|
Home > Archive > microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd > February 2003 > MCSD.NET Boot Camps?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
MCSD.NET Boot Camps?
|
|
| Vsg Systems 2003-01-01, 5:23 pm |
| Hi Guys,
Any good MCSD.NET Boot Camps out there? I would like to go to a good Boot
Camp and get it over with.
Thanks,
| |
| Don Jelley 2003-01-01, 9:23 pm |
| I don't like the concept of boot camps in general and would be very
skeptical of one for the MCSD.NET. A boot camp simply exists for people to
cram for exams. There is no real knowledge transfer - just exam cramming.
Why would you want to be certified without really knowing the material? If
you DO really know the material, then you are probably ready for the exams.
..NET is far too complex for boot camps IMHO! Don't "just get it over with",
take the time to really earn the cert!
Good luck,
Don Jelley
MCSE, MCSD, MCDBA, MCT, MCIS, MSFT, MSFP, EIEIO
"Vsg Systems" <vsg.sys@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Ok1OBeesCHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP12...
> Hi Guys,
>
> Any good MCSD.NET Boot Camps out there? I would like to go to a good Boot
> Camp and get it over with.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
| |
|
| "Don Jelley" <donjelley777@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:#jQLykgsCHA.2332@TK2MSFTNGP12...
> I don't like the concept of boot camps in general and would be very
> skeptical of one for the MCSD.NET. A boot camp simply exists for people
to
> cram for exams. There is no real knowledge transfer - just exam
cramming.
> Why would you want to be certified without really knowing the material?
If
> you DO really know the material, then you are probably ready for the
exams.
> .NET is far too complex for boot camps IMHO! Don't "just get it over
with",
> take the time to really earn the cert!
Don, are you suggesting that there is more to being certified than passing
the exams?
--
Regards
Neil Simpson
Partners in Ecom (UK)
| |
| Don Jelley 2003-01-02, 12:23 pm |
| I would never suggest such a thing! 
> Don, are you suggesting that there is more to being certified than passing
> the exams?
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Neil Simpson
> Partners in Ecom (UK)
>
>
>
| |
|
| "Vsg Systems" <vsg.sys@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Ok1OBeesCHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP12...
> Any good MCSD.NET Boot Camps out there? I would like to go to a good Boot
> Camp and get it over with.
As long as you have some relevant experience, I think there are some
worthwhile bootcamps out there. I do some teaching for the folks at
http://mcsd.acrew.net, and we certainly don't focus exclusively on passing
the exams. There's no guarantee that you'll pass any because that is
primarily up to you. There has definitely been a strong correlation between
student experience and exam success. We use the exam objectives as an
outline for the topics to cover, but almost always in terms of real world
usage. The only big exception I think we've made there was for the VB6
Package & Deployment wizard, which is very rarely used for production work
but is covered pretty thoroughly on the VB6 exams. Happily, the .Net exams
seem to do an even better job of sticking to real world skills. The bigger
impact is that the exam objectives guide the classes away from many real
world topics. As interesting as most are, there are more than enough real
world topics that are also covered by the exams to talk about.
I think the exams are a good motivator, and the ACREW camps are pretty
grueling. It will be very unlike attending a conference or typical offsite
class - something that coworkers and family may not understand when you get
back and want to sleep for 10-20 hours.
I have had a few inexperienced students and have had good success helping
them to learn a great deal in a short time, but it's unrealistic to expect
to pass any exams if a lot of the information will be new to you.
Don's cautions are not without basis - there are some 'bootcamp' style
classes that aim to give you nothing more than a certificate, often using
'questionable' materials. So do be careful as you shop around.
| |
| Alan Davis 2003-01-02, 4:23 pm |
| > There is no real knowledge transfer - just exam cramming.
>Why would you want to be certified without really knowing the material?
Is that really so? Are not 'boot camps' just like any other training
course?
If what you say these 'boot camps' just feed you expected questions
and expect you only memorize the answers, then this is another case
why ms certs are not taken seriously.
>.NET is far too complex for boot camps
Why? I would assume as will any other course there who be
prerequisites for the students who attend. One would assume
understanding 'dot net' to at least an intermediate level would be one
of them.
Sure for someone with zero or minimal one would assume the subject is
'too complex'.
| |
| Just Being Me. 2003-01-02, 6:23 pm |
| Go Alan!
I agree with your points Alan. I was reading this reply
earlier and thought how out right silly it is for someone
to feed bad information to another because they may not
want them to accomplish the same cert as they may have.
BTW does it also seem a little tacky to post your certs
after you name on a message board? Yup... I thought so.
>-----Original Message-----
>> There is no real knowledge transfer - just exam
cramming.
>>Why would you want to be certified without really
knowing the material?
>
>Is that really so? Are not 'boot camps' just like any
other training
>course?
>
>If what you say these 'boot camps' just feed you expected
questions
>and expect you only memorize the answers, then this is
another case
>why ms certs are not taken seriously.
>
>>.NET is far too complex for boot camps
>
>Why? I would assume as will any other course there who be
>prerequisites for the students who attend. One would
assume
>understanding 'dot net' to at least an intermediate level
would be one
>of them.
>
>Sure for someone with zero or minimal one would assume
the subject is
>'too complex'.
>.
>
| |
| Alan Davis 2003-01-02, 7:23 pm |
| >BTW does it also seem a little tacky to post your certs
>after you name on a message board?
I don't known. I think one has a right to feel proud off their own
acquirements, but having said, ms certs are not recognized by any
professional body so it may seem it bit pointless.
| |
|
| Thank_you_all_for_your_inputs {
///I'm working very hard on this CSharp
///Also converting VB.NET WebServices
///to CSharp
}
Cheers!
>-----Original Message-----
>"Vsg Systems" <vsg.sys@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:Ok1OBeesCHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP12...
>
>> Any good MCSD.NET Boot Camps out there? I would like
to go to a good Boot
>> Camp and get it over with.
>
>As long as you have some relevant experience, I think
there are some
>worthwhile bootcamps out there. I do some teaching for
the folks at
>http://mcsd.acrew.net, and we certainly don't focus
exclusively on passing
>the exams. There's no guarantee that you'll pass any
because that is
>primarily up to you. There has definitely been a strong
correlation between
>student experience and exam success. We use the exam
objectives as an
>outline for the topics to cover, but almost always in
terms of real world
>usage. The only big exception I think we've made there
was for the VB6
>Package & Deployment wizard, which is very rarely used
for production work
>but is covered pretty thoroughly on the VB6 exams.
Happily, the .Net exams
>seem to do an even better job of sticking to real world
skills. The bigger
>impact is that the exam objectives guide the classes away
from many real
>world topics. As interesting as most are, there are more
than enough real
>world topics that are also covered by the exams to talk
about.
>
>I think the exams are a good motivator, and the ACREW
camps are pretty
>grueling. It will be very unlike attending a conference
or typical offsite
>class - something that coworkers and family may not
understand when you get
>back and want to sleep for 10-20 hours.
>
>I have had a few inexperienced students and have had good
success helping
>them to learn a great deal in a short time, but it's
unrealistic to expect
>to pass any exams if a lot of the information will be new
to you.
>
>Don's cautions are not without basis - there are
some 'bootcamp' style
>classes that aim to give you nothing more than a
certificate, often using
>'questionable' materials. So do be careful as you shop
around.
>
>
>.
>
| |
| nigel 2003-01-17, 11:23 am |
| I recently enrolled in a bootcamp with a company called Lighthouse Training.
I signed up for the MCAD course, but they also offer the MCSD (I believe).
I looked into this company as well as TrainingCamp.net.
After asking a question similiar to yours on the MCAD newsgroup, I got a few
responses of people unhappy with TrainingCamp's use of testking study guides
and the excuse that hte course was too short to learn the actual material.
This is just what I heard through quesion simliar to yours, I would
encourage you to ask around these comapnies with this as a guideilne.
If you any other questions email me nigel@boundefy.com, let me know what you
find out.
Thanks
nigel
"Vsg Systems" <vsg.sys@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Ok1OBeesCHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP12...
> Hi Guys,
>
> Any good MCSD.NET Boot Camps out there? I would like to go to a good Boot
> Camp and get it over with.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
| |
|
| I was also considering Lighthouse. Did you attend your
cousre yet? If so, what was your overall impression?
To all the nay sayers:
While I agree that it's stupid to try and walk into one of
these boot camps knowing nothing and expect to come out a
development super-whiz, they can be extremely helpful if
* you have significant real world development experience
* you have at least dabbled already in the technology
covered in the boot camp, and
* you want an immersive environment where you can get up
to speed on a new technology quickly while earning a
credential that can give you greater earning power.
Despite the sometimes spotty reputation of industry
certifications, there are plenty of employers who will
fork over extra cash or choose you over the other guy
interviewing for that dream job because you have that MCSD
or MCAD on your resume.
If your company offers you a training allotment, why not
take it? A company paid business trip and work time
alloted to learning a new technology resulting in an
industry recognized credential beats the snot out of a lot
of late nights at home eating cheese curls learning work
related technology on your own time.
PROVIDED THE BOOTCAMP IS TAKEN SERIOUSLY by both the
student and the instructors with appropriate expectations
and an emphasis on practical application, they can be
great. I've taken my share of MOC classes on the company
dime. Most were crap, but a few were surprisingly good.
Like another poster said, do your homework and choose a
good provider. I'd also add the degree to which your
certification is taken seriously depends a lot on how the
rest of your resume looks. A certification by itself
looks pretty lame. But if your resume shows you have
enterprise development experience AND you have the
credential, it will look just a little bit better than a
resume with experience alone. And if you can get it on
the company's time and money, you have nothing to lose.
Just my two cents.
>-----Original Message-----
>I recently enrolled in a bootcamp with a company called
Lighthouse Training.
>
>I signed up for the MCAD course, but they also offer the
MCSD (I believe).
>
>I looked into this company as well as TrainingCamp.net.
>
>After asking a question similiar to yours on the MCAD
newsgroup, I got a few
>responses of people unhappy with TrainingCamp's use of
TestKing study guides
>and the excuse that hte course was too short to learn the
actual material.
>
>This is just what I heard through quesion simliar to
yours, I would
>encourage you to ask around these comapnies with this as
a guideilne.
>
>If you any other questions email me nigel@boundefy.com,
let me know what you
>find out.
>
>Thanks
>nigel
>
>"Vsg Systems" <vsg.sys@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:Ok1OBeesCHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP12...
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Any good MCSD.NET Boot Camps out there? I would like
to go to a good Boot
>> Camp and get it over with.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>
>
>.
>
|
|
|
|
|