Is There No Base of IT Knowledge?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I think one of the characteristics of you two is that you both seem to love IT. So IT isn't just a job, it's almost like a hobby. But for a lot people, and I probably include myself here, it is just a job. That makes it harder to find the motivation to learn the subject outside of work.
When I was in my twenties, my interests were music and football (and beer!). Everything in my life revolved around them, and a job in computing was just a way to fund my interests in them. I had no interest in studying.
I still don't have any interest in studying. I'll confess, I don't know much about DNS or VPNs. I've never read an IT book, I've never studied it at college and I have no certifications or qualifications in it. Despite my ignorance, I've still forged out a decent career as an IT manager, either because I have other valuable skills or because I'm good at blagging.
A lack of interest in the subject maybe doesn't matter as much in a large company, as they often provide decent training. But in the SMB world, a lot of companies offer no training at all.
If my work didn't provide me with IT equipment at home, I possibly wouldn't even bother owning a computer or a smart phone, it just doesn't interest me that much. I quite enjoy my job, but if I could earn the same money by being a lion tamer, I'd be just as happy to do that.
I agree with that. IT is not just a job for me. I knew that when I chose a career path to go into I would need something I could be passionate about. And that passion does not end when I leave my workplace. I wouldn't be very good at what I did if it did.
-
@coliver said:
To answer your question, no there is no base for IT knowledge. There is no starting point for everyone which says you must know X to be considered an IT professional.
Look at doctors, to practice in most states you need to pass a certification of some sort that says you are capable of practicing medicine at an adequate level for this state. Lawyers have the same thing, even plumbers and electricians generally need to have a specific license or be part of a specific union to get work in some cities/states. This is a structured way to ensure that everyone has the same base knowledge, from that base you expand on it and have different levels of those careers. (I am by no way saying we need a union, just that it is a form of control mechanism)
IT, being young, doesn't have that type of control, there is no single process to getting into IT like you would for some other careers. I know several IT people who started out lives as accountants, engineers, marketing professionals (no idea the actual title). They began working on IT because they were told it was their responsibility.
This is true. Plumbers have been around since at least the 1800s. Lawyers and doctors longer than that. IT as a profession is, at most, 50 years old. I'm sure eventually there will be a standardization of the field, but we need something major to trigger it. I think CompTIA was attempting to standardize things with their "vendor neutral" exams, but we all know how much the A+ is worth...
-
@thanksaj said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
I think one of the characteristics of you two is that you both seem to love IT. So IT isn't just a job, it's almost like a hobby. But for a lot people, and I probably include myself here, it is just a job. That makes it harder to find the motivation to learn the subject outside of work.
When I was in my twenties, my interests were music and football (and beer!). Everything in my life revolved around them, and a job in computing was just a way to fund my interests in them. I had no interest in studying.
I still don't have any interest in studying. I'll confess, I don't know much about DNS or VPNs. I've never read an IT book, I've never studied it at college and I have no certifications or qualifications in it. Despite my ignorance, I've still forged out a decent career as an IT manager, either because I have other valuable skills or because I'm good at blagging.
A lack of interest in the subject maybe doesn't matter as much in a large company, as they often provide decent training. But in the SMB world, a lot of companies offer no training at all.
If my work didn't provide me with IT equipment at home, I possibly wouldn't even bother owning a computer or a smart phone, it just doesn't interest me that much. I quite enjoy my job, but if I could earn the same money by being a lion tamer, I'd be just as happy to do that.
I agree with that. IT is not just a job for me. I knew that when I chose a career path to go into I would need something I could be passionate about. And that passion does not end when I leave my workplace. I wouldn't be very good at what I did if it did.
I am also one of these people who does IT work at home because I enjoy it that much. I find it hard to come up with necessary and usable projects at home though. I find myself thinking about setting up a home automation system in my spare time but I haven't gotten much past the brain-mapping phase.
-
@Dashrender said:
What used to surprise me was that in a SMB, the CFO (or financial person whatever their title) was usually the person responsible for IT duties. These people usually could care less about IT in general, but they were told it was their responsibility, so they did it. I'm guessing plenty of them found they could make more money doing IT stuff than financial stuff and made a switch, though clearly lacking in any type of formal or even semi formal education.
What I've found pretty broadly in the SMB is that the CFOs and financial people seem to equally not know anything about finance and take no interest in knowing how to do it. That they are bad at IT is really just a reflection that they were also bad at finance. I can't believe how often I have to educate financial people on finance. I take more of an interest in finance than do most financial C levels in the SMB.
-
@Dashrender said:
This is further confused by the fact that there's a divide in what is IT i.e. programmers/developers vs platform/administration. @scottalanmiller considers them two completely separate fields, but the layperson does not, they simply see that both sets of people spend nearly their entire day in front of a computer.
Which is odd as most office jobs spend more time in front of a computer than most SMB IT roles do. There are entire IT roles, like server tech, where the computer is only there for email from time to time and all work is done physically. Or Geek Squad, where the only reason that they use a computer is to perform their cashier duties. But a medical transcriber, or an accountant, or a writer, or a graphic artists, or a film editor, or engineer are 100% at a computer.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Which is odd as most office jobs spend more time in front of a computer than most SMB IT roles do. There are entire IT roles, like server tech, where the computer is only there for email from time to time and all work is done physically. Or Geek Squad, where the only reason that they use a computer is to perform their cashier duties. But a medical transcriber, or an accountant, or a writer, or a graphic artists, or a film editor, or engineer are 100% at a computer.
The difference I guess is that the IT people are doing computer related jobs that have always been about computers, whereas the others listed use computers to make their jobs easier, but could definitely do them without one.
-
I think one of the biggest difference with IT and other white collar careers is the pace of change. If you compare it with accounting, the field of accountancy hasn't fundamentally changed that much in a century, it's still basically double-entry bookkeeping. Whereas IT changes constantly.
You could spend years learning Netware or Cobol or something and suddenly find your skills are now a highly niche market, if that. I know that accountants have to stay up to date with changes in the law and such like, but the bulk of their learning is done when they qualified, probably in their early twenties, and those skills remain useful for their entire 40+ year career. If you'd got an IT qualification in 1974, how useful do you think it would still be?
I know IT guys who suddenly find they're working in a company with physical servers running Server 2003, Office 2000, Windows XP, Blackberries and Exchange 2003 and they're struggling to find a new job because they're out-of-date, even though the technology they're using is only ten years old. The tech world has moved on. I'm embarrassed by my lack of Powershell skills, and yet that's only a few years old.
Sometimes I envy accountants. Tapping away on the same Excel spreadsheets year after year. The biggest obstacle most of them have had is re-writing their Louts 123 functions to work with Excel. It sometimes looks such a relaxing career.
On the other hand, I suspect I'd be bored out of my brains.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I think one of the biggest difference with IT and other white collar careers is the pace of change. If you compare it with accounting, the field of accountancy hasn't fundamentally changed that much in a century, it's still basically double-entry bookkeeping. Whereas IT changes constantly.
This is exceptionally true. Especially when you consider that IT didn't even exist when accounting was already codified. Even in the last decade, now that IT has "settled down" a lot, it still changes faster than anything else out there.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I think one of the biggest difference with IT and other white collar careers is the pace of change. If you compare it with accounting, the field of accountancy hasn't fundamentally changed that much in a century, it's still basically double-entry bookkeeping. Whereas IT changes constantly.
You could spend years learning Netware or Cobol or something and suddenly find your skills are now a highly niche market, if that. I know that accountants have to stay up to date with changes in the law and such like, but the bulk of their learning is done when they qualified, probably in their early twenties, and those skills remain useful for their entire 40+ year career. If you'd got an IT qualification in 1974, how useful do you think it would still be?
I know IT guys who suddenly find they're working in a company with physical servers running Server 2003, Office 2000, Windows XP, Blackberries and Exchange 2003 and they're struggling to find a new job because they're out-of-date, even though the technology they're using is only ten years old. The tech world has moved on. I'm embarrassed by my lack of Powershell skills, and yet that's only a few years old.
Sometimes I envy accountants. Tapping away on the same Excel spreadsheets year after year. The biggest obstacle most of them have had is re-writing their Louts 123 functions to work with Excel. It sometimes looks such a relaxing career.
On the other hand, I suspect I'd be bored out of my brains.
Accounting is far more understanding law than crunching numbers. My father is a CPA, and actually I'd have to say IT and accounting are a lot more similar than you think. Someone who was a CPA 10 years ago and didn't keep up their CE for whatever reason, and loses their license, or at least loses it as being current, can have a lot of ground to make up to get it back. I want to say that something like 10% of people, tops, pass all four sections of the CPA exam on the first try. Most have to do at LEAST two separate stints. Now, I agree that there is no field more dynamic than IT. Things are changing faster than ever and keeping up, even when you're doing it day in and day out, is a real struggle. You learned Exchange 2013? Great, company is moving to the cloud, so learn Office365. Now learn Powershell. Now learn Server 2012. And so on, and so forth. I'd say the biggest difference is when you specialize in something in Accounting, you aren't really expected to venture outside your specialization. IT doesn't have that. Even if you're amazing at one or two things, you are still expected to have a broad understanding of lots of other things, even often to get a job in that specialization.
-
A CPA is a bit different than a general accountant. CPAs have to be certified and deal with tax laws.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
A CPA is a bit different than a general accountant. CPAs have to be certified and deal with tax laws.
An accountant has to deal with tax laws too. To be honest, an accountant without a CPA license is not going to be used for much more than a tax preparer or a bookkeeper...
-
@scottalanmiller As a rule....
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
You could spend years learning Netware or Cobol or something and suddenly find your skills are now a highly niche market, if that. I know that accountants have to stay up to date with changes in the law and such like, but the bulk of their learning is done when they qualified, probably in their early twenties, and those skills remain useful for their entire 40+ year career. If you'd got an IT qualification in 1974, how useful do you think it would still be?
I think that a good comparison is Accounting to being a Windows desktop admin. If you do absolutely nothing but Windows desktop administration, you could, in theory, have learned a core bit of knowledge that was enough to get you started before your first job. And every few years you have to learn a few new things for the new version of Windows, but by and large your knowledge does not get outdated and you keep doing basically the same job year after year. Keeping up with one product is a lot like getting certified again as an accountant. The core is identical, it's just laws that change and people want to make sure you still know the core.
But in IT it is extremely rare that one does that. Like you mentioned with COBOL. Chances are even if you attempted to be a full career COBOL developer, at some point those jobs dried up for you and you had to move to Java or C# and you had to significantly retool yourself. Accounting doesn't see that happen. And the average IT person retools continuously and in the SMB does many different roles every day.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I'm embarrassed by my lack of Powershell skills, and yet that's only a few years old.
Eight years in November.
-
People don't give a shit. Understanding DNS is not that hard. I'm an expert, but there are people more expert than me, and people could be much less knowledgeable than me and still satisfy me. Not knowing that no, I can't change the DNS entry to point http://whatever/thing to http://somewhere.whatever.new/thing45/about is inexcusable if you have anything to do with managing servers. Too many "box clickers" in IT. I barely consider the MCSE people to be IT professionals.
-
@ryanov said:
People don't give a shit. Understanding DNS is not that hard. I'm an expert, but there are people more expert than me, and people could be much less knowledgeable than me and still satisfy me. Not knowing that no, I can't change the DNS entry to point http://whatever/thing to http://somewhere.whatever.new/thing45/about is inexcusable if you have anything to do with managing servers. Too many "box clickers" in IT. I barely consider the MCSE people to be IT professionals.
Not quite sure what you mean by a lot of this...
-
@ryanov said:
Not knowing that no, I can't change the DNS entry to point http://whatever/thing to http://somewhere.whatever.new/thing45/about is inexcusable if you have anything to do with managing servers.
It's shocking but I bet that you will find that over 50% of the SMB IT pros have no idea how DNS works and think that it does things with the URL. Because they aren't aware of the ISO OSI, URLs, IPs... it seems magic so they add magic-like assumptions to it.
-
@scottalanmiller How can you be managing a webserver and not know that?
PS: why does this thing drop my final punctuation? (<- I can get a ? if I put two just there)..
-
For the record, I do know how DNS works.
-
@ryanov said:
@scottalanmiller How can you be managing a webserver and not know that?
You would not believe how often people do and just stumble through. They follow some directions somewhere and have no idea what their changes to DNS actually did.
Watching people struggle with really basic email issues is similar. MX records really confuse people.
