate toward certain themes so as to better their short-term image, instead of actually benefiting their students for their own personal long-runs. If it means not subjecting their students to a universal exam in fear of low published scores, they'll do so. Until legislation is introduced, that is.

Even after such an ideal, though, I still see third-parties popping up. If not for people who choose self-study over college to have a chance to prove themselves, but because it's inevitable in a free-market. And then you'd have people saying "I got a _____ on the standardized test AND a ____ on the privitized test."

I don't see it ever going away, bar *extreme* political change.

Also, Kyk, do you think it's a good idea to put a negative statement on your resume (regardless of what it is)?

 

[Coolio]

These third-party tests are pretty meaningful when the job consists of using nothing but that third-party's hardware and/or software all day, every day. There are plenty of jobs out there for people who understand a single platform or language really well, but not computer science or information technology as a whole.

 

[RedLeader]

These third-party tests are pretty meaningful when the job consists of using nothing but that third-party's hardware and/or software all day, every day. There are plenty of jobs out there for people who understand a single platform or language really well, but not computer science or information technology as a whole.

Yes, I see both sides of this issue. This is the other side.

CompSci and IT are perculiar ones in that in a lot of cases, you need to be highly specialized just to get the job, yet that specialty does not come after years and years of grad traning (such as for medical specialization). I don't want to sound like a hypcrite, but I think the degree to which CS/IT gets specialized means that if I am accepting of third-party tests in any area, it would be here. CS especially is taught so abstractly in most colleges that one could walk away with a degree and not be able to pass ANY third-party exam. And people don't realise this until they're trying to go for a job and get beat out by the folks with vocational training. The whole "college trained me to have the ability to LEARN new technology better and quicker, but do I actually KNOW any new technology really well as a result of college?" problem. I really wish major Univeristies would include more specialized routes in CS/IT, alongside the "OMG, algorithms are sooo cool!!" BS. I imagine it's similar in IT.</rant>

I agree with Kyk in that the whole "Cisco uses its technology to increase its wealth, and if I want to learn how to be a part of that, I have to pay Cisco to try and become certified..." thing sounds a bit twisted. And I don't think the tests should be allowed to be so expensive.

Ideally, all disciplines would incorporate things such as the bar exam or actuarial exams, but the computer stuff is an exception, which is kinda hard to handle.

 

[Cyc]

Very well said, Redleader. You definitely understand my position on the issue.

I believe that technology (especially technology essential to a population's infrastructure) needs to be standardized and not privately owned. With that standardization needs to come standardized training that ANY accredited institute can teach and certify... implicitly.

When I went to take my A+ certification, you should've seen how much hard selling I got to take their "prep program" or at the very least buy their "prep manual". I couldn't just take the test. No, I had to talk to half a dozen people to get through the CompTIA and affiliate yellow tape.

I eventually just threw my hands in the air and gave up. I have an associates (with post-grad) and five years work experience in IT. If that's not enough to land a decent job, go f*c* yourself. I'd rather change careers than keep jumping through these hoops.

 

[RedLeader]

When I went to take my A+ certification, you should've seen how much hard selling I got to take their "prep program" or at the very least buy their "prep manual". I couldn't just take the test. No, I had to talk to half a dozen people to get through the CompTIA and affiliate yellow tape.

I eventually just threw my hands in the air and gave up. I have an associates (with post-grad) and five years work experience in IT. If that's not enough to land a decent job, go f*c* yourself. I'd rather change careers than keep jumping through these hoops.

Ya, same thing happened with me wanting to get a MCPD certification earlier this year. I just wanted me, a computer station, the test and a few hours. That's it, either I score well or I don't. Oh wait, there are prereq exams! Yay, well again, give me comptuer stations, those exams, and a few hours! If only!

They kept pointing at books and programs and everything. "I'm a geek and I do this stuff for fun, in my spare time. Now can I take the exam?" just isn't good enough.

I ended up just getting drunk instead, and foregoing trying to go for that right now.

I believe that technology (especially technology essential to a population's infrastructure) needs to be standardized and not privately owned. With that standardization needs to come standardized training that ANY accredited institute can teach and certify... implicitly.

I admire you Kyk, what for being 4 years my elder and still holding beliefs I feel like I've compromised with years ago. I wish I could still feel motivated for big political changes and for ideal situations and futures, however I've just gotten jaded way too young. I've convinced myself that I'd rather make the best of what I have than risk investing my emotions too much on an unlikely future. Boring, I know.

Yes, the American people made a change with electing Obama and all, and it can be seen as good that the majority is backing universal health care and such. But that's a huge difference between handing over control of technology to the center.

Why the people don't want it: To people, giving the government more control of technology would make them feel threatened. Like there was an agenda. Like big brother was going to be watching even more. I guess I just feel like the average person wouldn't know what was going on, and would feel scared. Propagandists would get the best of them. And the people who did know what was going on, such as those holding jobs in private-sector tech companies, would not what this to happen because it would mean salary deflation. And I don't know about where you are, but where I live it seems like most tech guys I know are republicans or libertarians, so I doubt they'd like this change on the macro level either.

Why the government dosen't want it: Under a capitalist system, the private sector generally outperforms any centralized effort. Even with a very good government. I see it as like the government being an Olympic marathon medalist, whereas the private sector is passing battons to new runners every 800m. Sure, at the passing times the government maybe looks good for a short period of time, but typically there's always something out there privately which has more fresh momentum.

Look at Nasa, for example. Nasa's had some great moments, but because it is so connected to our government, often it's hands get tied, it is short on funding, does not do well, employees defect to the private sector, etc. Then look at private-sector satellite technology. Or the now private-initiatives for space tourism being suggested (more clearly now than circa Lance Bass) by private companies.

The sad reality is that technological sectors are pushed forward harder via the completetion of a free market than if standardized methods were to be implemented. And until every single country in the world agrees to make such changes, countries like America and Canada are NOT going to do anything to at all slow the pace of their technological growth as seen in the eyes of the global media (public and private together). If, for example, twenty years from now we break out into a new space race, it's going to be the private sector, and not NASA, to which the US government will turn.

I AM now getting a bit curious about this theme in other countries (I'm thinking of EU countries), which are known for having more standardization in higher-education, as well in part (thinking Scandinavia) being more socialist, is working. I mean they've got really good technology too. Might try and browse the net on this topic later if I get bored.

Shifting to CE&P -> J/K