April 2, 2010 at 6:20 am
That's the problem with bringing titles and time in rate to the equation. One of the best DBA's I know isn't a DBA, she's a developer; Gail Shaw. I think this mid-level certification needs to focus on technology and ability, period. Sweating someone's title or the lack thereof, or their time on the job just doesn't matter. Set a decently high bar. If people clear it, they're certified. If they don't... go study and come back again in 3-6-9 months and try it again.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
April 2, 2010 at 7:14 am
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
Set a decently high bar. If people clear it, they're certified. If they don't... go study and come back again in 3-6-9 months and try it again.
This brings up something that hasn't been mentioned yet... how soon can you attempt to retake the cert if you don't make it the first time? I like 3 mos... long enough to give you the time to learn what you know you missed, not so long that you don't want to be bothered with it any more.
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
April 2, 2010 at 7:23 am
Retakes are important, and there should be some time. I think that Novell allowed one retake for free and then you had to wait at least a week or a month to retake. That policy would make sense to me. I'd like to see people get the chance to go again quickly, since they could be nervous, or make a silly set of mistakes. First time can be intimidating. Also at a lower, or free, cost for the retake. However 2 failures to me, would mean that you'd need to wait a bit before another exam.
April 2, 2010 at 7:23 am
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
That's the problem with bringing titles and time in rate to the equation. One of the best DBA's I know isn't a DBA, she's a developer; Gail Shaw. I think this mid-level certification needs to focus on technology and ability, period. Sweating someone's title or the lack thereof, or their time on the job just doesn't matter. Set a decently high bar. If people clear it, they're certified. If they don't... go study and come back again in 3-6-9 months and try it again.
Grant,
I can go in a few different directions with this, so I'm going to ask you to clarify.
Are you saying that there shouldn't be separate MCJ-DBA, MCJ-SSAS, MCJ-BI certifications?
Or are you saying that the time-in-service requirement should be time with the product, not time specifically as a DBA?
Or are you saying to just toss the time-in-service requirement completely?
I feel that you are saying the last, but I just want to be sure I completely understand you.
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
April 2, 2010 at 7:30 am
WayneS (4/2/2010)
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
That's the problem with bringing titles and time in rate to the equation. One of the best DBA's I know isn't a DBA, she's a developer; Gail Shaw. I think this mid-level certification needs to focus on technology and ability, period. Sweating someone's title or the lack thereof, or their time on the job just doesn't matter. Set a decently high bar. If people clear it, they're certified. If they don't... go study and come back again in 3-6-9 months and try it again.Grant,
I can go in a few different directions with this, so I'm going to ask you to clarify.
Are you saying that there shouldn't be separate MCJ-DBA, MCJ-SSAS, MCJ-BI certifications?
Or are you saying that the time-in-service requirement should be time with the product, not time specifically as a DBA?
Or are you saying to just toss the time-in-service requirement completely?
I feel that you are saying the last, but I just want to be sure I completely understand you.
Several people have said we should toss the Time in Service requirement. When I look at this requirement I believe it should be based on time working with the product. It shouldn't matter if you are a DBA or Developer. The only differential I thought about was spliting out the DBA/Developer into two separate MCJ certs. Each would have a common core, byt a second test would then differentiate the two certs.
April 2, 2010 at 7:36 am
WayneS (4/2/2010)
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
That's the problem with bringing titles and time in rate to the equation. One of the best DBA's I know isn't a DBA, she's a developer; Gail Shaw. I think this mid-level certification needs to focus on technology and ability, period. Sweating someone's title or the lack thereof, or their time on the job just doesn't matter. Set a decently high bar. If people clear it, they're certified. If they don't... go study and come back again in 3-6-9 months and try it again.Grant,
I can go in a few different directions with this, so I'm going to ask you to clarify.
Are you saying that there shouldn't be separate MCJ-DBA, MCJ-SSAS, MCJ-BI certifications?
Or are you saying that the time-in-service requirement should be time with the product, not time specifically as a DBA?
Or are you saying to just toss the time-in-service requirement completely?
I feel that you are saying the last, but I just want to be sure I completely understand you.
I'm in favor of tossing the time in service. But if there must be a time in service, then I think it needs to be product time, not time as a "DBA." I'm unsure about the break-down of MCJ, but don't disagree that it should be broken down in some manner.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
April 2, 2010 at 7:43 am
Yes I concur with Lynn. The problem I have with 'tossing out time in service' (and I mean time spent working on the product not in any title) - there are as many people who lie about time in service as there are with cheating with certs. To my mind atleast you can know the product theoritically perfect and lack maturity that comes with using it hands on and it may be regarded as an attempt to bridge that gap.
April 2, 2010 at 7:51 am
I think the time in service, as part of the bridge between MCTIP and MCM, actually adds unecessary overhead that is simply going to be gamed anyway. I'm assuming this will be a fairly open certification, meaning, if you want it, go for it. Unlike MCM, which requires you to apply and be accepted or receive an invite. MCM can supply the process to determine that someone has been involved with the product for X years, but if MCJ tries to do that, it's going to either be something that everyone lies about, or it's going to add quite a bit of cost to the process while the claims are verified (and people will still game this verification process). So rather than add another silly level of gaming and fairly substantial cost to the governing body, toss that somewhat unenforceable requirement and keep the focus on where it belongs. Can you do the job? Do you know the technology? Can you make it work? Those things are well above the MCTIP and if achieved will make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
April 2, 2010 at 7:53 am
dma-669038 (4/2/2010)
Yes I concur with Lynn. The problem I have with 'tossing out time in service' (and I mean time spent working on the product not in any title) - there are as many people who lie about time in service as there are with cheating with certs. To my mind atleast you can know the product theoritically perfect and lack maturity that comes with using it hands on and it may be regarded as an attempt to bridge that gap.
I agree with that approach also. Keep in mind that we have been talking a lot about having an employer certify the time-in-service. If this approach is taken, it can still be lied about, but it would now require two people to do so. IMO, this makes it not as likely to happen.
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
April 2, 2010 at 8:01 am
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
I think the time in service, as part of the bridge between MCTIP and MCM, actually adds unecessary overhead that is simply going to be gamed anyway. ... So rather than add another silly level of gaming and fairly substantial cost to the governing body, toss that somewhat unenforceable requirement and keep the focus on where it belongs. Can you do the job? Do you know the technology? Can you make it work? Those things are well above the MCTIP and if achieved will make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.
Grant, you've made a very good argument against the t-i-s... good enough that I'm waffling about it. Regardless of how the t-i-s goes, we need to keep the goal in mind...
make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
April 2, 2010 at 8:16 am
WayneS (4/2/2010)
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
I think the time in service, as part of the bridge between MCTIP and MCM, actually adds unnecessary overhead that is simply going to be gamed anyway. ... So rather than add another silly level of gaming and fairly substantial cost to the governing body, toss that somewhat unenforceable requirement and keep the focus on where it belongs. Can you do the job? Do you know the technology? Can you make it work? Those things are well above the MCTIP and if achieved will make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.Grant, you've made a very good argument against the t-i-s... good enough that I'm waffling about it. Regardless of how the t-i-s goes, we need to keep the goal in mind...
make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.
I wouldn't say I am waffling about, but I could either way. Please remember, these are just ideas put out there for discussion. The more we hear both pro and con help to make a decision that makes sense and can be defended if questioned.
April 2, 2010 at 8:17 am
WayneS (4/2/2010)
Grant Fritchey (4/2/2010)
I think the time in service, as part of the bridge between MCTIP and MCM, actually adds unecessary overhead that is simply going to be gamed anyway. ... So rather than add another silly level of gaming and fairly substantial cost to the governing body, toss that somewhat unenforceable requirement and keep the focus on where it belongs. Can you do the job? Do you know the technology? Can you make it work? Those things are well above the MCTIP and if achieved will make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.Grant, you've made a very good argument against the t-i-s... good enough that I'm waffling about it. Regardless of how the t-i-s goes, we need to keep the goal in mind...
make this cert worth having and valuable to employers.
I'm also at the point where I'm rather ambivalent in regards to TIS, I definitely can see the part about being expensive to administer vs amount of gaming involved. It would require the governing body to manually review each and every application including making followup calls/emails etc. It could easily be a full time position or 2 depending on the success of the cert.
And definitely second Wayne's thoughts about the goal being a cert that's valuable to the employer and employee.
-Luke.
April 2, 2010 at 8:24 am
I can understand surely the overhead involved. I don't believe the process can be totally gamed and there must be some way for someone to verify experiential credentials. It can perhaps be an option an employer can pay for and lots of employers can and will. Am really sorry to hear Wayne thinks he is 'waffling' about it , I didnt think he was and i dont' think it should just be tossed out either. Personally I know young geeks, kids just out of college who can do sql server outstandingly well. I would not hire them to be a DBA simply because it takes maturity to not just learn but to implement technology and that does not come without experience.
April 2, 2010 at 8:44 am
dma-669038 (4/2/2010)
I can understand surely the overhead involved. I don't believe the process can be totally gamed and there must be some way for someone to verify experiential credentials.
How much effort does the governing body have to put into verifying the time someone used SQL Server? Is it a nice letter that is reviewed and followed up with a phone call? Fine I use my buddy's cell phone number, and he tells you how wonderful I am at implementing xyz technology. So ok, the governing body can't trust the phone numbers included in the document... Now I have to search for the phone number of that company and find a way to get in touch with your manager to validate your credentials. Sure there are services that help to automate these things, think skip tracing services for credit agencies, but they all cost money and money = overhead = more expensive tests etc etc...
If people can game these types of things for regular interviews, it isn't hard to imagine the ways they could come up with for other such things...
-Luke.
April 2, 2010 at 8:45 am
As to TIS, if this requirement is being dropped doesn't the J - for Journeyman need to be dropped as well (in my mind this implies having completed some sort of apprenticeship, or level of experience). Just a semantic point, but the cert name might not make sense if you can achieve it fresh out of school.
If the biggest problem with TIS is the overhead, but it still seems valuable for the validity of the certification, then, maybe it should stay but not be strongly enforced. I mean, wouldn't the cert panel be in the same position as any job interviewer: you ask for x years of experience, the applicant supplies a resume that documents that experience; during the interview they answer questions that demonstrate they have the experience they claim and if there's any doubt, references are checked.
If we divide knowledge into "book smarts" and "practical knowledge" (one you get from studying, one from solving real world problems), and the goal of this cert is to acknowledge applicants who can demonstrate both, than TIS may be important. But the dichotomy is not that sharp; i.e. the two types of knowledge reinforce each other.
Therefore, to "game" the TIS, an applicant might falsely claim experience that he or she does not have, but they can only get away with this if they can capably pass the other criteria (which I believe may include both a written and practical exam); therefore only candidates who are borderline might need their experience questioned and in these cases this could be verified by checking a random reference or two.
Candidates who are competent in the other requirements may be able to get away with fudging their experience, but in these cases you don't push it, since competence is competence. So basically, TIS becomes a "nominal" requirement (you're supposed to have it), but it's only going to be verified in the cases of borderline candidates (of course the applicants don't need to know this).
Viewing 15 posts - 541 through 555 (of 685 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply