Certification and Continuing Education

I am always doing that which I cannot do,

In order that I may learn how to do it.

Pablo Picasso

My Bachelor's of Engineering was a wise investment. I use next to nothing of the technical skills I learned, from breadboarding circuits to VLSI to transistors to programmable digital logic. Rather it changed how I think, how I approach problems, to be comfortable with and work with uncertainties, and to methodically work out the solution. This works on technology. This works on organizations. It can even work on people.


If nothing else the coursework prepared me to operate effectively in an engineering world where results are to some fair degree quantifiable and unambiguous. I have thought about getting an MBA. I have demonstrated some facility and curiosity going beyond the engineering into the business side, but I haven't made the targeted forays to know for sure this is my next career step. What if I get the CCIE or MBA and I don't find myself in an improved state? I need a reasonable path from "here" to "there". A large part of these writings comprises the attempt to parse my experiences to determine what the "there" properly looks like, as a prerequisite to finding my path and my own brand that began as an engineer.

The prevailing wisdom seems to be that you get the education before you do the work. I have met very many highly educated people who couldn't do the work. I have met certified and non-certified people who could do the work and who could not do the work, enough to accept that there may be only a slight correlation of those that can do the work to those who are certified. The question is which paper reflects true, added value and which is simply expensive paper.

I learn best by doing. I learn to the point of making the right decisions. I will learn most anything to a usable and optimal 85% mark, stopping short of such depth that defines an expert. I'd rather learn a lot of things well and build an integrated system, than a few things entirely. I learn to the point of being able to teach others. The more worthwhile the task, the faster and more intensely my learning such that in two months I have learned more on one job than I did in a year or two at another. And both jobs were interesting.

Learning by doing, rather than pre-qualifying in order to do, has the added benefit of very quickly sorting which roles you excel in and which you don't.

Research is easy. When faced with a question that is critical to my mission I experience an obsession that may last days or weeks while I am delving into every detail, every facet of the problem or technology. It's an incredible feeling, energizing, powerful in the understanding that I am adding relevant capability, becoming who I need to be to get this job done right. Research is easy because my mission is focused. When you research you have at least a general sense of what success must be like once you have what you need, and whether tangents are likely to be helpful or not. And when you finally have enough pieces to see the puzzle, you know it.

Study is hard because the mission is ill-defined. Particularly for certifications, The payoff is not clear. Certifications are a poor way to learn, unless you love highly specialized, yet still general knowledge. I remember learning a lot about BRI and ISDN and RIP for my CCNA tests. For the CCNP and CCIE written tests, there was EIGRP (among others). OSPF I learned through intense research as a candidate for deployment and migration. EIGRP many people use, while I have never once used it and only rarely been asked about a position where it is used. RIP, BRI, ISDN, not once, ever. I remember a lot of reading for my CCDP test. Much of that I knew already and the parts I didn't, I hadn't used and by and large haven't used since. I have found this to be the least valuable of my certifications.

Why put in the long hours?

You do it to get the certification and you get the certification so that employers mark you as a cut above the rest of the applicants. Like trump cards, the highest certifications move you to the top of the list, or at least that's the hope, since those lists are (rightly) heavily weighted towards people already known.

When employers do this they are often instinctively doing what they may be more reluctant to say: that in principle, the right personality for the job may far outweigh the better credentialed or longer experienced. In many cases, the actual performance of that person in the role doesn't seem to matter -- that is they're not looking for a shining star, but for stability. But rarely, the known personality is a shining star, who can afford to take the time to build up experience.

By and large, my certifications have followed my experience, so the effort wasn't tremendous in each case. Studying was more or less filling gaps. However, given the depth of material in some certifications like the CCIE, I'm finding I'm stepping well beyond my experience in without the promise of new achievement or capability at the end. A paper feather in my cap, no matter how bright, isn't incentive for me. It's expensive and if I could take the energy from that study and pour it into real world achievements, I'd rather do that. Such achievement sticks in my head; is a proud memory on good days and healthy consolation on poor ones.

I have met managers who weighted the higher certifications heavily. I've met managers who scoffed loudly at the concept. I'm not in either camp. Good engineers will generally feel the pressure, either internal or external, to get certified at some level, where the paper is a backdrop for accomplishment. Poor engineers will study, treating it purely as a means to the end of a better job, remaining fundamentally inferior in ability.

The problem of motivation is that I want the sort of role where I am constantly challenged, forced to grow beyond my current capabilities, and engaged in some greater mission that assures me that even in some small way I'm making a difference worth making.

The certification doesn't help -- this is the problem. It's an artificial barrier for some great jobs, but also for many poor ones. It's artificial because for the same type of job some employers make require it and others not. My certification meets their requirements but doesn't in the least govern the kind of workplace environment, or guarantee challenge, or even the value of the mission. Those things, far more than my certification, determine whether I'll be a terrific success in the position or a relative failure.

Lazy people don't like to work. Those like me love to work, but despise expending work that has little to no guarantee of return on the investment. And in that regard certification is a bit of a gamble. Maybe you pair the right employer with the requirement to be certified and you get a great job. But maybe you are highly certified and the same employer ignores the certification and hires you for your experience. Are the odds substantially increased through certification of getting a better position?

They are, of course, just by virtue that so many people pay attention to the paper. With a CCNP and CCDP the generally higher salary and class of job inquiries I've gotten is a testament to this.

I got my CCNA, needing to have some standing among other engineers that matched my work. It did me no good for my current job, but was useful in marketing myself much later to the next. And, for me, this was my first proud achievement: my first major certification.

My CCNP, after years of on/off preparation, came about partly to feel less out of place among a number of CCIEs (my pride and self-consciousness) and partly as a gambit to save a job that was going through a contract renegotiation. As well I added the CCDP which was only two basic tests beyond the CCNP. Mission accomplished,  job and salary saved. Of course, it was still the same job and the same level of work.

To give credit where due, I somewhat enjoyed the JNCIA I got at about the same time (now lapsed). Juniper seemed a bit more focused on understanding how something worked than which specific command did what.

Passing the CCIE RS Written was partly to quell boredom in an unchallenging role and partly to demonstrate to potential new employers that if I didn't have the full CCIE Lab at least there was some potential or eventual parity with those who did. Even that written test will get you interviews and a degree of respectability where true CCIEs are in short supply or simply too expensive.

The CCIE RS Written was itself enormous study and preparation,  more than ever before. I had lots of time to spare. Beyond passing a few extra interview questions (information easily researched on the job if needed) I retain the sense of being no better an engineer after than before. The high of passing even that test didn't last long. Without time to study, I would have questioned my investment more intensely. This is the same thinking in preparing for the lab. With excess time to burn, it's worth doing. Put me in a challenging, meaningful role and the benefit disappears entirely. I take challenging and innovating any day to certification. I like taking those risks which resulted in phenomenal growth. Certification study doesn't come close to that level of growth. In fact, I've learned very little in my studies that I use to real world advantage.

For me, I don't scrutinize the certification. Absent all other information, not being certified to some level is a reason for me to question another's ability. Benefit of the doubt, easily withdrawn, is also initially extended for the higher certifications. I'm not immune to doing this. You just have to be willing and interested to look beyond the certification to see if the engineer before you is capable of achieving your desired result.

Particularly if you work for or with institutions that don't weight honors and compensation according to accomplishment, certifications may be the only way to get it. You will be forced to prioritize what doesn't result in high growth over what does simply by material necessity. Life is particularly miserable when this defines a significant number of jobs.

In many interviews, I've found myself forced onto the defensive from the start not having the paper credentials. Sometimes work I want mandates those credentials (in the self-same way so does much work I'm convinced I don't want). I was hired into two workplaces where the stated preference (an earlier dropped requirement) was for the CCIE. In one, they accepted my CCNA and I did good work alongside the rest. In the other, they accepted my CCNP and I left where the work barely justified a CCNA.

When employers have money but do not understand their need, some will simply buy the best they can afford. If they have a lot, unless you are careful the work may in fact be a step back. I'm finding salary is not always an accurate predictor of success or growth. It can lead to stagnation which cuts you off from evening maintaining your pay later.

This further illustrates the problem where a certification only loosely correlates with the engineer's capabilities, devaluing it for the employer as a success predictor and for the employee who invests time and energy into preparing for something of ultimately marginal value in achieving his own career goals.

Instinctively, I really want employers to ignore the certifications. I keep hoping for that interview when someone wants to see my thought process, to walk them through a technology or an old project, where I come to life, where it becomes apparent why I was so effective and what I can do. One always hopes for someone wise to size you up as a long term investment beyond the current role. This is naturally very rare.

Instead, I get to rehearse the neutral explanations as to why I don't have my full CCIE yet since one of every ten interviews asks this. Having the written, people ask when my lab is scheduled. I have to explain that it's not and that I intend to take it only when I feel ready. It's not a priority. Because it doesn't buy me much. Beyond a potentially higher salary, I'm a network engineer where the next obvious progression is a CCIE and I can't seem to figure out how a CCIE gets me the kind of work I want.

If anything, I wonder if it puts me deeper into the weeds I'm outgrowing. There, the higher salary becomes a trap, something one becomes used to, that one can't give up, and in the end confinement to a very limited role. If I can find a way to switch roles before that point, become still more effective, which opens up doors farther up the ladder...

I'm not that kind of engineer as I see many. If I'm 50 and I'm principally a sole contributor... this is not the hallmark of success. I have a burning need to be at the center of things, putting things in order, taking charge of situations, making decisions that carry a risk of failure and consequences but a high reward if made right.

It is hard to want something, to strive for it, that carries so little guarantee of reward.

On the other hand, self consciously I also recall the Aesop's fable that ends with:

“IT IS EASY TO DESPISE WHAT YOU CANNOT GET.”

Would I feel differently if I had my full CCIE already? There's only one way to know.