Certification Thoughts - Part II
-
>Yesterday's editorial provoked some interesting comments, many of which were emailed to me. It seems that some people aren't happy with the certification process, and got mad at me!!
I'm not sure where I didn't get my message across, and I still don't see it. But let me repeat. The current testing doesn't measure real world skills, emphasis on current. Now I haven't been to many training classes in the last few years and let me reiterate that I don't have an MCDBA. Haven't felt the need (I did at one point) and it's not a good "ROI" for me, as someone pointed out in a comment.
But that doesn't mean that I don't think there's value in testing or certification. On the contrary, I think that with the release upcoming of SQL Server 2005, major desktop changes in Longhorn, and W2K3 still young, Microsoft has a TREMENDOUS opportunity to take charge and create a certification program that will change the industry.
Just as many of us grew into this industry by the seat of our pants, so did Microsoft. Not adopting the stodgy, slow moving, conservative ways of the mainframe, they started throwing things out there. Some well built, some with a little wet paint, but more importantly, they provided software developers and every sysadmin with unparalleled opportunity to evolve, grow, and work with the product. No $10k workstations were required, no $1k software licenses. Low cost OS, cheap PCs becoming mass produced and cheap development tools that were effective.
And that's the key here. Testing and certification needs to be "effective". It has to translate into real world skills. We're not certifying technical writers, in which case, having memorized the resource kit and BOL is a good idea. We're trying to certify people that can use the product and demonstrate that to employers and clients.
Which translates into more deployments of the product.
The current cert program benefits MS certainly, as well as training centers. It helps job seekers by giving them something for their resume. But it hurts employers and clients who expect some level of expertise from an MCDBA. I've had people want to use an MCDBA to deploy Analysis Services when the person hadn't taken that elective, had no idea how to set it up, and wouldn't know an MDX query from a APL subroutine. But with the MCDBA cert, people expect that. Same with replication. There are people that are MVPs in SQL Server that don't deal with replication and wouldn't be considered anything near an expert in that area.
I think Microsoft should take charge with new versions of many of their products and revamp the certification program. Rewrite the MCDBA to be an MCDBA 7 or MCDBA 2000. Add in multiple levels of certification, entry, junior, journeyman, master, etc. And start offering MCPs or MCDBA - xxx in various topics. Pass a replication exam, get an MCDBA - Replication, Clustering? Same thing.
But do it right. Require real world experience. Just like my master electrician example, or as a few people have pointed out, require some affidavit type list of experience one has held and include real world, lab exams. I know this will cost more, but there will be real value, which will translate into the willingness of people and employers to invest in careers.
And everyone will benefit, especially the clients who are thinking of purchasing a Microsoft product to fill a need.
Steve Jones
-
Something else that I think was lost in a post I made...
Though I hate, despise, spit upon... silly certs... Everytime a friend asks me to give advice to their children/nephews or neighbor's kid just starting out in computers this is what I tell them:
Get certifications. Get as many as you can and as many cheap ones that you can. Pile them up, mix match, add the acronyms after your name and put the logos on your resume.
Why? Because there are so very, very many places that hire on this basis alone. I had it hard when I started out twenty some years ago, it was difficult not having the paper. Every step along the way, I had to know. And know more than everyone else to get the job, keep the job, get promoted, etc. I had to always keep learning, and never be sure that I knew enough.
When I was 19 and out of work I'd have jumped at the chance. Ten years later than that, (I am absolutely certain) I would not have known half of what I knew from the no cert/paper path or have been half as competent. Ten years later I was glad not going that (easy) way (glad to have more ability), but I know (still now) I would never have chosen the hard road even if I could have seen into the future.
Bottom line: certs are good for the certification companies (profit $), certs are good for the geek getting it (marketability = $). Companies/clients: most don't know any better anyway. Industry: less ability = more opportunity for the consultants. Heck screw 'em if they're not competent enough to discern ability in others.
As to be direct on Steve's follow up point. I disagree that it can ever be done correctly. Simply because there's too much conflict of interest (because it's a business). Look at how Bachelors degree requirements have dropped in the last 100 years: You have to take less courses and less output --theses/etc.-- are required. Academia is supposed to be above the fray of business, but does anybody really think they're not businesses?
-
The cynical in me might now think, that requirements have (sharply) dropped, because people are not able (anymore) to meet this requirements. After all, when should they learn or do something else useful for their brains, when they play xbox, watch TV sh*t like daily soaps, daily talks...?
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url] -
Steve,
I've only recently started reading your daily thoughts, and now I'm sorry I didn't start that a long time ago.
Your original post on certification was well thought-out and right on target. I hope many at Microsoft are reading it right now, and that it motivates them to change their SQL Server certification in the direction you suggested.
Eleven years ago, I co-founded a local Access/VB user group. Because of all the training I've been to that turned out to be less-than-useless, I've always tried to aim any UG presentations I make towards real-world applications and issues. In fact, I usually title my talks things like "Real-World Intermediate T-SQL", or the one I'm working on now, "Real-World Beginning DTS" 🙂
If Microsoft moved its certification in the direction you suggested, there would be more certification tests and more opportunity for them to make money from them. With computerized testing, there is also no reason they couldn't come up with clever ways to test real-world skills as well. It would be win-win form them, the Industry, and us certificate-pursuers.
Best regards,
SteveR
-
Hear! Hear!
Steve - you've hit the nail on the head - repeatedly in fact - wish those poeople at Billy Gates' empire would sit up and take notice.
I've been faced with this internal struggle of taking the certification exams and you've just helped me consolidate the thought that I should attempt ONLY THOSE EXAMS for which I have some practical experience...eg I have loads of design/development experience but practically no administrative one...so I'll just take the exam that is the most pertinent and the heck with the rest of them...that way it'll take the pressure of learning something I have no clue about...and which I'll forget in no time anyway...
ANYONE AT MS LISTENING ???????
**ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI !!!** -
There is no substitute for experience. Period.
I believe that the certifications Microsoft offers should indicate only that a person knows the features of the product and what those features are for. Any company that hires an MCDBA, or any other certified professional, thinking that they know how to use the product and it's features deserves what they get. What they'll get is most likely a green, well educated kid (because kids are cheaper) and a long uphill climb while the kid gains experience. I guess that's what capitalism is all about.
Having said that, anybody hiring??? I'm certified!
-
I think that Microsoft is already re-thinking the certifications along the lines that you suggest.
A couple of months ago I was asked to participate in a survey that had me review several possible certification scenarios and rate them in various ways. There were more levels and more specific areas than currently tested. I don't remember any more specifics than that, or even if it involved SQL Server.
I'll probably be off the review list now. oh well.
-
One of the things I don't like about certifications is that can be very expenssive specially if you plan for more than one and I do agree that so far ROI is not there
* Noel -
Cost has always been a big factor and it's return from the employer. It can mean the fact of either getting the job or not. On the other hand I have been at positions making the same amount or even more then certified people. I am not saying that I can't pass the certification, I'm saying why should I?
-
A useful metaphor is a pilot's license; treating certifications like MCDBA, J2EE, UML, etc. in the same way makes a lot of sense. You get you basic pilot's license when you've completed the basic course and soloed, usually in something like a Piper Cub. Then you get additional endorsements attached to your license by taking further training and testing, such as multi-engine, commercial, jet engine. It is also possible to get certified on a specific model--you can have an endorsement to fly 747's, even though you're not qualified to fly any other type of multi-engine airplane whether jet or propellor driven.
Having MCDBA as the basic certification, and then getting endorsements for Replication, Clustering, OLAP, DTS, heterogenous environments and other topics makes sense. The first endorsements could correspond with the optional exams that you took to get the basic certification.
This would give a good framework for relating experience and certification with client needs.
David Lathrop
DBA
WA Dept of Health -
In the not-so-distant past you didn't need a license to perform duties like plumbing, electrical or even flying an airplane. As the need arose to standardize practices and to protect the public a license was needed for those professions.
Do you see a need for that to happen for IT professionals? Then along that thought should unions be formed as our plumbing and electrical brothers have?
Having the certification should you be able to charge the busines more then none cert's since youve proven by test that your able to do a "better" job?
-
I think your idea is great. I would like to expand on it. There all sizes and types of business using SQL Server, so one test fits all does not match the real world.
Enterprise features should be in an Enterprise test.
The core should cover the essentials for safely setting up and managing a SQL Server system, then add to it replication, T-SQL, etc. and do away with the Windows server - have a subset that SQL people need to know.
Make the exams use SQL Server and Books Online instead of memorization.
With Virtual Server, there is no reason each test cannot use a real environment.
-
I do not like cert either though I have a MCSE title several years ago. But I would say the process to get a cert is rewarding at least in terms of learning something new.
If I could design the exam, I would simple setup a lab and throw a bunch of issues there and ask the tester to solve the issues within 1 day and then write a summary report online. That probably will mimic the real world as much as possible.
-
We should agree on the basic fact that certification <> practical knowledge. It's true that, for certification purposes, you have to poke into areas of SQL Server that you don't use very often. This is probably only enough to say you have heard of it.
I'm mostly what you would call a "development DBA". I was hired to design, develop and code database systems. I can also handle most of the routine DBA tasks but, when asked about disaster recovery -- I know the database should be backed up regularly and that I'd have to dig to get the finer points on log-shipping vs transactional replication vs other methods. Same for high-avaliability -- is MSCS the best or is there something better (chekc out Stratus Servers for some neat hardware solutions and Marathon server for a software implementation).
I think having hands-on experience in the real world (meat space) is better than any certification will ever be but, certification in specific areas that cover something more than BOL is long past due.
--Paul Hunter
-
Unions and programming don't mix. With the plumber or electrician the pipes/wires have to be local to the plumber of electrician. That isn't the case for our line of work. I can and have managed databases in Australia for a client from right here in Dallas Texas. It would be just as easy to have done it here from Calcuta, Bejing, Singapore, etc.
Besides, look at how sucessful unions have been at keeping the garment, auto, steel, etc. jobs here. They helped to raise costs and provide an incentive to take jobs to other parts of the world.
--Paul Hunter
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply