Last semester ended on a high note for me, a low note for some of my colleagues. Not only did I finish my Associates maintaining a 4.0 through all three semesters that I attended this college, but I got my Network+ certification. And the "rest of the story" is where the topic of this article is going.

The first year students were able, through an arrangement with the college, to get one free shot at their first A+ exam. Always looking for an angle, I approached my instructor about extending that offer to me on my Network+, as it is also a CompTIA exam, and since I hadn't gotten the chance to have an A+ exam paid for. The details were worked out, the one catch was that I had to take it the next day, as I had a drug test for the new job on Thursday (which meant a 2 hour drive after work), and that Friday was all booked up (or so I thought...more on that later).

One of the students, a somewhat disturbing young man who is in his 30's and still lives with his parents, passed both portions of his A+ exam. One of the female classmates, who has had problems with him because he tends to fixate on her, went in to take the first portion of her A+ and missed by twenty points. Because the other individual had succeeded, she took it far harder than she should, and said she wasn't going to try anymore. She then proceeded to blame the test, the instructor, the book, and just about everything she thought could bear some of the blame.

I went in for my Network+ exam and failed by 40 points the first time out. But with less than 24 hours to study (the classwork for the material was during the spring semester, and as any techie will tell you, these tests can get quite trivial), I didn't feel it was a fair evaluation of my knowledge, and decided I would take it again as quickly as possible. A position had opened up on Friday, so I quickly signed up and went back to studying.

The second time through, I passed.

The individual who failed her A+ exam had a mentality that I see all too prevalent among the chronically poor (I'm not talking about those who are poor because of circumstances beyond their control, but those who live generation after generation in an impoverished condition because they simply refuse to better themselves). The mentality that success is a "zero sum game"; that her success was dependent on someone else's failure and vice versa. That's why it had to be someone else's fault. Because someone else was holding her back.

A pity, too, because this individual coming into the class was easily one of the most knowledgeable among her peers, and certainly has potential to be a truly valuable IT employee.

The problem with the mentality is that it automatically makes you a victim. It makes your circumstances somehow beyond your control and ultimately becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as, if you believe you're doomed to poverty, you are more likely to act like it.

It also breeds class resentment. If you believe someone else is successful because of "luck" or connections, you're more likely to see them as responsible for your poverty, and act accordingly. Rich people become "the enemy" and any well meaning advice they might give you to improve is treated with scorn and ridicule because in the world of "us" against "them", it's not wise to listen to "them".

While I haven't picked up much in this life that's worth passing on, I HAVE come to discover that, while some events are beyond your control, much of a person's success or failure is up to them. I used the compare and contrast method because I believe it illustrates the difference between those who will ultimately succeed and those who will ultimately fail.

Success is NOT a zero sum game, and those who treat it as such are almost certainly, inevitably, bound to be chronic losers. Because the very first step on the road to success is believing you CAN succeed!