| <sigh> it's not a false dichotomy. The comment I was replying to was specifically expressing disappointment that his efforts in getting certificate would be overlooked because of a negative attitude in the industry to those certifications. I was merely expressing encouragement that not everyone would look on those certification efforts negatively. The article takes what I think to be an overly absolute position in suggesting that certifications are actually harmful to the industry. I'm not suggesting that you are opposed to new talent, I've not said that anywhere. What I've said is that I think that cerifications can be useful for newcomers in demonstrating effort/ability in a field. I think that those certifications can be useful specifically in scaling entry to the industry (I'm not saying they need to be expensive, heck I'd love it if they were free, but someone has to pay for the effort required). The problem with leaving individual companies to review every candidate from scratch is that it's a huge waste of effort. If you're starting a SOC and have to fill 50 spots and get 2000 CVs across your desk, you realistically are not going to be able to take an approach of manually interviewing every single candidate. Now and I'm sure you know more than I , that doesn't apply to high-end security testing companies, but different types of roles require different approaches. |
I'd appreciate it if you'd take a second to retract.