April 6, 2010 at 11:45 pm
CirquedeSQLeil (4/6/2010)
Nicholas Cain (4/6/2010)
Something I've not seen mentioned but really should be kept in mind with this is that cost should really not be a barrier to entry. The huge cost of an MCM is very prohibitive and I wonder if there are more than qualified candidates out there who just can't afford it or persuade their employers to front the cost and time off.We want to keep the cost down. Cost as a barrier wouldn't make this any better than where we are starting. There must be cost associated with it, but it should not be prohibitively high.
This is why I think PASS should be involved and work to have the local PASS chapters certified in some manner to provide the board reviews in the absence of such activities as SQL Saturday, or other PASS sponsored activities where such review boards could be provided.
April 7, 2010 at 12:40 am
Lynn Pettis (4/6/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/6/2010)
Nicholas Cain (4/6/2010)
Something I've not seen mentioned but really should be kept in mind with this is that cost should really not be a barrier to entry. The huge cost of an MCM is very prohibitive and I wonder if there are more than qualified candidates out there who just can't afford it or persuade their employers to front the cost and time off.We want to keep the cost down. Cost as a barrier wouldn't make this any better than where we are starting. There must be cost associated with it, but it should not be prohibitively high.
This is why I think PASS should be involved and work to have the local PASS chapters certified in some manner to provide the board reviews in the absence of such activities as SQL Saturday, or other PASS sponsored activities where such review boards could be provided.
That is two areas where we could use the local PASS chapters to assist with this certification. They could help serve as the review board as well as help by providing feedback on presentations and maybe even labs / projects.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 7, 2010 at 9:05 am
CirquedeSQLeil (4/7/2010)
That is two areas where we could use the local PASS chapters to assist with this certification. They could help serve as the review board as well as help by providing feedback on presentations and maybe even labs / projects.
I guess I'm concerned about the "rubber-stamping" of friends. Some members of the local PASS to be at the lab/project/board, yes. But to be made up entirely of local members, well, I'd be cautious of doing that.
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
April 7, 2010 at 9:31 am
WayneS (4/7/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/7/2010)
That is two areas where we could use the local PASS chapters to assist with this certification. They could help serve as the review board as well as help by providing feedback on presentations and maybe even labs / projects.I guess I'm concerned about the "rubber-stamping" of friends. Some members of the local PASS to be at the lab/project/board, yes. But to be made up entirely of local members, well, I'd be cautious of doing that.
I think this is where video conferencing via the web of one or two disinterested parties would be beneficial.
April 7, 2010 at 10:23 am
Lynn Pettis (4/7/2010)
WayneS (4/7/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/7/2010)
That is two areas where we could use the local PASS chapters to assist with this certification. They could help serve as the review board as well as help by providing feedback on presentations and maybe even labs / projects.I guess I'm concerned about the "rubber-stamping" of friends. Some members of the local PASS to be at the lab/project/board, yes. But to be made up entirely of local members, well, I'd be cautious of doing that.
I think this is where video conferencing via the web of one or two disinterested parties would be beneficial.
Video Conferencing and bringing back in the idea that MVPs be involved. Grant suggested the possibility of these people being consultants for Microsoft. I see that these types of individuals would have enough separation of interest from the individual being certified and more of an interest in the program's success.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 7, 2010 at 10:02 pm
FWIW, I am seeing more people comment about their support for a middle ground certification. There is a little chatter on twitter too.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 8, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Email just fired off to PASS chapter leaders about the survey, editorial, forum threads, and blog postings.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 8, 2010 at 7:00 pm
CirquedeSQLeil (4/5/2010)
One could be any of the following or combination of the following.MCJ
MCJ with an emphasis in Replication
MCJ with an emphasis in CLR
MCJ BI with an emphasis in SSAS
Due to a lack of discussion about this, is it safe to assume that most people are in favor of this?
Actually, in looking over this, I'm going to suggest changing the emphasis in Replication to an emphasis in High Availability. This would cover clustering, replication, mirroring, log shipping, etc.
Since there is a MCJ-BI with an emphasis in SSAS, does this mean that there is a MCJ-BI?
So I guess I'm looking at:
MCJ
MCJ with an emphasis in High Availability
MCJ with an emphasis in CLR
MCJ BI
MCJ BI with an emphasis in SSAS
So, how to you'll feel about this?
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
April 8, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Okay, to try to get some talk going about the review board again. Earlier, I had said
Well, to start off, there are several distinct areas to cover:
1. Who qualifies to be sit on the board?
2. Where will the board convene?
3. How often will the board convene?
4. What topics will be covered by the board?
5. How large should the board be?
Okay, here's my thoughts:
1. I see two groups of people that would qualify:
1). Someone with MCJ certification (in the emphasis area if appropriate) of a least 1 year, and
2). Recognized industry gurus in that area.
I'm not sure of where else to get qualified board members. Edit: it would probably end up to the certifying agency to decide on if someone suitable to be one of these.
2. I feel that the board should meet locally to the maximum extent possible. In cases of hardship, this can be conducted via some sort of tele-conferencing / web-cam approach. Ideally, (IMO) at least half of the board should be physically present at the board, with the other half able to be present via the same tele-conferencing / web-cam. Edit: if possible, all board members should be present.
Additionally, every effort should be made to have boards available at SQL event (SQL Saturday, PASS Summit, etc.) However, we need to be considerate of the board members at these events so that they have time to attend sessions if they desire - especially the volunteer board members.
3. Convening frequency: At least semi-annually. This will probably be a big variable... in some areas, the demand could be such that it would need to be monthly. In other areas, maybe 6 months or longer.
5. Size of the board - I suggest 4, with at least 1/2 being "disinterested" (no conflict of interest).
4. Are we ready to discuss this? Obviously, we want this to be a more detailed, in depth coverage of the topics. I can see this diving into data modeling, set based operations, indexing and index structures, backups, restores, recovery model, etc. for the basic MCJ. I think that there should be some discussion about some of the emphasis topics (should be able to talk about SSIS, SSRS, and high availability - though not at an expert level).
Okay, let's get your input on these topics!
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
April 8, 2010 at 8:30 pm
WayneS (4/8/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (4/5/2010)
One could be any of the following or combination of the following.MCJ
MCJ with an emphasis in Replication
MCJ with an emphasis in CLR
MCJ BI with an emphasis in SSAS
Due to a lack of discussion about this, is it safe to assume that most people are in favor of this?
Actually, in looking over this, I'm going to suggest changing the emphasis in Replication to an emphasis in High Availability. This would cover clustering, replication, mirroring, log shipping, etc.
Since there is a MCJ-BI with an emphasis in SSAS, does this mean that there is a MCJ-BI?
So I guess I'm looking at:
MCJ
MCJ with an emphasis in High Availability
MCJ with an emphasis in CLR
MCJ BI
MCJ BI with an emphasis in SSAS
So, how to you'll feel about this?
I think we need to give it a bit more time, before closing this one out. I know it has been extremely quiet. We can still move on, but this topic should remain open for discussion.
The list I provided is merely a list of suggestions.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 8, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I just discussed this topic with my UG. Without many of them having read my blog, editorial, or these threads - they made many of the same suggestions we have suggested. There is also vast agreement that the process needs to be revamped.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 8, 2010 at 8:37 pm
To be considerate of individuals seating on the MCJ board at conferences I recommend that there be more than one board at such events as SQL Saturday, PASS conferences, etc. This way the board members would be free to attend the various sessions and other activities. If you have 8 or 12 people available, this would make them more available to those seeking the certification.
April 8, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I don't know if I missed it somewhere, but I believe there needs to be an "MCJ T-SQL" somewhere in the mix.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 8, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Jeff Moden (4/8/2010)
I don't know if I missed it somewhere, but I believe there needs to be an "MCJ T-SQL" somewhere in the mix.
Absolutely. I think that T-SQL is far more involved than just running scripts as an admin, or developing a solution. T-SQL encompasses too much to not be in its own category.
Thanks for bringing that one back up.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 9, 2010 at 7:22 am
WayneS (4/8/2010)
5. Size of the board - I suggest 4, with at least 1/2 being "disinterested" (no conflict of interest).
Depending on how the board decides things, I would suggest that the board be an odd number of people so that you don't get a 50/50 split of some approving, others disapproving. Need to have the ability to break a tie somewhere in there.
-- Kit
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 312 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply