March 26, 2010 at 1:37 pm
You lost me again. The clause "to be positive that is something to digest" doesn't seem to connect to or follow from the prior clause, but I'm not sure what concept is missing.
Are you saying that it's hard to digest the idea that education is a privilege? If so, please post a thesis on why that should be changed, and I'll read it and see if I agree with you. I currently don't, but I've changed my mind on important matters many times when presented with adequate argument and data on the subject. I suggest a blog post (if you don't already have a blog, it's easy enough to start one). Send me a link once you've posted it. Or, if you feel that someone else has already adequately presented the case for this, refer me to their writings, and I'll study them.
I have provided many technical reasons why I did not agree with the proposed credential and the methodology of validation which are taken as Microsoft bashing and negative. When the privileged thinks education is a privilege that is a different topic.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
March 26, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Peer review. For the MCJ, would this need to be a video, or could a project, including code, that could be tested in a lab environment by independent individuals be a part of the cert?
I think this should be in a lab environment, not a video. I also think that video conference calls could be a part of peer review. Do your lab and then sit down and discuss it with a small panel of people who have been there and done that.
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
March 26, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Gift Peddie (3/26/2010)
You lost me again. The clause "to be positive that is something to digest" doesn't seem to connect to or follow from the prior clause, but I'm not sure what concept is missing.
Are you saying that it's hard to digest the idea that education is a privilege? If so, please post a thesis on why that should be changed, and I'll read it and see if I agree with you. I currently don't, but I've changed my mind on important matters many times when presented with adequate argument and data on the subject. I suggest a blog post (if you don't already have a blog, it's easy enough to start one). Send me a link once you've posted it. Or, if you feel that someone else has already adequately presented the case for this, refer me to their writings, and I'll study them.
I have provided many technical reasons why I did not agree with the proposed credential and the methodology of validation which are taken as Microsoft bashing and negative. When the privileged thinks education is a privilege that is a different topic.
I have to disagree with your statement. Nothing you provided were technical reasons why you did not agree with the proposed credential and methodology of validation.
Your comments were about PMP and Novell, which were offered as simply models from which to work. At no point in this discussion have we even come close to presenting a formal method of validating any form of credential. we are exploring possible means of creating a certification which has been called MCJ (and may never even be a Microsoft Certification) and how it may be managed.
Some have suggested earlier that this could even be a third party certification that fills the gap between Microsofts MCITP and MCM.
At this point I have to ask, do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, or do you intend to continue bashing what is, at this point, simply an academic endeavor?
March 26, 2010 at 1:54 pm
The Dixie Flatline (3/26/2010)
Peer review. For the MCJ, would this need to be a video, or could a project, including code, that could be tested in a lab environment by independent individuals be a part of the cert?
I think this should be in a lab environment, not a video. I also think that video conference calls could be a part of peer review. Do your lab and then sit down and discuss it with a small panel of people who have been there and done that.
I would think that the panel should even include someone without experience in a particular area. For instance, setting up a Database mirroring environment for high availability. Someone who knows nothing about database mirroring may be an asset on the panel. Does the lab and discussion help this individual understand something they haven't worked with? Was the information and the lab done in such a manner to help others to learn as well as meet a specific need.
March 26, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Lynn Pettis (3/26/2010)
The Dixie Flatline (3/26/2010)
Peer review. For the MCJ, would this need to be a video, or could a project, including code, that could be tested in a lab environment by independent individuals be a part of the cert?
I think this should be in a lab environment, not a video. I also think that video conference calls could be a part of peer review. Do your lab and then sit down and discuss it with a small panel of people who have been there and done that.
I would think that the panel should even include someone without experience in a particular area. For instance, setting up a Database mirroring environment for high availability. Someone who knows nothing about database mirroring may be an asset on the panel. Does the lab and discussion help this individual understand something they haven't worked with? Was the information and the lab done in such a manner to help others to learn as well as meet a specific need.
Any reason why this type of thing couldn't be done as a small user group presentation? Here's the lab, discussion etc. It might add a requirement that some may say would be out of the scope of this type of certification, but being able to present issues etc to management, project teams etc is a skill no DBA should be without...
Also it would help with the whole, we need speakers bit from the USer Group presidents and such...
-Luke.
March 26, 2010 at 2:01 pm
The easiest way to show how much of a privilege it is would be to look at the costs associated. Higher education for my oldest (including room and board, another privilege), for 4 years is nearly $150K (my youngest begins that trek in three years). Do you know of any free colleges/universities that you have the right to attend? I don't. We chose to send both our girls to a private primary scholl. The cost of that privilege, over a total of 14 years? Around $60K. I got lucky with middle education, a couple of the best public schools in the city (one ranks 3rd in the nation). Free from a monetary perspective but the cost was/is untold hours of studying/homework and Dad helping whenever possible (my privilege) to achieve those scores. They could've taken the easy way out but they realized what a privilege it would be to actually excel, and at some point have the privilege of working in an area that they want to because they are good at what they do! They may not get rich in their chosen professions but at least they'll enjoy what they'll being doing. Priceless.
-- You can't be late until you show up.
March 26, 2010 at 2:10 pm
I think you guys are mixing up education versus basic education. Basic Education upto 10th grade that is is not a privilege it is a necessity. Education beyond that which is vocation oriented happens to be a privilege in most of the world, not just this country. Not all but most of the world. We can argue at length on pros and cons of that but a sql server forum is perhaps not the right place to do it. I wish Gift would consider agreeing to disagree and let the discussion proceed on its own lines among those of us who are interested in it.
March 26, 2010 at 2:11 pm
I have to disagree with your statement. Nothing you provided were technical reasons why you did not agree with the proposed credential and methodology of validation.
Your comments were about PMP and Novell, which were offered as simply models from which to work. At no point in this discussion have we even come close to presenting a formal method of validating any form of credential. we are exploring possible means of creating a certification which has been called MCJ (and may never even be a Microsoft Certification) and how it may be managed.
Some have suggested earlier that this could even be a third party certification that fills the gap between Microsofts MCITP and MCM.
At this point I have to ask, do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, or do you intend to continue bashing what is, at this point, simply an academic endeavor?
My objections are Microsoft bashing, negative and off topic comments, while you are presenting an academic endeavor. That is very patronizing when I was the one who in a few seconds saw the technical flaw in the project outline posted. Software engineering is an implementation business.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
March 26, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Actually, Luke, TDWI's CBIP certification requires recertification every three years. Part of what can be used for recertification credits includes Teaching/Lecturing/Presenting where one would get credit for the development and initial presentation of educational material.
Doing a presentation to a users group could provide the panel and the users group could submit their evaluation of the presentation to the governing body. This could facilitate more individuals seeking the MCJ, and would hopefully get more individuals involved in supporting it. Hopefully, the users groups would not become simply rubber stamps in the process.
March 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Gift Peddie (3/26/2010)
I have to disagree with your statement. Nothing you provided were technical reasons why you did not agree with the proposed credential and methodology of validation.
Your comments were about PMP and Novell, which were offered as simply models from which to work. At no point in this discussion have we even come close to presenting a formal method of validating any form of credential. we are exploring possible means of creating a certification which has been called MCJ (and may never even be a Microsoft Certification) and how it may be managed.
Some have suggested earlier that this could even be a third party certification that fills the gap between Microsofts MCITP and MCM.
At this point I have to ask, do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, or do you intend to continue bashing what is, at this point, simply an academic endeavor?
My objections are Microsoft bashing, negative and off topic comments, while you are presenting an academic endeavor. That is very patronizing when I was the one who in a few seconds saw the technical flaw in the project outline posted. Software engineering is an implementation business.
What is the technical flaw? Spell it out in detail. Why is this NOT going to work? What ideas do you have that may help make it work?
March 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Gift Peddie (3/26/2010)
I have to disagree with your statement. Nothing you provided were technical reasons why you did not agree with the proposed credential and methodology of validation.
Your comments were about PMP and Novell, which were offered as simply models from which to work. At no point in this discussion have we even come close to presenting a formal method of validating any form of credential. we are exploring possible means of creating a certification which has been called MCJ (and may never even be a Microsoft Certification) and how it may be managed.
Some have suggested earlier that this could even be a third party certification that fills the gap between Microsofts MCITP and MCM.
At this point I have to ask, do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, or do you intend to continue bashing what is, at this point, simply an academic endeavor?
My objections are Microsoft bashing, negative and off topic comments, while you are presenting an academic endeavor. That is very patronizing when I was the one who in a few seconds saw the technical flaw in the project outline posted. Software engineering is an implementation business.
We have duly noted that you do not feel an interim certification is necessary. Might I suggest that your 'documentation' of that objection is complete?
---------------------------------------------------------
How best to post your question[/url]
How to post performance problems[/url]
Tally Table:What it is and how it replaces a loop[/url]
"stewsterl 80804 (10/16/2009)I guess when you stop and try to understand the solution provided you not only learn, but save yourself some headaches when you need to make any slight changes."
March 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Lynn Pettis (3/26/2010)
Actually, Luke, TDWI's CBIP certification requires recertification every three years. Part of what can be used for recertification credits includes Teaching/Lecturing/Presenting where one would get credit for the development and initial presentation of educational material.Doing a presentation to a users group could provide the panel and the users group could submit their evaluation of the presentation to the governing body. This could facilitate more individuals seeking the MCJ, and would hopefully get more individuals involved in supporting it. Hopefully, the users groups would not become simply rubber stamps in the process.
I suppose the emphasis (mine) above is more or less what I was thinking about. Particularly, if a group like PASS decided this would be a good thing to pursue, the panels are already there. I'd still see that there might be a video recording of the UG preso, to be submitted along with the evals, that way it would have a better chance of not just being a rubber stamp.
-Luke.
March 26, 2010 at 2:21 pm
What is the technical flaw? Spell it out in detail. Why is this NOT going to work? What ideas do you have that may help make it work?
If you did not see it I left out condescending. Now have a nice day.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
March 26, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Gift Peddie (3/26/2010)
What is the technical flaw? Spell it out in detail. Why is this NOT going to work? What ideas do you have that may help make it work?
If you did not see it I left out condescending. Now have a nice day.
Okay, so basically, you have nothing to offer, correct?
March 26, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Luke's idea sounds pretty appealing and by the way the Microsoft Certified Trainer program does have this going, a video of presentation/teaching session at a third party trainer location. My only hassle with that is that not all sql experts are good trainers/presenters, granted that is a very popular path to go but there are lot of 'quiet experts' out there too plus a lot of very savvy preseters who are not as great as they seem to be. Presenting expertise does not have to add up to technical expertise.
Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 685 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply