New Comptia courses

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sivanesan

Sivanesan

Well-known member
Jun 4, 2020
48
66
5,361
50
Malaysia
#1
New Comptia A+ modules is really great. For academic use for college and university is very Good.

The problem is with corporate classes.
I would suggest a trainer teach Comptia A+ 1101 course to the management staff as their students. Let the trainer go thru the modules and also finish the lab exercise within 5 days.

Really would like see what the students feedback. And hope in our TTT series can tell us how to teach the corporate students within 5 days. Theory and hands on practical lab.

This not only for A+ but for Network+, Security+, CYSA+ , Pentest+, CASP+.

The modules are really very good. It's will take atleast 7 days according to my calculations to do theory and practical for each courses above.

Can try doing training for internal staff of comptia and get the feed back from them. Let them sit for exam too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salman Bhamedi, hosnypasha and Henry Kapasuka
#3
With corporate trainings, you can NOT teach as academy trainings. With my experience with corporate trainings, you should recap the importance points of the course objectives and let's attendees self-research more about the extending contents. If you do that you could transfer the value knowledge to attendees in 5 days (40 hours).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Khoa, Michael Schmitz, Thomas and 4 others
#4
NATUNA said:
With corporate trainings, you can NOT teach as academy trainings. With my experience with corporate trainings, you should recap the importance points of the course objectives and let's attendees self-research more about the extending contents. If you do that you could transfer the value knowledge to attendees in 5 days (40 hours).
Click to expand...
I can not agree less
 
#5
Sivanesan said:
New Comptia A+ modules is really great. For academic use for college and university is very Good.

The problem is with corporate classes.
I would suggest a trainer teach Comptia A+ 1101 course to the management staff as their students. Let the trainer go thru the modules and also finish the lab exercise within 5 days.

Really would like see what the students feedback. And hope in our TTT series can tell us how to teach the corporate students within 5 days. Theory and hands on practical lab.

This not only for A+ but for Network+, Security+, CYSA+ , Pentest+, CASP+.

The modules are really very good. It's will take atleast 7 days according to my calculations to do theory and practical for each courses above.

Can try doing training for internal staff of comptia and get the feed back from them. Let them sit for exam too.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY AGREE ON THIS
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abby N Krane
#6
In a corporate environment, I have had to teach A+, Network+, CySA+, and PenTest+ in five days. It's impossible to cover all the lecture, demonstrations, and labs in that amount of time, so compromises have to be made. For A+, you cannot do labs if both courses are covered in a 5-day boot camp. It's lecture only and it goes by fast. For Network+, you pick and choose which labs add the most value and either assign the rest outside of class or skip them entirely. For CySA+ and PenTest+, the same is true. When you have an estimated 25 hours of lab activities, it only leaves 15 hours for lecture in a five day class. That is impossible.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: Michael Schmitz, Sivanesan, Shah Priya and 1 other person
#7
IT is funny everyone keeps talking about trying to squeeze teaching these certs in 5 days, to meet the demand for corporate training. The goal should not be just to get people the cert. Yet they don't have the needed skill or abilities to perform the job the certification is going for.

As subject matter experts we should say, sorry that is not enough time. But we won't and we will keep teaching "Bootcamp" style which in my view lowers the value of the certification. I know a few people that against my advice have tried to go from no knowledge to a BootCamp promising 5 or 6 certs in a month. It is a waste of their money and time in my view. I know some of you teach this way and say, it is meant for people with skills just to prep for the exam. However, that is not how people are being sold the training.

If it takes 80 hours it needs to take 80 hours.
 
#8
As shared by @NATUNA. When you deliver for corporate clients, you need to have a different approach than if it is for academic. Different environment, requires different approach.

As shared by @Gregory Childers. Compromises need to be made.

As trainers, we need to start with knowing the needs of the client, then tailor our delivery to that. We need to let them know the extent of what we can deliver, and what will be missed out. We also need to know if the cohorts got prior learning and experience on the topic as that can affect the overall training as well.
  • Is it possible then to deliver CompTIA courses in a week? yes. But compromises will need to be made.
  • Would I suggest a bootcamp style of training? probably, but only if the cohort has prior knowledge, and/or if the intent of the training is more of a taster rather than a full cert prep.
  • Another way that a week-long training could work is if the trainees will do prior reading in their own time, then during class, it will be focused more on the labs plus recap of key points.

Just my two cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XValentine and Stephen Schneiter
#9
Oh heck...here we go...



jgoodrich said:
IT is funny everyone keeps talking about trying to squeeze teaching these certs in 5 days, to meet the demand for corporate training. The goal should not be just to get people the cert. Yet they don't have the needed skill or abilities to perform the job the certification is going for.

As subject matter experts we should say, sorry that is not enough time. But we won't and we will keep teaching "Bootcamp" style which in my view lowers the value of the certification. I know a few people that against my advice have tried to go from no knowledge to a BootCamp promising 5 or 6 certs in a month. It is a waste of their money and time in my view. I know some of you teach this way and say, it is meant for people with skills just to prep for the exam. However, that is not how people are being sold the training.

If it takes 80 hours it needs to take 80 hours.
Click to expand...

I think there is a key point here:

In a corporate setting, particularly where contracts require team members to be certified, there's always that push to get people to have the cert, just to satisfy the contract. But this is completely a "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law" argument.

The contract, in good faith would have these people, for example, be A+ Certified. But with that Certification comes the statement that says, "I can actually do all these stuff that is contained in the objectives". But that's not what people are looking for, is it? The contract specifies that the people are certified, not that they actually know what they're doing or have any level of skill to do the job that they are purported to do. This is the uncomfortable truth that is rarely stated.

A long time ago, back when the MCSE was a certification goal, the term "paper MCSE" came to bear. Candidates saw that great big salary goal, if only they had their MCSE. So, boot camps and brain dumps became a real thing. The market became flooded with people who had a premium certification, but had no real experience.

I ran into one of these in the classroom about 10 years ago. The guy had an impressive array of certifications, but when he was asked simple questions about networking, or management of Microsoft-loaded computers, he would look at me like a monkey doing an arithmetic problem. In short, he did not know what he was doing and we ended up giving him the walk of shame within two months of the hire date.

Today, I believe the market is still flooded with a great number of paper certifications. So asking corporate trainers to try to do this inside five days, may look good on paper, but that's all it is, paper. And the kinds of candidates that come out of these compressed seminars, to me, are not really worth the paper they're certification is printed on.

Sorry to be harsh like that, but I think for every one of us out there that work hard to get our certifications, and try to study the material in good faith, should be ardent supporters and defenders of the certifications we hold.

Perhaps there is this wish that we can take a raw candidate with no skills or background and turn them into an A+ certified technician within five days, or 10 or 14, etc etc. There is no shortage of corporate trainers out there that will try to promise that kind of fast track to the certifications.

But in my mind, you get what you pay for, and time is just as much a currency as cash is.

/r
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nalini Kadakia and XValentine
#17
Gregory Childers said:
Bootcamps are not intended for novice users. They are intended for experienced users to fill in knowledge gaps and for test prep. I would never recommend a bootcamp for someone new to the material.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The bootcamp is a great way for folks to brush up on some aged knowledge - those things make total sense to me.

But...

When I see the marketing material, I don't get the sense it's being pitched to those who are experienced, but rather, they will put that certification out there and attract whomever they can put in the seat. I saw it a lot here where I am - where private companies would compete with our college. Some of those organizations no longer exist, but they were disruptive for us who were actually trying to start with fresh students.

Gregory Childers said:
But I also would never recommend taking an entire semester to cover 40-50 hours worth of content.
Click to expand...
I would say that depends on the available contact hours for the course. If you have the proverbial State U 16 week semester, and you're meeting twice a week for 1.5 hrs, I can certainly see it. Balance that with a student who is taking the obligatory 12 Credits to classify as full time, and yeah, it can take that long.

Don't even get me started on high school/secondary...lol.

My school will do six week terms, where there are 20 contact hours per week, for a total of 120 hours. So one might think this is more than enough time, citing your example. But I have also put hundreds of students through the pipeline and 120 hours for our students, maybe, will prepare 10% of them to certification grade, from jumpstreet. Many of our students are not traditional collegiate material, are single parents working and trying to earn an Associate degree, military retreads, or folks who otherwise would not make it in the State U four year institution. Our students in the center of the bell curve will likely need 12 weeks - six weeks for full content delivery, six weeks to digest and practice. And even then, with them taking another course, it can slow the process down.

In-short, there are no hard fast rules on this.

rsz_geats.png

But what bristles me is how corporate trainers that are more concerned on making a buck are willing to promote that false sense of security, charge $2500 for a week long bootcamp to a student desperate to earn/keep their Security+ in order to get/stay employed, and are surprised when they crash and burn on the exam. That same student who thinks it's just a matter of getting a credential, rather than the skills. I've seen it so many times. Caveat emptor.

Who actually owns this, though? Marketing companies who are selling bootcamp training? Desperate students who want that IT black belt (and subsequent pay), but are either unable or unwilling to put in the time and discipline to get there? Companies that require certifications (the archetypical job listing looking for an entry level cyber security specialist (hat tip: @Lee McWhorter) getting paid $15-18/hr, written by an HR generalist who doesn't know what any of those acronyms even mean).

*sigh*

Fortuna rota volvitur.

/r
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fanuel
#18
Rick Butler said:
Exactly. The bootcamp is a great way for folks to brush up on some aged knowledge - those things make total sense to me.

But...

When I see the marketing material, I don't get the sense it's being pitched to those who are experienced, but rather, they will put that certification out there and attract whomever they can put in the seat. I saw it a lot here where I am - where private companies would compete with our college. Some of those organizations no longer exist, but they were disruptive for us who were actually trying to start with fresh students.


I would say that depends on the available contact hours for the course. If you have the proverbial State U 16 week semester, and you're meeting twice a week for 1.5 hrs, I can certainly see it. Balance that with a student who is taking the obligatory 12 Credits to classify as full time, and yeah, it can take that long.

Don't even get me started on high school/secondary...lol.

My school will do six week terms, where there are 20 contact hours per week, for a total of 120 hours. So one might think this is more than enough time, citing your example. But I have also put hundreds of students through the pipeline and 120 hours for our students, maybe, will prepare 10% of them to certification grade, from jumpstreet. Many of our students are not traditional collegiate material, are single parents working and trying to earn an Associate degree, military retreads, or folks who otherwise would not make it in the State U four year institution. Our students in the center of the bell curve will likely need 12 weeks - six weeks for full content delivery, six weeks to digest and practice. And even then, with them taking another course, it can slow the process down.

In-short, there are no hard fast rules on this.

View attachment 760

But what bristles me is how corporate trainers that are more concerned on making a buck are willing to promote that false sense of security, charge $2500 for a week long bootcamp to a student desperate to earn/keep their Security+ in order to get/stay employed, and are surprised when they crash and burn on the exam. That same student who thinks it's just a matter of getting a credential, rather than the skills. I've seen it so many times. Caveat emptor.

Who actually owns this, though? Marketing companies who are selling bootcamp training? Desperate students who want that IT black belt (and subsequent pay), but are either unable or unwilling to put in the time and discipline to get there? Companies that require certifications (the archetypical job listing looking for an entry level cyber security specialist (hat tip: @Lee McWhorter) getting paid $15-18/hr, written by an HR generalist who doesn't know what any of those acronyms even mean).

*sigh*

Fortuna rota volvitur.

/r
Click to expand...
You are right Rick
 
#19
Rick Butler said:
Exactly. The bootcamp is a great way for folks to brush up on some aged knowledge - those things make total sense to me.

But...

When I see the marketing material, I don't get the sense it's being pitched to those who are experienced, but rather, they will put that certification out there and attract whomever they can put in the seat. I saw it a lot here where I am - where private companies would compete with our college. Some of those organizations no longer exist, but they were disruptive for us who were actually trying to start with fresh students.


I would say that depends on the available contact hours for the course. If you have the proverbial State U 16 week semester, and you're meeting twice a week for 1.5 hrs, I can certainly see it. Balance that with a student who is taking the obligatory 12 Credits to classify as full time, and yeah, it can take that long.

Don't even get me started on high school/secondary...lol.

My school will do six week terms, where there are 20 contact hours per week, for a total of 120 hours. So one might think this is more than enough time, citing your example. But I have also put hundreds of students through the pipeline and 120 hours for our students, maybe, will prepare 10% of them to certification grade, from jumpstreet. Many of our students are not traditional collegiate material, are single parents working and trying to earn an Associate degree, military retreads, or folks who otherwise would not make it in the State U four year institution. Our students in the center of the bell curve will likely need 12 weeks - six weeks for full content delivery, six weeks to digest and practice. And even then, with them taking another course, it can slow the process down.

In-short, there are no hard fast rules on this.

View attachment 760

But what bristles me is how corporate trainers that are more concerned on making a buck are willing to promote that false sense of security, charge $2500 for a week long bootcamp to a student desperate to earn/keep their Security+ in order to get/stay employed, and are surprised when they crash and burn on the exam. That same student who thinks it's just a matter of getting a credential, rather than the skills. I've seen it so many times. Caveat emptor.

Who actually owns this, though? Marketing companies who are selling bootcamp training? Desperate students who want that IT black belt (and subsequent pay), but are either unable or unwilling to put in the time and discipline to get there? Companies that require certifications (the archetypical job listing looking for an entry level cyber security specialist (hat tip: @Lee McWhorter) getting paid $15-18/hr, written by an HR generalist who doesn't know what any of those acronyms even mean).

*sigh*

Fortuna rota volvitur.

/r
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fanuel, Rick Butler and Jarrel
#20
Agree with you on the participants whom attend without any knowledge.e Every time this happens the trainer become SUPERMAN. Training provider sometimes can't say no the the client because the technical staff will be attending and one management staff mostly the manager will attend the class too.
When we teach always we identify the weakest student in class follow his level of understand to teach. Sometimes we need to teach the basic where the other participants got knowledge. This reallly slows down the class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mallia and Jarrel
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Home
Media
Resources
Menu