November 3, 2005 at 5:37 pm
You'll not be a Technology Specialist (TS) in SQL Server 2005. With the Next Generation of Microsoft certifications, there are now three levels, with the TS being the bottom level. I like the broadening of the certifications, but I'm not sure that they went far enough.
Right now it appears there is only one SQL Server TS, and you get it by passing a test, Exam 70–431: TS: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 - Implementation and Maintenance. That seems to me like a basic SQL Server administrator and I'm not sure that the basics here are necessary for a developer, but it's certainly not a bad idea to get someone familiar with the product.
However my concern is the same one I've always had. If I get my TS in SQL Server, can I get a job at Andy's company, which heavily uses replication? Am I at all qualified?
No.
And the same goes for Integration Services, Reporting Services, etc.
The higher level certifications have been broken out slightly more, but they're still not good enough. As someone that might hire a DBA (not anytime soon, don't send resumes), I'd like to get someone tested on particular technologies. Give us a security test that focuses on SQL Server. Give us two, one for administration and one for development. And the same for replication, HA, SSIS, SSRS, SSNS, and all the other SS acronyms.
It's a good start and I'll break these down in an article soon, but it's a long way from being finished.
Steve Jones
November 4, 2005 at 8:11 am
This in advance warning is a cross threaded discourse.
(I noticed a few grammer issues so.. i've correct them ...this is current since 10:01 EST)
So I get back from the Toronto Microsoft Partner Group Hug yesterday wondering about a few things after reading your article about how to get hired at Microsoft. I do not understand the dichotomy that exists from how those tough questions get answered by those that were speaking at that event. Most of the people stated they had worked for MS for less than a year, some only for a few months.
During the presentations many of women (cute) spoke well and with interesting style, I found the men to be somewhat condescending. “Oh we had better number of people who do active testing and load bearing on code at our Vancouver session” for example was bantered around, by the one gentleman, discussing the VS 2005.
This was my most interesting question and the answer:
“Since SSIS will be replacing DTS in the future will there be a migration path for all the DTS either migration tool of all the preprogrammed DTS to SQL 2005 or will we have even be able to export to vbs and import the code into SSIS directly on all versions”
The response was:
“There is a run time that will be included to run existing DTS packages but in the future programming in SSIS will only be supported.”
Now he wasn’t specific on whether this is for all versions of SQL Server, but the answer wasn't the one I was looking for.
The visual studio guy spent a good deal of time on the team edition of the software and how much from a Project Manager standpoint it would help determine how slow things were going. I’m paraphrasing at this point but you probably get my tone. I fear that VS needs such management tools for the code and programs generated with the IDE is poor [Which I find it odd they left out the other D (debugging) from the acronym, IDDE].
While going on about macro debugging tools, the add-ons which end up bumping up the price 30k Canadian for the whole suite, not ugly, but certainly a little beyond running it through expenses.
It’s like they are weaseling out the cool mini tools if you will and pushing VS as the only route to extending SQL SERVER. This might make sense for large projects but I do not think that backup tools for SQL SERVER should require using C#.
Also I find it troublesome that those improvements to just making good code the first time seems out of MS's grasp.
They want me to go to another seminar on VS next week and there are a couple of migration seminars as well where I fear I will not get much out of those experiences.
I like to think I eat and breath this stuff, and all I find is that I do not feel the energy from these people or that MS even gets people who actually have used the software or done a from A – Z rollout. Maybe if they spent less time looking for people who have moved the mountain and from other competitive technologies and to those on the front line they might bring a little more credibility to the software.
As for the certifications, I’m mixed on the subject, some of the courses look interesting, others just look like structural ones, like how to install the software or read an event log. I take if any of those courses for interest sake but my time is either going to be spending reading about the technology or actually solving problems with it or building solutions. I’d prefer to stumble over a few snags or Microsoft conventions as one would call than spend a few weeks going over the data abstractions that I learnt back in university. Maybe in the US universities just pretend to teach things between football games to pass time but up here the courses and programs are intended to thoroughly broaden your base of knowledge of an expected already universal knowledge of the realm of the subject gathered by both your through schooling and personal interest.
This whole pussyfooting around on mandating courses for interest in Microsoft products at a heavy premium might in the end be the only way to be more sure or find that one can work with the products, in responsible way. But hiding those who have the answers by only having them exist in ‘course’ is not a way to excite or compel me to take them, and instead put the marketing or evangelical people there, I’m just going to switch mental channels.
Not once throughout the day was I shown a use for the products, or an example of a deployment in the flesh. Put a SBS 2003 server in front of us with a bunch of pc’s hooked up and all the features nicely working together with a short event log. That shit sells; not timetables and course options and surveys and possible pricing matrices.
I think my comment about us handing our survey sheets to the front was the new version of exchange might have taken me off the short list for MS prospects.
Cheers
November 4, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Hi,
I am concerned a little bit with 2 things:
1. Higher level knowlege requirement is replaced by several more dedicated areas like Steve says "all the other SS acronyms...". Managers and HR would not and should not know all different kinds of availble SQL Server certifications. They will just hire someone who has on his resume that he is certified in SQL Server (which cert?) I mean, in case there is no skilled senior DBA in a department. As Steve says, being certified in install and maintenance is not good enough to work with DTS or heavy replication if you don't know basics. I would prefer a person who would know more high and medium level details in many areas so he/she will be able to develop an appropriate solution and on the low-level will look up the syntax or implementation details in BOL. I would prefer this person over someone who knows one area in minor details (replication for example) and has no idea of another ared (DTS for example)
2. With so many different exams it will be more expensive to get certified.
Regards,Yelena Varsha
November 7, 2005 at 2:02 am
Managers and HR would not and should not know all different kinds of availble SQL Server certifications.
If management has provided the correct information (job description, level of expertice, required functions, and certification(s))to the HR department they will be able to provide qualified employees. If management (department manager)does not know what skills he needs then the job opening is for the wrong person. They need a manager who can manage not someone filling a desk (he would have to use his body as there is nothing in his head that could fill any space).
I am not sure that the new certification process will be better than the old one but it is a step in the right direction.
As for the cost updating the skills of its workforce should be a corporate responsibility. If the certification process does measure he skills of an individual then the cost of such certification is a cheap price for a company to pay to verify that its employees have gained the intended benefits from training programs.
Mike
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply