Long story short, the state is trying to talk me into training as a paralegal, and I'm just trying to put some feelers out to see if the employment at the end of the training would be worth the trouble, money-wise and satisfaction-wise.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 24, 2009, 12:55:30 PM
Long story short, the state is trying to talk me into training as a paralegal, and I'm just trying to put some feelers out to see if the employment at the end of the training would be worth the trouble, money-wise and satisfaction-wise.
Very difficult to say as the term "paralegal" gets thrown around a lot to mean some very different duties. I've run a full trial up against a paralegal who was quite senior with a firm and I think well compensated. However I've heard of legal assistants being called paralegals as well.
Quote from: Barrister on April 24, 2009, 12:58:11 PM
Very difficult to say as the term "paralegal" gets thrown around a lot to mean some very different duties. I've run a full trial up against a paralegal who was quite senior with a firm and I think well compensated. However I've heard of legal assistants being called paralegals as well.
I'm running into that everywhere I'm asked to choose something by title. Bureau of Labor Statistics is careful to segregate legal assistants from corporate paralegals, who are simply more economical since they don't represent the company at hearings.
In this case, the state's carrot is an associate's degree in paralegal studies. As BLS mentions a bachelor's coupled with a certificate in paralegal studies, I believe this is more closely pertaining to legal assistant.
Description from the file I was handed this morning:
QuoteThe Paralegal Studies program offers a combination of general education and paralegal courses that prepares graduates to meet the growing demand for trained paralegals in law offices, casinos, real estate offices, probation departments, prosecutors' offices, insurance companies and private businesses. The program is approved by the American Bar Association.
Paralegal is a good way to make money, if you are competent, organized, and efficient. If you lack any one of the three, please do not try to be a paralegal.
Quote from: Scipio on April 24, 2009, 04:25:26 PM
Paralegal is a good way to make money, if you are competent, organized, and efficient. If you lack any one of the three, please do not try to be a paralegal.
Thanks, Skip, nice and straightforward. :hug:
Also looking to see if any of my classes from my "lost year" are covered, as a factor in deciding; so far, it looks like only two, maybe three are. I really don't know what I was thinking when I decided to go for music, since I burnt out so easily.
Decided. Gonna be going with paralegal studies, as it's the most realistic field for me. Getting an outline together for my counselor as I type this... now my next step is to decide between PS 201 - American Federal Government and PS 203 - State & Local Government. :D
Why not go for law school? It seems as though you are a reasonably intelligent guy: why would you want to work as a paralegal where you will always be a notch below the lawyers you work with, even if you are smarter than many of them?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 26, 2009, 03:00:11 PM
Why not go for law school? It seems as though you are a reasonably intelligent guy: why would you want to work as a paralegal where you will always be a notch below the lawyers you work with, even if you are smarter than many of them?
Well I'd assume paralegals have much more sensible working hours than lawyers, for one.
Also, a paralegal's job is much less stressful and usually does not involve working with clients or other people like that.
Quote from: Martinus on April 26, 2009, 03:14:10 PM
Well I'd assume paralegals have much more sensible working hours than lawyers, for one.
Also, a paralegal's job is much less stressful and usually does not involve working with clients or other people like that.
There are some lawyers outside of BIG LAW that have sensible hours.
Quote from: Martinus on April 26, 2009, 03:14:10 PM
Well I'd assume paralegals have much more sensible working hours than lawyers, for one.
Also, a paralegal's job is much less stressful and usually does not involve working with clients or other people like that.
Wrongo on both counts.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 26, 2009, 03:00:11 PM
Why not go for law school? It seems as though you are a reasonably intelligent guy: why would you want to work as a paralegal where you will always be a notch below the lawyers you work with, even if you are smarter than many of them?
Presumably because a paralegal program takes 1-2 years, whereas law school typically takes 7 (undergrad plus law school).
Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2009, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 26, 2009, 03:00:11 PM
Why not go for law school? It seems as though you are a reasonably intelligent guy: why would you want to work as a paralegal where you will always be a notch below the lawyers you work with, even if you are smarter than many of them?
Presumably because a paralegal program takes 1-2 years, whereas law school typically takes 7 (undergrad plus law school).
In that case why not go for a degree that can get you into the workplace immediately: engineering, business, computer science, or something else I'm not thinking of. That is an extra couple of years of school though.
Well, a little bit of explanation is in order, I guess. I love law, researching, and moderated debate, but I kind of tanked school on personal problems around 2004-5 (senior, one year of college). I jumped into the workplace as a relay operator for 711 and while the job was somewhat satisfying, I got pretty depressed about having tanked school and mostly looked at going back to school as a pipe dream.
Serendipity paid a little visit in March- NJ's department of labor steps in during mass layoffs to try to prevent a ripple effect on the local unemployment offices, and one of the steps they take is offering additional financial assistance towards pursuing your first undergraduate degree.
I figured I could take the opportunity to edge in on the field, and submitted a claim towards pursuing court reporting, but training for court reporting is expensive. Off the books, that proposal was rejected on Friday; my counselor's supervisor wasn't there, but she's 99% sure that they won't approve the program, so she looked at my qualifications/testing and recommended a course as a "Plan B" that I had actually discounted: paralegal.
This stuff should actually start solidifying tomorrow, and while it's not a free ride into law school, it's baby steps into a field that's interested me since I learned to read, and I learned to read early.
Basically, there's a long trail of debris behind me when it comes to being ambitious, so I'm going to hedge my bets to massively decrease the possibility of another backslide.
Interesting, I was going to chime in with the advice that you go for court reporter.
I would think that the jump training would always be worth it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2009, 10:09:37 PM
Interesting, I was going to chime in with the advice that you go for court reporter.
Yeah. It's pretty expensive if you want something more valuable than toilet paper. The NCRA only certifies 65 schools in the US now; the court reporting program I was pushing for would come out to about $35K over 33 months to receive an ASB (associates in specialized business), plus RPR certification; our local college has a strong AS program in paralegal studies, certified by the American Bar Association, that comes out to just over $10K, all in.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2009, 10:09:37 PM
Interesting, I was going to chime in with the advice that you go for court reporter.
Actually in my experience the formal job of court reporter is rapidly going by the wayside.
That is - a court reporter's job is to transcribe everything that happens
verbatim as it happens in a courtroom. But with the advent of digital recording technology that never happens anymore. Instead what happens is the courtroom happenings are recorded, but only transcribed if and when it is requested later on. Odly the only time I have seen a proper court reporter is during a murder trial, or during the week I spent in the high arctic, when we had an obviously gay court reporter from northern Ontario.
Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2009, 10:53:02 PM
Actually in my experience the formal job of court reporter is rapidly going by the wayside.
That is - a court reporter's job is to transcribe everything that happens verbatim as it happens in a courtroom. But with the advent of digital recording technology that never happens anymore. Instead what happens is the courtroom happenings are recorded, but only transcribed if and when it is requested later on. Odly the only time I have seen a proper court reporter is during a murder trial, or during the week I spent in the high arctic, when we had an obviously gay court reporter from northern Ontario.
The role of a court reporter is changing pretty rapidly. Accuracy of computerized transcription is still below acceptable levels, but with digital recording as prevalent as it is now, the realtime aspect is less in demand. Because of the subpar accuracy, the push is for realtime captioning for the hard of hearing, which was what attracted me to it in the first place as I've got tangential experience.
As of 2007, only about 30% of court reporters are actually employed in the courtroom; the rest are freelancers or staffed through on-demand services or, in rare cases, retained as broadcast/webcast captioners or realtime reporters for those who would need on-demand captioning services.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 26, 2009, 10:20:36 PM
Yeah. It's pretty expensive if you want something more valuable than toilet paper. The NCRA only certifies 65 schools in the US now; the court reporting program I was pushing for would come out to about $35K over 33 months to receive an ASB (associates in specialized business), plus RPR certification; our local college has a strong AS program in paralegal studies, certified by the American Bar Association, that comes out to just over $10K, all in.
Try to take into consideration that the money for any program is going to be significantly dwarfed your lifetime earnings. You might hear doctors complaining of how much debt they racked up in medical school, but even with $200k in debt they are driving high end cars and have mcmansions.
Your profile says you are 23. Even with 6 years of school (I'm thinking you finished one already) you would still not be very old. If you are going to work for the next 40+ years, would a few more years of school now justify rising above a role that prevents you from attaining a leadership role in the field and puts a much lower cap on your compensation compared to the people you will work with?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 27, 2009, 11:01:06 AM
Try to take into consideration that the money for any program is going to be significantly dwarfed your lifetime earnings. You might hear doctors complaining of how much debt they racked up in medical school, but even with $200k in debt they are driving high end cars and have mcmansions.
Your profile says you are 23. Even with 6 years of school (I'm thinking you finished one already) you would still not be very old. If you are going to work for the next 40+ years, would a few more years of school now justify rising above a role that prevents you from attaining a leadership role in the field and puts a much lower cap on your compensation compared to the people you will work with?
I finished one year at a community college. You're assuming that paralegal training and attorney training are mutually exclusive; they're not- example: http://www.paralegaltraining.net/blog/advancing-from-paralegal-to-attorney (http://www.paralegaltraining.net/blog/advancing-from-paralegal-to-attorney)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 27, 2009, 11:05:59 AM
I finished one year at a community college. You're assuming that paralegal training and attorney training are mutually exclusive; they're not- example: http://www.paralegaltraining.net/blog/advancing-from-paralegal-to-attorney (http://www.paralegaltraining.net/blog/advancing-from-paralegal-to-attorney)
It doesn't sound like there is much benefit, if you will still need a college degree and a law degree. Unless you plan to go to law school and will be licensed to work as a paralegal before you start law school but while obtaining your degree.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 27, 2009, 11:15:04 AM
It doesn't sound like there is much benefit, if you will still need a college degree and a law degree. Unless you plan to go to law school and will be licensed to work as a paralegal before you start law school but while obtaining your degree.
:yes: The plan I'm forming is to become qualified as a paralegal and advance to law school while employed. Given my history of backslides, this would mean that one later on would only drop me back to a qualified paralegal, rather than the "jack of all trades, paper on none" situation that's been hindering me for the past couple of years.
If you did it that way you would have a big leg up on the rest of your class in law school. Keep in mind that good paralegals can be paid as much or more then junior lawyers.
Most junior lawyers know nothing while good paralegals essentially run their files making them very valuable to their firms.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 26, 2009, 05:40:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2009, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 26, 2009, 03:00:11 PM
Why not go for law school? It seems as though you are a reasonably intelligent guy: why would you want to work as a paralegal where you will always be a notch below the lawyers you work with, even if you are smarter than many of them?
Presumably because a paralegal program takes 1-2 years, whereas law school typically takes 7 (undergrad plus law school).
In that case why not go for a degree that can get you into the workplace immediately: engineering, business, computer science, or something else I'm not thinking of. That is an extra couple of years of school though.
Engineering and computer science require significant math skills. That said, over here business is indeed the degree of choice for those who want something relatively useful without putting that much effort.
Quote from: Iormlund on April 27, 2009, 12:46:59 PM
Engineering and computer science require significant math skills. That said, over here business is indeed the degree of choice for those who want something relatively useful without putting that much effort.
Heh. I've got the aptitudes for all three, but engineering isn't something that can hold my interest, my background would seriously hamper my efforts in business past school, and computer science is a saturated field in the US, at least among the entry-level market. When I graduated from high school, I had done so much with our computer systems that the tech department cooked up an "achievements in the field of technology" certificate so that I had some formal recognition... now with all the Circuit City Firedog technicians out of work, I can't even get a callback from Best Buy's Geek Squad.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 27, 2009, 01:19:30 PM
Heh. I've got the aptitudes for all three, but engineering isn't something that can hold my interest, my background would seriously hamper my efforts in business past school, and computer science is a saturated field in the US, at least among the entry-level market. When I graduated from high school, I had done so much with our computer systems that the tech department cooked up an "achievements in the field of technology" certificate so that I had some formal recognition... now with all the Circuit City Firedog technicians out of work, I can't even get a callback from Best Buy's Geek Squad.
Unless you have a criminal background, I wouldn't worry about your past. Once you get your foot in the door, all most people care about is if you can get the job done.
Well, I just got back from an appointment at the college. Just between Pell grants and the WDPP grant, I should be more than covered for the program.
Just need to get paperwork over to my counselor at LWD, and I should be taking AC 103 - Principles of Accounting, and CS 102 - Applications on Microcomputer (necessary retake :blush:) over the summer.
The fall should get interesting though, as I'll be taking both PL 101 - Introduction to the Legal System and PL 104 - Introduction to Legal Research and Writing, along with BU 109 - Business Law and a couple of token gen ed classes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2009, 11:59:24 AM
If you did it that way you would have a big leg up on the rest of your class in law school. Keep in mind that good paralegals can be paid as much or more then junior lawyers.
Most junior lawyers know nothing while good paralegals essentially run their files making them very valuable to their firms.
I had a real good friend from high school and college who was paralegaling for a big-time Washington DC firm. He was making 65k a year and pretty much just banking it, working 8-5 inside the beltway. He had a BS from Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, but no specialized legal training. Just a hard-working filipino.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 27, 2009, 01:19:30 PM
... computer science is a saturated field in the US, at least among the entry-level market...
Don't tell that to the ACM. They see a severe shortage of CS majors already, with it getting worse. Part of the reason is the perception that the area is saturated.
Quote from: vonmoltke on May 07, 2009, 10:31:46 PM
Don't tell that to the ACM. They see a severe shortage of CS majors already, with it getting worse. Part of the reason is the perception that the area is saturated.
I know; the market is definitely not saturated. As much as everything is running electronically these days, CS is still hugely in demand. The biggest problem I ran into is that there's a bottleneck on the entry-level market; everybody wants CS guys, but nobody wants a
fresh CS guy. It's the "nobody wants less than 5 years experience, so how are any of the new guys going to get any experience" problem.
Quote from: Scipio on May 07, 2009, 08:59:20 PM
I had a real good friend from high school and college who was paralegaling for a big-time Washington DC firm. He was making 65k a year and pretty much just banking it, working 8-5 inside the beltway. He had a BS from Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, but no specialized legal training. Just a hard-working filipino.
Wonder how it'll work out in my case. I'm quasi-fast-tracking, so barring a major setback, I should be graduating with an AS next December.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 06:01:54 AM
Quote from: vonmoltke on May 07, 2009, 10:31:46 PM
Don't tell that to the ACM. They see a severe shortage of CS majors already, with it getting worse. Part of the reason is the perception that the area is saturated.
I know; the market is definitely not saturated. As much as everything is running electronically these days, CS is still hugely in demand. The biggest problem I ran into is that there's a bottleneck on the entry-level market; everybody wants CS guys, but nobody wants a fresh CS guy. It's the "nobody wants less than 5 years experience, so how are any of the new guys going to get any experience" problem.
Ah yes, that is a serious problem. I was being partly sarcastic, as this is a problem the engineering and computer science societies have not recognized yet. Are shortages are not because we don;t have the people per se, but rather because the requirements lists for jobs have grown greatly in the last 10 years. Its not just in the realm of experience vs. non-experience; most postings nowadays have long, specific sets of required skills, as if the hiring manager is looking for a candidate who comes pre-trained. Its a troubling trend and makes some of this shortage self-imposed by the very employers complaining about it..
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 06:01:54 AMI know; the market is definitely not saturated. As much as everything is running electronically these days, CS is still hugely in demand. The biggest problem I ran into is that there's a bottleneck on the entry-level market; everybody wants CS guys, but nobody wants a fresh CS guy. It's the "nobody wants less than 5 years experience, so how are any of the new guys going to get any experience" problem.
The problem is that the new guys with zero experience think they should be paid alot more money than they are actually worth. Then they bitch about not being able to find a job.
Quote from: vonmoltke on May 08, 2009, 08:49:04 AM
Ah yes, that is a serious problem. I was being partly sarcastic, as this is a problem the engineering and computer science societies have not recognized yet. Are shortages are not because we don;t have the people per se, but rather because the requirements lists for jobs have grown greatly in the last 10 years. Its not just in the realm of experience vs. non-experience; most postings nowadays have long, specific sets of required skills, as if the hiring manager is looking for a candidate who comes pre-trained. Its a troubling trend and makes some of this shortage self-imposed by the very employers complaining about it..
See my post, plus alot of the jobs that are pushed by recruiters are skilled and experienced only, because nobody is going to pay a recruiter thousands of dollars to provide a candidate with no experience.... yet recruiter advertising dominates the employment market, thus creating a perception that there are "no entry level jobs".
Gotta respectfully disagree, Cal. There are the guys who think they're going to go from ITT Tech to operating independently as an SA (system administrator). Their expectations are unrealistically high, but I don't think they account for that high a percentage of those entering the job market.
As to recruiters, the problem is more systemic than that. You've seen the recruiting end of it, and you're right that nobody's going to want to shell out that kind of money to bring in a $32K network troubleshooter; however, a lot of places don't even recognize the need to have an SA on hand, so most techs outside of digital industry have to take another position and dredge through years of "Computer problem? Let me take a look," to be recognized as competent technicians.
I gave up on the tech route after this lovely gem: at PBP, we were paid minimum plus commission. Despite it being a routed call center with about 50 computers running at once plus call and network routing equipment, our "tech" was the quality assurance guy who came from 40 minutes away, once a week to every two weeks. Two of us (myself and one other guy) started taking on some of the little maintenance like running cables and swapping out computers that absolutely refused to work. The other guy got an additional 25 cents an hour for doing that. I got nothing.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 09:19:14 AM
Gotta respectfully disagree, Cal. There are the guys who think they're going to go from ITT Tech to operating independently as an SA (system administrator). Their expectations are unrealistically high, but I don't think they account for that high a percentage of those entering the job market.
As to recruiters, the problem is more systemic than that. You've seen the recruiting end of it, and you're right that nobody's going to want to shell out that kind of money to bring in a $32K network troubleshooter; however, a lot of places don't even recognize the need to have an SA on hand, so most techs outside of digital industry have to take another position and dredge through years of "Computer problem? Let me take a look," to be recognized as competent technicians.
I gave up on the tech route after this lovely gem: at PBP, we were paid minimum plus commission. Despite it being a routed call center with about 50 computers running at once plus call and network routing equipment, our "tech" was the quality assurance guy who came from 40 minutes away, once a week to every two weeks. Two of us (myself and one other guy) started taking on some of the little maintenance like running cables and swapping out computers that absolutely refused to work. The other guy got an additional 25 cents an hour for doing that. I got nothing.
A couple of observations:
* The reason the ITT Tech guys think this is because ITT Tech (and for-profit schools of its ilk) lie to applicants and convince them this is the case, and that's why they should shell out all that tuition money.
* I have certainly met people who earned a legitimate B.S. and expect to walk right into mid-level jobs (or at least jobs with mid-level salaries). "But I just paid $100K for this degree, so I REQUIRE a job that pays more than entry level!" :bleeding:
* Your mistake was volunteering to do ANYTHING outside your job description in an office with zero growth potential. NEVER DO THIS. :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 11:55:15 AM
A couple of observations:
* The reason the ITT Tech guys think this is because ITT Tech (and for-profit schools of its ilk) lie to applicants and convince them this is the case, and that's why they should shell out all that tuition money.
* I have certainly met people who earned a legitimate B.S. and expect to walk right into mid-level jobs (or at least jobs with mid-level salaries). "But I just paid $100K for this degree, so I REQUIRE a job that pays more than entry level!" :bleeding:
* Your mistake was volunteering to do ANYTHING outside your job description in an office with zero growth potential. NEVER DO THIS. :contract:
I've since realized my mistake. And I'm aware those idiots come from all walks, I simply pointed out ITT for the same reasons you mention, so there seems to be a clusterfuck of idiocy surrounding them.
The experience bottleneck
is present. CS is unique in that computers are so cheap now and so common in American households that a lot of people can get practical experience as an amateur long before they set foot in a college or tech school. How much experience do
I have in CS? Depending on your measuring, you could come up with three different answers- none in title, per the "history" section of my resume, less than one year, per descriptions in the "history" section of my resume, or 12 years, per the "skills" section of my resume. I've been successfully dismantling, upgrading, and rebuilding PCs since I was 12.
At least in CS, many of the most talented people have no way to showcase their skills in print (FREX, no amount of tweaking my resume will show that I tend toward networking protocols and machine-level data translation), so I'm a firm believer that employers need to move toward a practical aptitude-based system for weighing CS candidates.
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 08:53:07 AM
See my post, plus alot of the jobs that are pushed by recruiters are skilled and experienced only, because nobody is going to pay a recruiter thousands of dollars to provide a candidate with no experience.... yet recruiter advertising dominates the employment market, thus creating a perception that there are "no entry level jobs".
The Honorable Mr. Banana has covered most of the issues I have with entry-level jobs. However, that was not what my post was aimed at; I was talking about experienced positions, and I'm talking about the criteria that determine if a resume even gets a second look. There has been a shift to increasingly detailed requirements in job postings that automatically eliminate many people who are probably qualified for the job except for missing, and employers start complaining about the lack of engineers and computer scientists.
Also, I'm not talking about job seeker perceptions, I'm talking about what employers are saying. It may well be that, if employers to rely so heavily on recruiters now, these recruiters are doing them a disservice.
On-topic, I'm mildly irritated. I have a follow-up with the WDP rep at the college on Thursday, but my counselor at LWD rescheduled my appointment, which was supposed to be today, to Wednesday. Unless there's no snags between financial aid and WDPP (not likely), this is going to stall my enrollment for the summer classes. :angry:
Quote from: vonmoltke on May 10, 2009, 08:12:48 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 08:53:07 AM
See my post, plus alot of the jobs that are pushed by recruiters are skilled and experienced only, because nobody is going to pay a recruiter thousands of dollars to provide a candidate with no experience.... yet recruiter advertising dominates the employment market, thus creating a perception that there are "no entry level jobs".
The Honorable Mr. Banana has covered most of the issues I have with entry-level jobs. However, that was not what my post was aimed at; I was talking about experienced positions, and I'm talking about the criteria that determine if a resume even gets a second look. There has been a shift to increasingly detailed requirements in job postings that automatically eliminate many people who are probably qualified for the job except for missing, and employers start complaining about the lack of engineers and computer scientists.
Also, I'm not talking about job seeker perceptions, I'm talking about what employers are saying. It may well be that, if employers to rely so heavily on recruiters now, these recruiters are doing them a disservice.
Not to disagree with you or CC, because I really don't, but I'd like to add that the job market is what it is--no one is out there governing it. From my point of view, it makes a lot of sense to pay more to hire experienced people in IT because any inefficiency there doesn't only waste their time, but also the time of people actually running the business. Not to mention that a lot of IT systems are critical to the business and can cause major headaches with a hiccup.
It doesn't always make sense to bring in someone out of school for training: if there is high demand for experienced people, they are going to bolt unless you pay the market rate anyway.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 11, 2009, 10:56:23 AM
Not to disagree with you or CC, because I really don't, but I'd like to add that the job market is what it is--no one is out there governing it. From my point of view, it makes a lot of sense to pay more to hire experienced people in IT because any inefficiency there doesn't only waste their time, but also the time of people actually running the business. Not to mention that a lot of IT systems are critical to the business and can cause major headaches with a hiccup.
It doesn't always make sense to bring in someone out of school for training: if there is high demand for experienced people, they are going to bolt unless you pay the market rate anyway.
Absolutely. The problem is that experience needs to be treated differently in the field, and hiring managers seem to have a lack of fundamental knowledge when it comes to "IT."
For starters, there's 4 distinct realms within IT: hardware, software, networking, and electronics. I've ordered them in terms of how likely you are to need them.
Your hardware techs could start as kids; they'll troubleshoot and maybe swap out cards here and there when one fails. You'll mainly only run into software people when you're using custom/proprietary software that's been designed from the ground up, since commercial software comes with support 95% of the time. Networking is where the bottleneck is, from what I've seen. A lot of people hired hardware personnel and think they can do the job of a network tech, but net techs should be in charge of optimizing a network, and working with hardware people to ensure the business' nodes in the network stay up and running. Also, your networking people handle boutique routing electronics, such as 800 routers in call centers, which your hardware techs shouldn't go anywhere near. Finally, there are a handful of businesses who use their own electronics, so they need people with electrical/electronic engineering experience to keep those up and running.
The biggest problem, and it seems VM's big complaint, is that many hiring managers try to lowball and use numbers for a technician with lower experience. Also, it should be noted that your fresh grads for upper echelons of IT should not be treated the same as an entry-level hardware technician. The scammy schools have contributed to that end of the problems.
Almost have everything set in motion now. :)
Amazingly, things went fairly smoothly this morning. As much of a hard time as my counselor at LWD has given me, she looked at my cost projection for a grand total of 10 seconds before giving me the approval paperwork.
The only snag I might run into now is that I'm trying to get Intro to the Legal System and Intro to Legal Research and Writing under a tuition waiver, so here's hoping those classes don't fill before August...