There appears to be a conundrum when it comes to skillsets and certification base in this country in particular. There are worldwide, so many licenses that are accredited nationally, technical certifications specific to disciplines, and overarching degrees, sitting at the top of the heap, which encompass a broad and high level didactic of a major branch of study. Time and sense have proven that having certifications in specific disciplines is the optimal environment for productivity. We've seen over the last few decades, countless employers in the medical field, and technology field, immensely regret not having certified and trained professionals in high pressure or even legal situations. Having a pig-skin holder filling a position, is one of the stupidest approaches. It's cost money and more.
I started working in partnership with a major vendor/company that requires extensive and specific certification to service their equipment, which makes total sense. In total, I have to achieve about 3, each one having a full-blown curriculum. As I looked over the material, I recalled a discussion I had with someone in my IT department a while back. He told me that if I'm looking to pursue a position in the department, I should make sure I go back to school and achieve at least my associate degree in Computer Science. I let him know that I have several colleagues that had tenure in the field with no degree and had thriving careers. He continued to say that as things stand today, you will likely not even be considered unless they see evidence of some kind of pig-skin. and they don't care what it's in. They just need to see that you pledged to the country on some kind of university level before you are initiated.
It really makes me wonder about what the certifications really mean, when you have the university clause acting as a gatekeeper to keep non-degree holders out. At this point, I have certifications in SQL, AWS, A+, and other minor courses. Even seasoned IT personnel who have degrees will tell you in honesty, that the certifications are harder and more telling of actually applicable knowledge. It is far easier to go to a university and sit through a base-level entry computer science course, and grab an Associate's Degree, than it is to learn, sit and pass a specified Certification exam in a work-based field, covering extensive and specific information. The only other difference is that the degree will take up time and money you don't have. When analyzing profit and risk, it makes no logical sense for an employer to take on an employee with no applicable knowledge, who will demand more with their degree, unless they were told or mandated to do so, which is something I'm beginning to believe is happening. Many of these employers would rather leave a position vacant than hire a certified person without a degree. And it makes sense to assume they are being threatened to do so, because principally it offers zero benefit and greater risk and cost to them.
I remember in Radiology school, when medical facilities would actually look down on college based programs because they offered minimal practical training opposed to hospital based ones like the one I attended. Some courses and clinicals weren't even available. You pile on several prerequisites and fringe material from the actual course. What the heck is Psyche 101 going to do for operating medical imaging equipment or computers?
I really wonder about certifications. And it isn't because I think they're inherently wrong. Quite the opposite. I feel they don't have nearly the weight they should. Perhaps if universities sponsored and supported them more, there could be more integration between the two. Every Cert I ever took was challenging and comprehensive. It would be good for that to mean something in the work field.
