Getting a certification / diploma, whatever prestigious is a path to disaster in a career.
I know a lot of people who went in somewhat good MBA and yet failed. Not because their MBA sucked, but because they didn't knew why they did it.
Wanting a "nice career" is NOT a path or a project. A lot of these certification just find people who stagnate and tell them, "Sign up, do it, and you'll be a manager earning XXX". But if your only reason is "my career is stagnating and I want a boost", then keep clear and invest the money instead (in stocks or real estate or whatever investment).
On the other hand if you have a project in mind which is clear to you, then you can find a certification / diploma that will help you achieve it. The diploma doesn't count at all. It's what you learn and who you'll network with. I'll give you an example, two friends from the same prestigious european MBA : One did it with a purpose. When they had meetings with C-level executives doing talks, he was able to express his project and got hired with a big salary. The other did it because her career stagnated and she hoped a boost from the MBA. At the end, she went back to her former employer at the same position and with a lot less money in the bank (and new friends). She was given the same opportunities than the other friend, but was unable to leverage them.
So don't do a certification, a MBA and any other diploma because you'll get more money / a better career. But if you do want to acquire project management skills and this certs seems a good way to learn them, then do it. If it's only to be able to display PMP after your name on linkedin, think about what you want to do next.
Would like to add that the efficiency stuff is why most womens don't want to get into IT. They care more about some human values than efficiency. They are interested in CS (and good at it) but don't want to work in an environement where only efficiency gets valued (at the expense of everything else).
No, you enter the industry when young. Then either you prove yourself very good (and you are in premiere league so you better really be amazing) or they dispose of you. It's like a long trial period.
And like in football, a lot of people want to work in tech. But very few will remain in the field after the trial.
In other fields, school is supposed to have prepared you. Since most school don't teach you to create technology, then the first years at companies is your training. Either you are good at it, or you're out. And most of us will be out at some point.
Think I know why. Personally very satisfied with my IT job (but not living in the US). But I wanted to do computer science and got what I wanted.
I see a lot of collegues even at good companies (including some people working at Google in California) that went into IT through a life accident. It was bright, they were promised fame and money, and they got in.
Guess what ? It didn't work out exactly like that.
First they discovered that tech hierarchy is essentially flat. While at most jobs you might go up the corporate ladder with a lot of steps (you don't gain that much power but you can say you were promoted), Tech company have like 4 levels of hierarchy. So either, you stand out or you'll stay at the start. To stand out, you have to "live, breathe and eat this stuff" (seen at an industry tradeshow). And on top of that, you need social skills. If you are not able to "eat live and breath this stuff", don't come into IT. If you love this but don't have social skills, you'll have to be really amazing. The focus on efficiency as a core value means that if you are not really good, you'll be treated as "replacable".
Second, you might be considered a wizard in your hometown, but once you are in "premiere league", then you are just a developper. And you might not be as good as you previously tought. Every kid, knowing how to use a computer used to be venerated as "a genius". And well, it wasn't that hard to fix a computer. If you come working at Google, Twitter or any other tech company either you are very good and will work on prime stuff or you'll be paid to refactor code or other menial tasks. At all tech companies, you have the elite who define the infrastructure, they are very few, very well paid, and usually happy. But if you're not good enough to do that, you end up, using infrastructure other developped or worse, as a code janitor.
Then, there's the value stuff. Well these companies do have values. They are those of the technical society (read Jacques Ellul to know better) which means : No values escept efficiency. Or, if it's more efficient, do it regardless of the consequences. I know more than one people at Google that were not easy with this. Most of them were outsiders from the tech fields. And they quickly were not at ease when they discovered when discussing with senior level people who where in transhumanist or other kind of geek dreams. In these companies either you dream if changing the world by making it more efficient or you are not considered to have a leading mindset. This is not a written set of values of course, but it is essentially that : Uber does not make it for values, or even money, they target the most efficient way to change the taxi industry. And it will take what it takes to achieve it. Society however favors people who make things efficient, so you get money doing it even if you are not after money. That's why you have companies with no business models : They know if they make things more efficient, money will come, so money is not a goal. Humanistic values are not a goal either. If you find pleasure in solving problems, making things efficient and watching how powerful you are then tech work is for you. If not, you should avoid tech companies.
NB : And the worst is working in tech for a non tech company, then nobody understand nobody.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting a certification / diploma, whatever prestigious is a path to disaster in a career. I know a lot of people who went in somewhat good MBA and yet failed. Not because their MBA sucked, but because they didn't knew why they did it. Wanting a "nice career" is NOT a path or a project. A lot of these certification just find people who stagnate and tell them, "Sign up, do it, and you'll be a manager earning XXX". But if your only reason is "my career is stagnating and I want a boost", then keep clear and invest the money instead (in stocks or real estate or whatever investment). On the other hand if you have a project in mind which is clear to you, then you can find a certification / diploma that will help you achieve it. The diploma doesn't count at all. It's what you learn and who you'll network with. I'll give you an example, two friends from the same prestigious european MBA : One did it with a purpose. When they had meetings with C-level executives doing talks, he was able to express his project and got hired with a big salary. The other did it because her career stagnated and she hoped a boost from the MBA. At the end, she went back to her former employer at the same position and with a lot less money in the bank (and new friends). She was given the same opportunities than the other friend, but was unable to leverage them. So don't do a certification, a MBA and any other diploma because you'll get more money / a better career. But if you do want to acquire project management skills and this certs seems a good way to learn them, then do it. If it's only to be able to display PMP after your name on linkedin, think about what you want to do next.
Would like to add that the efficiency stuff is why most womens don't want to get into IT. They care more about some human values than efficiency. They are interested in CS (and good at it) but don't want to work in an environement where only efficiency gets valued (at the expense of everything else).
No, you enter the industry when young. Then either you prove yourself very good (and you are in premiere league so you better really be amazing) or they dispose of you. It's like a long trial period. And like in football, a lot of people want to work in tech. But very few will remain in the field after the trial. In other fields, school is supposed to have prepared you. Since most school don't teach you to create technology, then the first years at companies is your training. Either you are good at it, or you're out. And most of us will be out at some point.
Think I know why. Personally very satisfied with my IT job (but not living in the US). But I wanted to do computer science and got what I wanted. I see a lot of collegues even at good companies (including some people working at Google in California) that went into IT through a life accident. It was bright, they were promised fame and money, and they got in. Guess what ? It didn't work out exactly like that. First they discovered that tech hierarchy is essentially flat. While at most jobs you might go up the corporate ladder with a lot of steps (you don't gain that much power but you can say you were promoted), Tech company have like 4 levels of hierarchy. So either, you stand out or you'll stay at the start. To stand out, you have to "live, breathe and eat this stuff" (seen at an industry tradeshow). And on top of that, you need social skills. If you are not able to "eat live and breath this stuff", don't come into IT. If you love this but don't have social skills, you'll have to be really amazing. The focus on efficiency as a core value means that if you are not really good, you'll be treated as "replacable". Second, you might be considered a wizard in your hometown, but once you are in "premiere league", then you are just a developper. And you might not be as good as you previously tought. Every kid, knowing how to use a computer used to be venerated as "a genius". And well, it wasn't that hard to fix a computer. If you come working at Google, Twitter or any other tech company either you are very good and will work on prime stuff or you'll be paid to refactor code or other menial tasks. At all tech companies, you have the elite who define the infrastructure, they are very few, very well paid, and usually happy. But if you're not good enough to do that, you end up, using infrastructure other developped or worse, as a code janitor. Then, there's the value stuff. Well these companies do have values. They are those of the technical society (read Jacques Ellul to know better) which means : No values escept efficiency. Or, if it's more efficient, do it regardless of the consequences. I know more than one people at Google that were not easy with this. Most of them were outsiders from the tech fields. And they quickly were not at ease when they discovered when discussing with senior level people who where in transhumanist or other kind of geek dreams. In these companies either you dream if changing the world by making it more efficient or you are not considered to have a leading mindset. This is not a written set of values of course, but it is essentially that : Uber does not make it for values, or even money, they target the most efficient way to change the taxi industry. And it will take what it takes to achieve it. Society however favors people who make things efficient, so you get money doing it even if you are not after money. That's why you have companies with no business models : They know if they make things more efficient, money will come, so money is not a goal. Humanistic values are not a goal either. If you find pleasure in solving problems, making things efficient and watching how powerful you are then tech work is for you. If not, you should avoid tech companies. NB : And the worst is working in tech for a non tech company, then nobody understand nobody.