New Comptia courses

You are preaching to the choir about how bootcamps are marketed. I've been saying the same thing for 20+ years. Account Executives and Salespeople would sell the bootcamp classes to anyone, regardless of their previous experience. And in far too many cases, they would sell to people who didn't come close to meeting any of the prerequisites. I'd have students in Security+ who didn't understand basic hardware/software/networking concepts. I would constantly remind them that the correct path for new learners would be to get the foundational knowledge first, either through work experience or fundamentals training or both, before attempting some of the higher level courses. I had a new learner sign up for CySA+ and they dropped out after the first day because they were in over their head.

I agree that training companies carry a lot of the blame. They market these courses as a fast way to a new career with an increase in pay. People are led to believe that a few one-week courses and certifications will lead to the big bucks. They test prep and cram their way to a paper cert without learning anything useful.

The hiring managers shoulder some of the blame as well. Go to any job search site and type the name of any popular certification in the search bar and you'll find hundreds of jobs. Some hiring manager wants to make sure candidates check every box, whether the candidates know the information and can apply it or not. Too many skilled and experienced candidates are passed over because they never bothered to take a test.

I primarily taught adult learners. Generally speaking, they were either sent to training by their employers to pick up new skills to apply at work or they were career changers looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I always made sure my students knew more than a list of acronyms and definitions. I made sure they could understand the concepts and could apply the knowledge to a real world scenario.

As a whole, we need to do a better job of assessing a learner's current skill level before recommending a path for them. I wish more people would take ITF+ before A+ if that's what they need. Or take A+ and Net+ before taking Sec+, Cloud+, or Server+. Without a strong foundation, they're missing a lot of crucial information that helps give context.
Exactly. I see it an awful lot in the defense market (Colorado Springs is heavy DoD), and when so many of the jobs are insta-hire if you have the Security+ and a security clearance (don't get me started on this particular topic), I feel it cheapens what the Security+ (and any other cert) represents. And when colleges use that as a selling point, the students you get are, well, sub-prime.

And then there's Marketing...God bless them. Many times, they will float the credential to sell - bootcamp, job, skill... and I get eyestrain from eye rolling so much.

/r
 

Patrick Asamago

Well-known member
Oct 2, 2021
270
275
Exactly. I see it an awful lot in the defense market (Colorado Springs is heavy DoD), and when so many of the jobs are insta-hire if you have the Security+ and a security clearance (don't get me started on this particular topic), I feel it cheapens what the Security+ (and any other cert) represents. And when colleges use that as a selling point, the students you get are, well, sub-prime.

And then there's Marketing...God bless them. Many times, they will float the credential to sell - bootcamp, job, skill... and I get eyestrain from eye rolling so much.

/r
They use it for marketing purposes.
 
Hiring managers need to stop requiring specific certifications for employment. Hire people based on their experience and send them to training.

Prerequisites need to be enforced, not recommended. New learners should learn the foundations before learning the advanced materials.

All certification courses should require as much hands-on activity as possible. Theory shows them why and labs show them how.

Certification exams should contain more scenario-based questions, performance based questions, and hands-on activities. Multiple choice-only exams give you a 25% chance of being correct on every question.

Sales & marketing people should stop promoting the idea that more certifications will guarantee better jobs with higher salaries. Experience matters more.
 
Hiring managers need to stop requiring specific certifications for employment. Hire people based on their experience and send them to training.

Prerequisites need to be enforced, not recommended. New learners should learn the foundations before learning the advanced materials.

All certification courses should require as much hands-on activity as possible. Theory shows them why and labs show them how.

Certification exams should contain more scenario-based questions, performance based questions, and hands-on activities. Multiple choice-only exams give you a 25% chance of being correct on every question.

Sales & marketing people should stop promoting the idea that more certifications will guarantee better jobs with higher salaries. Experience matters more.
Totally agree with all of this. It's a double-edged sword, really. We want people to find certification attractive to career advancement, but we want them to do it the right way. Sadly, not everyone has this angle in mind. Where there is opportunity, there's money to be made.

I keep seeing memes on LinkedIn about asking for $15/hr for people who have a laundry list of certs. HR sometimes is adorable like that.

/r
 

Sivanesan

Well-known member
Jun 4, 2020
23
46
48
Malaysia
Hiring managers need to stop requiring specific certifications for employment. Hire people based on their experience and send them to training.

Prerequisites need to be enforced, not recommended. New learners should learn the foundations before learning the advanced materials.

All certification courses should require as much hands-on activity as possible. Theory shows them why and labs show them how.

Certification exams should contain more scenario-based questions, performance based questions, and hands-on activities. Multiple choice-only exams give you a 25% chance of being correct on every question.

Sales & marketing people should stop promoting the idea that more certifications will guarantee better jobs with higher salaries. Experience matters more.
Yeah supposed be like you said. But it's all opposite that's the truth.
 
I keep seeing memes on LinkedIn about asking for $15/hr for people who have a laundry list of certs. HR sometimes is adorable like that.
I've seen far too many "entry level" jobs that required EITHER CompTIA Security+ or (ISC)2 CISSP.

All that tells me is that the hiring managers have no idea what they're talking about. They are not equivalent. Of all the CompTIA certifications, CASP+ is the closest thing to CISSP but there are still lots of differences.
 
All that tells me is that the hiring managers have no idea what they're talking about. They are not equivalent. Of all the CompTIA certifications, CASP+ is the closest thing to CISSP but there are still lots of differences.
Principally, as I understand, CASP+ is angled more towards practitioners, where CISSP is more of a managerial slant. Both are super strong certs to have on any resume.

But it doesn't take a SPHR to know that you're not going to pay someone $15-18/hr if they have a CASP or CISSP (unless they are a paper cert...and we've already had that rant last week).

I wish DoD would figure out how to have a proper compliant security certification for entry level, rather than pushing for Security+, even. Sec+ is only for those with 2-3 years of experience in a security IT role. One of the saddest things was watching good people, people whose job didn't cover 10% of the BoK for Sec+ tossed out of their jobs for not having the cert. People who set up desk telephones, wired CCTV camera or AV solutions have no need for the concepts in Sec+, generally. But I've seen them end up in the unemployment line because of these mismanaged credential requirements.

/r
 
Principally, as I understand, CASP+ is angled more towards practitioners, where CISSP is more of a managerial slant. Both are super strong certs to have on any resume.

But it doesn't take a SPHR to know that you're not going to pay someone $15-18/hr if they have a CASP or CISSP (unless they are a paper cert...and we've already had that rant last week).

I wish DoD would figure out how to have a proper compliant security certification for entry level, rather than pushing for Security+, even. Sec+ is only for those with 2-3 years of experience in a security IT role. One of the saddest things was watching good people, people whose job didn't cover 10% of the BoK for Sec+ tossed out of their jobs for not having the cert. People who set up desk telephones, wired CCTV camera or AV solutions have no need for the concepts in Sec+, generally. But I've seen them end up in the unemployment line because of these mismanaged credential requirements.

/r
I've also seen people game the system. I was teaching a Security+ class back in 2010 at a military base. At the end of the week, the commanding officer handed out a bunch of burned CDs with the name of a well known brain dump site written on the label. He told them all to memorize the information on the discs and they would be fine. Crap like that happened all the time and still happens. It cheapens the certification and it insults all the people who did put in the work to earn their certification legitimately.
 
Funny sometimes when you say working experience needed for all the course.
Then why is it being taught in polytechnic and universities?

What working experience they have?
Every course has recommended prerequisites, which are routinely ignored at schools, universities, and corporate training providers in the pursuit of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sivanesan
I've also seen people game the system. I was teaching a Security+ class back in 2010 at a military base. At the end of the week, the commanding officer handed out a bunch of burned CDs with the name of a well known brain dump site written on the label. He told them all to memorize the information on the discs and they would be fine. Crap like that happened all the time and still happens. It cheapens the certification and it insults all the people who did put in the work to earn their certification legitimately.
Oh, don't get me started on brain dumps....that's a soapbox all its own and we've already released the Kraken. I have seen things like that before - but it's that pressure - the pressure we've all felt that drives people to take the quick and easy path. But that CO did his soldiers no favors by making cheaters out of them.

No one likes a braindump chump. <- and this is me being nice.

/r
 

Patrick Asamago

Well-known member
Oct 2, 2021
270
275
Oh, don't get me started on brain dumps....that's a soapbox all its own and we've already released the Kraken. I have seen things like that before - but it's that pressure - the pressure we've all felt that drives people to take the quick and easy path. But that CO did his soldiers no favors by making cheaters out of them.

No one likes a braindump chump. <- and this is me being nice.

/r
I like you Mr nice guy
 

aleibl

Well-known member
  • Nov 7, 2019
    17
    19
    As someone who is delivering commercial training, I am inclined to join the crowd to bash or even lynch the salesmen. But you have to understand that they are paid to sell whereas we trainers are paid to make delegates happy.

    However, as someone who also does project work, I have to defend bootcamp style courses because they are great for the right audience. As @Rick Butler said, for brushing up knowledge and I would add for filling in gaps. Remember that when you work freelance, every day in the classroom costs twice: The price of the course and the lost revenue from not working on the project. So a bootcamp is a good investment for a freelance worker.

    My experience is solely in Europe so might be different in the US. What I think happened is this:
    Guys with the right prerequisites and drive and energy did bootcamps with good trainers and passed the exam. They then did spread the word that it is doable with this trainer/organisation/... and that attracts more people. Including the ones that do not meet the prerequisites and/or do not have the drive to work long hours (late night self study or labs). And for them the bootcamp is not working, but there are plenty of people for whom it is the right format.

    As for the exam dumps: At the start of every class I tell students not to bother getting them as the cert vendors will have bought them and if the questions were indeed authentic in the first place (which is by no means guaranteed) they will have removed them from the pool. I do lots of practise questions with them so they understand how they will be tested, though.
     

    aleibl

    Well-known member
  • Nov 7, 2019
    17
    19
    What I find interesting is that the Courses are marketed by CompTIA as 5 days, yet their own offered "online Training" etc is double this. Why?

    Why are we as instructors set up to fail?

    I'm looking at the Delivery Guide for 1001 as I type this - 5 Days.
    Interesting, I never noticed that before! But @Simon Freedman is correct (thanks for pointing it out), it says 10 days of training (instructor led) on the website. Maybe it's ten half days? I'd be interested to know ...
     

    aleibl

    Well-known member
  • Nov 7, 2019
    17
    19
    Each of the A+ exams should be five days of training. 10 days for the two combined.
    Well, I was looking at CySA+ and it is also advertised as "10 days of hands-on, instructor-led online training"
    (see https://www.comptia.org/training/classroom-training/online-instructor-led-training). Whereas commercial trainings are done in 5 or even just 4 days!
    So is it really ten full days of training at CompTIA?

    BTW, the same page says for A+:
    A+ Core 1 & 2 Course Includes: 20 days of hands-on, instructor-led online training

    TWENTY! :oops:
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Sivanesan
    Well, I was looking at CySA+ and it is also advertised as "10 days of hands-on, instructor-led online training"
    (see https://www.comptia.org/training/classroom-training/online-instructor-led-training). Whereas commercial trainings are done in 5 or even just 4 days!
    So is it really ten full days of training at CompTIA?

    BTW, the same page says for A+:
    A+ Core 1 & 2 Course Includes: 20 days of hands-on, instructor-led online training

    TWENTY! :oops:
    Every one of those estimates is double the amount of time I've had to teach the classes. I wonder how many hours each day they're referring to.