If someone were to give me an A+ tech and one who wasn't, I would take the non-A+ tech. I have found that the non-A+ certified techs are more trainable (even if they don't know something) and are less likely to BS their way through a problem to customers. I have read many white papers on the 'advantages of certification'. As someone who has more than 19 years in the industry, I can say that certifications mean nothing unless you are starting out or trying to be hired.
What most people seem to fail to understand is that a certification is a 'meteric' and that is just a ten cent way of saying 'measurement'. So, if you are outside the US, a measurement in inches or miles does you no good when relating to those around you... likewise, the people who created the measurement for the A+ obviously weren't bench techs. Yes, the information that is required on the A+ is fine... but is it useful? How often do techs use the 'facts' that are required? Are they current? Unfortunately, I have to agree with many of the people who have already responded - the certification means little unless you want to get a job and the person who is hiring you isn't a bench tech or doesn't really know anything about troubleshooting computers.
In the defense of the A+ exam, it is only supposed to cover material a person with 6 months experience would know. I think the certification should cover content that someone with at least two years experience should know and the test should be created by bench techs and other people with SOLID computer troubleshooting experience.
The other problem with the A+ exam is that it is supposed to be 'non-manufacturer specific'... But why are the only OS's being tested Microsoft OSes? There are several more useful to business OSes including Linux, Solaris, and HP's flavor of Unix. What? Someone with six months experience wouldn't know UNIX or Linux? Hmmm... I have seen many of these OSes on Intel based products... whoops, another bias of Intel based products. The test today doesn't fullfill the objectives that were specified - instead, the test is narrow and favours only one set of specifications: the home user type computer. Is this the type of user that should be in the business world fixing computers? I should think not.
Even with this low set of objectives, it fails miserably to establish confindence by those who are competent.
