Hi Everyone,
I am a RedHat trainer, and I am in a dual mind state about this:
I teach Engineers, Corporates, Graduates etc, the full RHCE course.
Now if an undergrad who would be in his 10th or 12th standard, comes to me to learn linux, should I teach him? Or suppose I have a guy who doesnt even know what a keyboard is, should I still teach him?
I am sure, I would train him in such a way, that he would be able to clear the RHCE examination. But wouldnt that be unjust competition to guys who are better qualified for a job?
Coz' the companies which would hire these guys would pay less money and get the same job done rather than spending extra money on Engineers and other graduates.
More importantly, wouldnt it affect the credibility of Red Hat and its premier certification exam?
Need a reply please!

Regards,

A better question is whether or not you're qualified to judge who gets knowledge and who doesn't.

This really belongs in Non-*nix General, I think.

Thanks for the reply.
Really sorry for posting incorrectly. Thought twice before posting it here. Won't happen again.
Actually that doesnt answer the core question.
Whether, I am able to judge or not is not the question here....
I teach at a well known institute and being an RHCE myself, I feel a sense of responsibility towards Redhat, and to make fruitful RHCE's for the future. I just need your take on this..
Thanks Again.

If they can learn RH well enough to pass the exam, then they will quickly figure out what a keyboard is.

Hi
If this person didn't ask you to help, I wouldn't bother. However, if he/she did ask you for help...

In my opinion, you shouldn't bother about "global things" like "all other guys who are better qualified" or "unjust competition", because no matter what you do it will be good for someone and bad for someone else, so consequences of your actions will be too hard to predict. I'd recommend to be selfish instead and do things you will enjoy - this will save you from thinking about things that might never happen. Instead of worrying of other people you will never meet, think about what you will feel if you decide to help or if you refuse to help, then choose your decision accordingly. Also remember that you can always change your decision later.

Moved it for you. I think that it depends on the scope of the course they turn up to. If they are capable of understanding and applying the training then by all means train them. If you are going to waste other people's time by spending too long with them teaching them things they should know before arrival, then it's probably an idea to pull them aside and recommend other courses to them.

Your first post in this thread is full of contradictions.Think about that.
Anyway,if somebody wants to learn,teach him the best way you can.That way no matter what happens after,you'll know that you did your best.XavierP is right,if "they" don't understand some basic things then they should be on some other course before they come to you.
One more thing,all of this seems to me like a lack of a good communication between you and "them"and all the relevant people for this matter that might be envolved in one way or the other.

I didn't read it that way. The way I read the first post is that it implies an underlying assumption that the exam is not a good test of the skills needed for the jobs for which the exam affects hiring decisions.

That would create the market for teaching to the test. Because someone might have quite a lot of previous background providing skills for the actual job, but lack the right skills for the exam.

The first post implies the OP thinks he can teach to the test well enough to get people to pass the exam who wouldn't then be well qualified for the job. That may be an ethical problem.

It would be too big an ethical leap to teach more to the job and less to the test. That's not what the customer wants. Thus the ethical question whether to reject the students who wouldn't be qualified for the job when they become qualified for test.

The alternative interpretation, that the course is so good it already teaches both the job and the test, implies the ethical problem is one of whether to give that valuable gift to people who haven't "paid their dues" by first learning lots of other things that apparently aren't actually relevant to the job. I would be offended enough by that possible interpretation that I'll assume that isn't the correct interpretation.

I have no clue myself whether the RHCE exam is an effective test of job qualifications. I know many other certification tests are basically useless for measuring job skills. Most ethical problems arising from that are best left with the authorities running the test.

johnsfine,
I see what you're trying to say,but I will make it short;
RHCE is RHCE,meaning if I want to learn how to drive a car then I should first learn what the car is,meaning why would I go to the RHCE course if I don't know how to use the keyboard.If that kind of a person goes to the RHCE course then either his reasons are wrong or the approach to the course.People do all kind of a weird things every day,but the teacher in the school shouldn't and if "those" kind of a persons come to the course how would then that course look like and would that be a RHCE course after all?

I take a slightly different slant on the question. When you teach something you have to start at the level of what the student already knows and work from there. So here are some hypothetical students starting your course:

Student A started as a computer operator on an IBM mainframe 10 years ago. He learned to program COBOL and got a job in program maintenance. COBOL is well on the way out at his company so he wants to learn Linux as the first step toward becoming a C++ programmer on Linux in order to avoid becoming obsolete. He could probably learn Linux on his own but he would like to have the certificate to prove to his boss that he is in fact making progress.

Student B is in his 10th or 12th standard. He wants to learn Linux and get a certificate so that he can demonstrate an employable skill to potential employers. This guy doesn't even know what a keyboard is.

I don't look at the difference between A and B in terms of "deserving". I look at it as the difference in effort required to teach the two. Obviously I can assume that student A knows a lot about running and/or programming a computer and start each lesson at a general level and cover a lot of ground quickly. If I accidentally skip something important student A can probably fill in the holes later on his own.

Just as obviously, with student B I am going to have to start each subject explanation at a very detailed level and move through the material very slowly and thoroughly.

The only qualitative judgment I make about the two students is the amount of work required. It is going to take a lot more work to bring student B up to being able to pass the exam than it is going to take to bring student A up to passing the exam. Am I willing to spend the extra effort on student B or not? If I am charging money then I would charge student B more than student A.

---------------------
Steve Stites