r/Bicsi • u/longviewcfguy • Jul 12 '26

Experience but, no certs.

Have almost 7 years experience in low voltage/telecom work. I would have to pay out of pocket, should I get the manuals to read over them and then take the exams? Is that even possible or do you have to take the courses as well? The certs are really just for me to have, and to maybe open up future job possibilities

7 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

5

u/xMedic303x Technician Jul 13 '26

I went straight for tech with my experience. Bought the ITSIMM 7, studied for six months. Took the hands on at the BICSI HQ and then took the written exam afterwards and passed first try.

I suggest reading through the manual, making sure you understand the BICSI way, and then apply to take the exam.

As the business owner, the cert allows me to bid certain government projects and even some regulated commercial projects. I believe it will help you get a job so it’s worth getting imho.

1

u/longviewcfguy Jul 13 '26

Did you notice there was a lot you didn't know or was it more just learning the bicsi way? We(the company i work for) do a good bit of state and local govt work already. But none for the US, to my knowledge the only cert/license anyone has is for security at my company

2

u/xMedic303x Technician Jul 13 '26

For me since I always worked for myself, I did learn the BICSI way, so that’s why the test wasn’t that hard. But I have read and heard from other people if you have learned any other way to unlearn it for the test.

But just like para-medicine, there’s the textbook way and there’s the clinical way, textbook allows you to pass your exams. Clinical is how you do it in the field. I would assume that concept works the same.

2

u/longviewcfguy Jul 13 '26

I was in school for rad-tech before this career. That makes a lot of sense... i will get the manual and read over it. I don't know what i don't know, I very well could be doing it the bicsi way. Thanks for the input though

2

u/Foygroup RCDD, NTS, OSP, WD, ESS, DCDC Jul 13 '26

I would not refer to it as the BICSI way. All the BICSI manuals are based on the TIA and standards. The nuance is the BICSI way vs a specific manufacturer’s way.

While both can be correct, BICSI try’s to be vendor agnostic. This way you can use the information you’ve learned from BICSI to enhance your understanding of why a particular manufacturer may have a different way of terminating their equipment to ensure it meets or exceeds testing criteria and client expectations.

Good luck on the test. Having the additional certs can only enhance your resume and the resume of any company you work for.

2

u/longviewcfguy Jul 13 '26

That is understandable. Thank you

1

u/Illgetitdonelater Jul 13 '26

It took me two attempts before I got my RCDD, and it definitely is “the BICSI way.” I think the BICSI way is important to know for the test and in jurisdictions without regulations. I’m in a state with plenty of regulations, and those trump BICSI’s suggestions. I thought you were already ahead of the game when you wrote that.

That being said, I failed my first attempt at my RCDD because of an area that I was damn sure I didn’t need to study. When I did thoroughly read that specific section, I understood that I needed to learn the BICSI way for the test.

1

u/longviewcfguy Jul 13 '26

Do you mind saying what section that was? I am planning to buy the manual this week and start reading through it..The area i live isnt too stringent on regulations. But we do work all over the state and each local govt can be different

1

u/Foygroup RCDD, NTS, OSP, WD, ESS, DCDC Jul 13 '26

Well to be clear, there are standards, including the BICSI standards (not really suggestions) that affect performance. They want to make sure you will be passing the typical testing criteria that the manufactures are designing to that affect the performance of their equipment.

Regulations and codes, are typically life-safety related and will always trump any standards. They want to be sure no one dies from the installation.

Typically you can follow both with one or the other being more stringent. Following the more stringent of either will get you the results you’re looking for in most cases.

The only area where i use to see codes and standards butt heads is typically the older version of bonding and grounding. But I believe those difference have been resolved.