CF Degrees, too specific?

Degrees provide a formalized means of conveying knowledge that previously was self-taught.

I think that one of the problems with degrees is that they have to be based on something easily quantified, and can often hinder learning. In my graduate program, there were a total of six courses in computer networking, between the EE, CS, and IT Ops Mgmt courses. You could literally take all six courses and not be able to have two computers communicate with each other. In fact, I helped another student who had been trying to get two systems to communicate via 10Base2 for three weeks, and not even his PhD advisor could figure out the issue…I walked him by the digital lab and picked up two T-connectors and two terminators, and had the two systems communicating in a matter of seconds.

My point is that the degrees are just the beginning, not the end. Someone with an undergraduate or even a graduate degree in CF should be considered entry level, depending upon the position. From that point, employers should be providing formal training and education, as well as OJT, in order to bring the employees up to the necessary skill levels.

As a member of an IR team, we found that during interviews for new members, the best candidates were those with varied backgrounds. Folks with just a CF degree, and even those who had gotten into DF work as part of LE and had never done anything else were not able to "hit the ground running", as it were, and required too much initial training to be considered for a position. The best candidates where those with varied backgrounds and experience, a demonstrated ability to learn and grasp new concepts, as well as just being able to listen and follow instructions during the training process.

As a member of an IR team, we found that during interviews for new members, the best candidates were those with varied backgrounds

I am curious, which backgrounds were these? Were they just ITC related?

As a member of an IR team, we found that during interviews for new members, the best candidates were those with varied backgrounds

I am curious, which backgrounds were these? Were they just ITC related?

In our case, those who had done something other than just DF work related to one specific field.

For example, most of our best folks were prior military, particularly those who had progressed beyond "entry level", say, up to and beyond E-5.

Folks with prior IT backgrounds, and former military who had gotten out and worked as contractors or consultants worked well, too.

Those who weren't well suited for what we did were those who had formerly been LE and focused solely on one type of case or exam, and those who had similar experience in the military.

So I don't have much time so I won't have a lengthy response here but I guess there's a few points to consider
1) What job are people wanting to gain at the end of the degree.
2) Is it a masters or bachellors or PHD?
3) What does the course contain ? my first year was very generic, second and third year still contained some generic stuff but also the more specific parts such as legal modules.

I know that it's a lot easier for me to walk into a forensics job (which is hard enough without experience) than it is for someone with a pure computing science degree, yet the inverse does not exist, many computer science positions will take forensic computing degrees from what I've seen.

It's a weird one, but basically it really depends what you put into a degree as to what you get out, if you're willing to be extra-curricular too this is always a bonus.

I do believe there's a bit of an issue with 'certifications' as many companies that I've heard about seem to be slightly 'sausage factory' styled as they don't want investigators to go 'outside the norm' (well when it's legal evidence for example) as this could put additional pressure on the case to verify their 'out the box' working.

I'm only speaking from my view though, I'm sure one of the recruitment experts will know more about what companies are looking for, but I think going straight from University into a computer forensics job without extra-curricular work will be a difficult and up hill struggle due to the worries that cases may get thrown out for 'mistakes' that experienced investigators are unlikely to make.

communicate via 10Base2…I walked him by the digital lab and picked up two T-connectors and two terminators, and had the two systems communicating in a matter of seconds.

Agreed, being able to be practical and apply common sense is a necessity. The above reads like a case of the student or PhD person having not 'RTFM'. However, I am currently working with a number of electronic devices from credit card terminals to barcode scanning devices. Incredibly, user manuals for some of these products that are used with Wi Fi do not inform the user on the procedure as a step-by-step guide how to access through the menus to find a detected ip address or to input a new ip address.

I am not academically qualified as I have made publicly clear on many occasions over the years. I come from the school of hard knocks, dint of service to the science over the years, and I work bloody hard to keep up with various aspects in my field of endeavour. I believe without questions that a person should be able to demonstrate their understanding of the science and its operation of a particular e.g technology. I do not see an BSc or MSc as the clinching qualifier but if experience isn't there then the academic qualificatiion should be supported by the person being able to demonstrate combined common sense and practical skills.

Knowledge is wonderful but it can have little application without being backed up with skill and experience, and vice versa.

Let's be frank. A Bachelor in some kind of IT related field is pretty much an entry level requirement these days just to filter people out. You'll see jobs advertised as "Bachelor of Science or equivalent. May substitute X years of experience for this degree" but note that this would mean you're beyond entry level, and most people who don't have degrees but make this experience requirement are ex-LEOs from the sworn side.

Based upon my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience with people who have either studied or taught CF specific degrees or subjects, I don't value these much at all. I'll take an IT undergrad degree and 3 years in general (non-product-specific) tech support over a post-grad CF with zero hands on any day.

A good background is someone with a supergeneralist approach. That is, have a broad range of knowledge in IT, with deep knowledge in specific areas relevant to DF. You could be great at data recovery, but if you don't know generally how peer-to-peer works you may not find or report or explain well what is needed for a specific case. Also have a demonstrated ability to rapidly acquire new skills, work under minimal supervision after training, a penchant for accuracy, an inquisitive mind and nothing in their past to indicate lack of honesty or trustworthyness. Bullet point valuable skills include sysadmin experience; computer hardware experience; and data structures including file structures.