There is an ongoing debate in IT - at least with me and some friends - about which matters more: formal education, certification, practical knowledge or experience.
I believe there should be a balance between all of them, but I personally place more weight on practical knowledge and the ability to apply it.
A relevant certification may help you get a job. Your performance is what helps you keep it.
In that sense, your actual work becomes proof of whether the knowledge behind the certification was properly understood.
A certificate is evidence of assessment, not permanent proof of competence.
That does not mean certification is unimportant. Far from it.
Certification introduces structure, standards and industry terminology. It also provides employers with a recognizable benchmark, especially where the qualification is globally accepted.
In technical work, terminology matters because it allows people to communicate, document, escalate and collaborate.
Knowing how to fix something is valuable. Being able to explain what failed, why it failed and what was done is also valuable.
Knowing the answer without knowing the terminology
My second formal IT qualification came from Vector Technology Institute.
I joined the course late and was allowed to continue on the condition that I passed the examination for the section I had missed.
I initially passed with approximately 65%, where the passing grade was 60%.
After reviewing the result, I requested a reassessment. Following that review, my grade increased to approximately 93%.
The issue was not that I did not understand the problems.
I knew how to resolve them, but much of my knowledge at the time was expressed in layman’s terms. I understood what needed to be done, but I did not always know the accepted industry terminology used to describe it.
That experience demonstrated the value of formal instruction.
Practical knowledge allowed me to solve the problems. Education gave me the terminology and structure needed to explain the solutions in a form that others in the industry could immediately understand.
Making something work is not always enough
Network cabling provides another good example.
When I first started making network cables, I purchased a crimper and discovered that a cable would work as long as both ends were terminated identically.
That was practical knowledge. I had found a way to produce a working cable.
I later learned about the transmit and receive pins and then about the TIA-568A and TIA-568B wiring standards.
Following the standard made the work far easier to identify, document and troubleshoot.
If every cable is wired using an improvised colour sequence, another technician must inspect and trace every conductor before understanding what was done. Once accepted standards are followed, technicians can identify the wiring quickly and connect cables, wall jacks and patch panels consistently.
A non-standard cable may function, but it can create unnecessary confusion for the next person who has to work on it.
A working solution is not always a professional solution. Standards make technical work repeatable, understandable and maintainable by people other than the person who first completed it.
This applies to far more than cabling.
Competence is not merely knowing what to do. It includes knowing why the practice exists, when it matters most and what risk is being accepted when it is ignored.
For example, many technicians do not regularly use anti-static wrist straps or mats.
The important question is not simply whether someone follows the rule every time. It is whether the person understands electrostatic discharge, the environment in which the work is being performed, the sensitivity and value of the equipment and the possible consequences of component damage.
There is a difference between making an informed decision and ignoring a practice because nothing has gone wrong yet.
Degree or certification?
I do not oppose degree programmes.
A degree can provide breadth, academic discipline, theory, communication skills and a wider understanding of the field.
However, in IT, I also strongly recommend internationally recognized industry certifications.
Get the degree, but then specialize.
Depending on the intended career path, that may include certifications such as A+, Network+, Security+, CCNA, current Microsoft role-based certifications, Linux credentials, cloud certifications or certifications from relevant infrastructure and security vendors.
Older certifications such as MCSA and MCSE are still part of the history of many established IT careers, although Microsoft has since shifted toward Azure, Microsoft 365, security and other role-based certification paths.
The degree and the certification serve different purposes.
The degree provides breadth and academic structure.
The industry certification provides more focused evidence of knowledge within a particular technical area.
Practical work determines whether either of them has translated into competence.
The degree gives the foundation and breadth. Certifications provide targeted evidence of specialization. Practical application shows whether the person can actually perform the work.
It is also possible for someone to possess A+ or Network+ level knowledge without holding the certification.
The individual may have studied independently, learned through work or simply lack the money to sit the examination.
The absence of a certification does not automatically prove the absence of knowledge.
Likewise, possessing a certification does not guarantee that the person can apply the material outside an examination environment.
Certification status must also be considered carefully.
An expired certification does not automatically mean the knowledge has disappeared. The holder may have remained active in the field but chosen not to pay for renewal. In other cases, the person’s role may not have required them to remain current in that area.
However, an expired certification cannot independently prove that the holder is still current.
Competence and currency are related, but they are not identical.
Always busy learning
I recently started using the phrase:
Always busy learning.
It connects with another statement that has stayed with me:
I am a student, always.
That mindset is particularly important in IT.
If you do not continue learning, you will eventually be left behind.
Operating systems change. Security practices change. Hardware changes. Cloud platforms change. Vendors retire products and certification paths. Methods that were once effective may become inefficient, insecure or unsupported.
However, chasing every new technology without understanding the basics is also a mistake.
Core foundations remain important.
The automotive industry provides a useful comparison.
Vehicles moved from carburetors to electronic fuel injection, direct injection, hybrids and electric drivetrains. The systems and applications changed, but technicians still require an understanding of energy, pressure, airflow, electrical control, sensors, mechanical systems and cause and effect.
New technology often improves precision and efficiency, but it normally builds upon earlier principles.
The same applies to IT.
Someone may learn the interface of a modern cloud platform but still struggle if they do not understand networking, permissions, authentication, storage or troubleshooting fundamentals.
Another person may possess decades of experience but become inefficient because they continue using methods designed for systems that no longer exist.
Foundational knowledge keeps older experience relevant. Continued learning keeps foundational knowledge useful.
A method can remain functional long after it stops being efficient.
Without the willingness to learn, a person may continue producing results while gradually becoming slower, less effective and less relevant.
A warning for students entering higher education
Students and parents should also understand that enrolling in tertiary education involves more than selecting a school and choosing a degree.
The exact programme must be investigated.
Universities and colleges periodically review and revise their curricula. Major programme reviews commonly occur over multiyear cycles, while smaller changes may happen more frequently.
These reviews are necessary. IT programmes, in particular, cannot remain unchanged indefinitely while the industry continues moving forward.
The problem arises when changes affect students who have already enrolled.
Courses may be renamed, replaced, merged or removed. Previously completed modules may remain on a student’s transcript but no longer satisfy the requirements of the revised programme.
Transfer credits may also be reassessed.
A student can therefore complete valid courses within an accredited programme and later discover that some of those credits no longer move them closer to graduation.
This can add courses, semesters, tuition and years to the original plan.
My own experience illustrates the danger.
I entered university with a diploma from Vector Technology Institute, a recognized Jamaican technology institution, along with an A+ certification and existing practical experience.
I was initially told that my previous qualifications meant I should require approximately two additional years to complete the degree.
After spending a year making little meaningful progress, I asked for clarification and was then told that I had approximately four more years remaining.
I later learned that the curriculum had changed around the time I enrolled.
I also encountered other students who complained that programme changes had resulted in previously completed work no longer satisfying the updated requirements, leaving them with additional courses to complete.
My point is not that programmes should never change.
The point is that students should not discover the true effect of those changes only after they have already invested substantial time and money.
A curriculum review may explain why a programme changed. It does not excuse failing to tell a student how that change affects their time, money and previously accepted qualifications.
By the time the student discovers the problem, leaving may be almost as damaging as staying.
They may have to choose between paying for several additional courses, transferring and potentially losing more credits, restarting elsewhere or leaving without the qualification they originally intended to obtain.
Students should not discover their true graduation requirements after they have already invested a year’s tuition and time.
What students and parents should ask
Before enrolling, especially where the student already holds a diploma, associate degree, certification or credits from another institution, request a written evaluation.
Ask:
-
Is the exact programme currently accredited?
-
When was the programme last comprehensively reviewed?
-
Is another curriculum review expected during the student’s likely period of study?
-
Which curriculum or programme year will govern the student’s graduation requirements?
-
Will existing students remain under the original curriculum if changes are introduced?
-
Can new requirements be applied to students who are already enrolled?
-
Which previous courses and qualifications have been accepted?
-
Which specific graduation requirements do those accepted credits satisfy?
-
Can accepted credits later be reassessed?
-
How many courses and credits remain?
-
What is the realistic minimum completion period?
-
Are all required courses available every semester?
-
Could prerequisites or course scheduling extend the programme?
-
What is the estimated total cost based on the approved course plan?
Most importantly, get the answers in writing.
A verbal statement that a programme should take two years offers little protection when the student is later presented with a completely different completion path.
An accepted credit should not merely appear on a transcript. The student should know exactly which graduation requirement it satisfies.
Students should perform their own due diligence, but institutions also have a responsibility to communicate material changes clearly.
There is a significant difference between placing a policy somewhere in a handbook and directly informing a student that a pending curriculum change could add time and cost to the programme.
A policy may be publicly available without being meaningfully disclosed.
The balance
Practical knowledge, application, education and certification should not be treated as enemies.
They strengthen each other when used properly.
Education can provide structure, theory and terminology.
Certification can provide a recognized assessment of specialized knowledge.
Experience exposes people to real failures and unpredictable situations.
Application shows whether the person can convert knowledge into results.
Continued learning keeps all of it relevant.
The problem begins when any one of these is treated as complete proof of competence.
A degree is not the end of learning.
A certification is not permanent proof of ability.
Experience is not automatically good experience.
And a working result is not always the safest, most efficient or most professional result.
Learn the foundations.
Learn the standards.
Apply the knowledge.
Understand why the method works.
Then continue learning, because the industry will continue changing whether you do or not.