June 6, 2011 at 3:13 am
I became very cynical about product-specific qualifications back in the mid-90's when I was a freelance PowerBuilder developer. I took the Powerbuilder certification exams (2 papers, each with a passmark of 75%). I got 76% in one paper and 74% in the other. Just taking the exams cost hundreds of pounds. I had been using the product for more than 3 yrears at that point and was very familiar with it. Yet I failed the certification exams. Of couse, Powersoft offered training for them (more £hundreds) and I dare say they would cover the answers to the arcane, irrelevant questions in the exam. I didn't bother. I knew when I was being scammed. It was much more a money-making exercise for Powersoft than an attempt to raise standards (which was much needed).
I agree with an earlier post that a certification can get your CV/resume to the top of the pile in some organisations. But if they hire you for your paperwork rather than what you have achieved, how will they measure your performance in subsequent employment?
I was a member of a 10-strong development team that wrote a CRM system in Powerbuilder for a client. Years later, as a freelancer, I applied for a contract position with that client, to support the very CRM system that I had helped develop previously. I explained I had helped develop their system. They turned me down because they had migrated the application to a version of Powerbuilder one higher than I had been using, so I didn't have experience of their version. Although initially irritated by their shortsightedness, I quickly realised that I had been saved from having to work with those people.
I have just had a new laptop. It has Windows 7 on it. The old one was Windows XP. I've gone up 2 versions of Windows in one go, yet amazingly, I am able to use the laptop without needing to go on a training course.
The other thing that bugs me about recruitment is employers who want you to have done the exact same job before, rather than look to see if you have the skills and experience to fulfil the role. They don't consider the motives of the candidates. Why are they looking to move? It isn't to to the same job for the same pay in a different but similar-looking office. No, the candidate is looking to capitalise on his current skills and experience and take on something more challenging.
June 6, 2011 at 5:33 am
Certification/ education versus experience is a very hot topic in many industries. I was a technical training instructor in a different industry for 10 years. I also worked very closely with a local college on curriculum for related technical degrees.
The industry constantly tried to determine how much formal college level training improved on the job performance. After years comparing real world performance of technicians with college degrees and those without, the conclusions were that the formal training reduced the time to get really proficient and sometimes exposed the person to topics they often didn't see by experience only. But after a few years on the job, the differences between those with degrees and those without were relatively minimal.
One conclusion was firm for all people. Everyone needed regular continuing education throughout their careers to stay current. The purpose of my job was to prepare and conduct regular training sessions on new technologies and specialties. We learned just taking the training was more important than any test results. We found very little correlation between test results and real world performance and eventually eliminated almost all testing.
Certification was a very contentious topic and many companies and many smart educators and experts in their fields tried to find methods to test real world proficiency. The consensus was that almost all testing and certification just certified a person learned the content of the test, and did not necessarily indicate they understood the topic. Validating a test used for any purpose was/is very complex. In our training, we never certified anyone. We just indicated if they successfully completed the training.
When my company looked at the credentials of prospective employee, we didn't care much about certifications, but looked for a pattern of continuing education. In fact, certifications were sometimes considered a negative, particularly for less experienced job applicants. Our experience was that many thought they were more "expert" that they really were. In the end, there is no substitute for experience.
Some career paths do require a lot of specialized formal training, such as engineering and medical as experience alone may not expose a person to every topic needed for the specially. But even those industries place a very high value on experience. In my mind, the real question here is not the value of certifications, but how much formal training is required in our industry. A very high percentage of experts I have encountered as mostly self taught. Their experience demonstrated a need for certain knowledge and they sought it out on their own in their own way. The quest was for knowledge and solutions to problems, not a certification to hang on a resume. That may have resulted in getting a "certificate", but that is often secondary to the primary goal.
I work for a small software company and 2 key programmers have no related certifications or formal training. One never even went to college, and the other has advanced degrees, but not in computer science. However, both regularly keep up to speed on new related technologies. We have other software engineers with certifications and related degrees and the differences in capability in the real world are very slight
June 6, 2011 at 6:39 am
Well said!
I believe that the exams have to be updated in the sense that they need to reflect real world situations and not memorizing BOL.
Here is what I would do to the exam process.
1) All questions that can be found in BOL should be removed. With the internet and BOL do you really need to know that that switch parameter?
2) Developer related questions should be left to developers not DBAs
3) Exam should be instructor monitored. Meaning that you are presented with a SQL server, shown a problem(s) and then the instructor(s) look on as your determine the solution(s).
4) No negative points for the GUI. Isn't the GUI suppose to make your life easier? So why not use it.
5) Higher level exams should require several years of experience and letters of employment before they can be written. Like a sponsership.
Also have to show that you have given back to the community with articles you have writen, scripts created and maybe some community service like mentoring a junior DBA.
This is how I would make the certifications worth more for both companies and DBAs.
Wouldn't you want to hire someone who passed this exam?
Thanks,
Rudy
Rudy
June 6, 2011 at 6:54 am
I've been in the business over 30 years and am something of a jack of all trades (and yes, a master of almost none 🙂 ). I used to work for a consulting firm back in the early 90's and they were an MS-exclusive shop and absolutely mad (as in Mad Hatter) about certifications. They wanted everyone to have at least 2 so they could have bragging rights with customers.
Funny thing though. The only certifications I've ever had were in PowerBuilder, not MS, and those while working for a client of the consulting business. Our client decided PowerBuilder was The Wave Of The Future(tm) and had all developers go through crash courses and take the certificatiosn.
Certifications are *useless*, folks. They may impress the brass that don't actually know anything about IT, but that's all they do--and they're horrifically expensive as well.
So like Steve said. Revenue for the vendors and squat-all for the holders.
Now an MS MVP is a different animal, but I believe those MVP's are granted for real-world in-the-trenches experience and *demonstrated* expertise. That's the kind of certifications that mean something, not a rote test you can study for...
June 6, 2011 at 7:52 am
jerry.francis2 (6/5/2011)
In defense of the certification, however, Management and the clueless (but wait, I'm being redundant), likes to show their clients lots of nomenclature besides someones name to sell them. I, myself, now that I am clueless am planning to get certified on those grounds alone.
fixt 😀
I seem to lean towards the idea of a certification being a form continued education. Stay current with the technology to improve processes and add value to the business. I lack the degree and the certification, so if the only thing a cert does is keep my CV in the pile instead of the trash, it's worth it. But like everyone else, I would never assume knowledge of a subject because of fancy letters. If that were the case, Mr. GSquared is the most qualified person on this whole site!
GSquared
- GSquared, OEC, FEBC, HDA, RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, ARCSW, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ETC
June 6, 2011 at 8:07 am
brightbillconsulting (6/6/2011)
One conclusion was firm for all people. Everyone needed regular continuing education throughout their careers to stay current. The purpose of my job was to prepare and conduct regular training sessions on new technologies and specialties. We learned just taking the training was more important than any test results. We found very little correlation between test results and real world performance and eventually eliminated almost all testing.
I think it is fairly clear exams test short term memory retention whereas jobs typically require problem solving skills, while education can be incredibly useful as an introduction to principles understanding usually comes through application. Application requires both knowledge of principles and deep understanding and so it should always rank above education by itself.
MVPs are highly rated because it is a a demonstration of knowledge through application...
Maybe colleges should have wider remit in the judging of competency along the lines of MVP accreditation. I could see that it could work but would require a shift in the basis of assessment.
cloudydatablog.net
June 6, 2011 at 8:21 am
roger.plowman (6/6/2011)
Now an MS MVP is a different animal, but I believe those MVP's are granted for real-world in-the-trenches experience and *demonstrated* expertise. That's the kind of certifications that mean something, not a rote test you can study for...
MVP is not a certification. It's an award for community contributions (for the previous year). Most MVPs know their subject areas well, but it's not a guarantee.
But like everyone else, I would never assume knowledge of a subject because of fancy letters. If that were the case, Mr. GSquared is the most qualified person on this whole site!
GSquared
- GSquared, OEC, FEBC, HDA, RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, ARCSW, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ETC
If any of them were actually real. :hehe: 😉
btw, there's a reason several of the regulars here are suddenly sporting long lists of alphabet soup in their sigs. It's not to show off.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
June 7, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I have mixed emotions about all of the letters I sometimes see after some peoples names (I realize G-Squared does it in jest).
When I first became a licensed pilot it was fun to tack those additional letters after my name for the various categories and ratings I obtained including flight instructor. But now after 10 years and thousands of hours it seems a bit silly to do that -- perhaps like trying to comphensate for something? (all of this flying was extra-curricular BTW). I still keep up to speed on aviation (no pun intended) but insuring people around me know that is tiring.
I've been a software developer, system architect and DBA for longer than I care to admit, going back to when SQL server was a Sybase product and UNIX way ahead of Windows in terms of deployment in business platforms. I still don't have any certifications and don't intend on getting any, unless perhaps my employer insisted.
Keeping yourself abreast of current technology is a day to day activity. I don't feel one should pay homage to a document that attests to your knowledge of a subject or technology that may be obsolete in 5 years. In college my first programming courses utilized punch cards on an IBM mainframe. I certainly could not get a job today with that on my resume.
Any good interviewer can determine the level of knowledge and competence of an individual in about half an hour, and they don't need to look at certifications to figure that out.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
June 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm
The premise of this article is right on track as far as I'm concerned. I don't have the certifications, I just have over 2 decades of experience in IT and well over a decade with databases and that experience has helped immensely. Also my involvement here hasn't hurt at all, like others who post often a future employer can get a handle on your demeanor and problem solving skills in a way that is hard to dispute. If you are wrong a lot that will come through, if you can't reason your way out of a paper bag that will come through too. But if you try to help, ask reasonable questions, and graciously take criticism or accept mistakes, it only makes you look better. And if you do that over a long period such as hundreds and thousands of posts, it can easily be assumed that that is how you really are and your skill level, not necessarily what you project in an interview spanning a couple hours.
CEWII
Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply