March 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Jeff Moden (3/30/2010)
matt stockham (3/30/2010)
I guess you aren't a supporter of further education then, being as most graduates paid to get those letters after their name.I support higher education... so long as something is actually learned. How about the interview I conducted where a PHD in Mathematics couldn't tell me what 1416 converted to Base Ten would be?
Without some indication of what a person has actually learned, practiced, and retained, all those letters after a persons name are just expensive typesetting.
Now, why was this question important during the interview? Was there a requirement in the job to do such conversions?
March 30, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Jeff Moden (3/30/2010)
AspiringGeek-40457 (3/30/2010)
I can guarantee that training is *not* a profit center for Microsoft.Unless you work for Microsoft or have a Microsoft URL stating that, I'm pretty sure you can make no such guarantee. 😉
Check his sig, first post this thread.
AspiringGeek-40457 (3/30/2010)
Jimmy May, MCM, MCDBA, MCSE, MCITP: DBA + DB DevSr. Program Manager: SQL Server Customer Advisory Team: SQL CAT
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
March 30, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Lastly, I took two certification tests in my career (years ago) and passed them. I was twice certified in Visual FoxPro. Visual FoxPro is now dead. Microsoft killed it off. So I have one question...
Who, and where, at Microsoft, do I write to to get my almost $5,000 dollars back???
If it was VC++ certification I would have given you a name to contact because I think it was canceled to increase users of managed languages. VFP however was the community that killed the certifications because there was an article in Microsoft certified magazine which the VPF users says we don't want no stinking exams. The problem is exams pay for product development.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
March 31, 2010 at 12:15 pm
GilaMonster (3/30/2010)
Jeff Moden (3/30/2010)
AspiringGeek-40457 (3/30/2010)
I can guarantee that training is *not* a profit center for Microsoft.Unless you work for Microsoft or have a Microsoft URL stating that, I'm pretty sure you can make no such guarantee. 😉
Check his sig, first post this thread.
AspiringGeek-40457 (3/30/2010)
Jimmy May, MCM, MCDBA, MCSE, MCITP: DBA + DB DevSr. Program Manager: SQL Server Customer Advisory Team: SQL CAT
Missed the part about SQL CAT. Thanks for the beeline.
So... Microsoft makes no money on training?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 31, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Lynn Pettis (3/30/2010)
Jeff Moden (3/30/2010)
matt stockham (3/30/2010)
I guess you aren't a supporter of further education then, being as most graduates paid to get those letters after their name.I support higher education... so long as something is actually learned. How about the interview I conducted where a PHD in Mathematics couldn't tell me what 1416 converted to Base Ten would be?
Without some indication of what a person has actually learned, practiced, and retained, all those letters after a persons name are just expensive typesetting.
Now, why was this question important during the interview? Was there a requirement in the job to do such conversions?
Because of some third party apps, we did a whole lot of "bit wise" conversions. Further, if someone says, either directly or by letters after their name, that they know something, I like to find out if they actually learned anything or not. Could affect future performance on their part at work and is a basic "attititude check" for "did you actually do anything or did you coast?" I'm thinking that a PHD in Mathematics should have been able to answer such an easy question even if it wasn't a "requirement".
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 31, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Jeff Moden (3/31/2010)
Lynn Pettis (3/30/2010)
Jeff Moden (3/30/2010)
matt stockham (3/30/2010)
I guess you aren't a supporter of further education then, being as most graduates paid to get those letters after their name.I support higher education... so long as something is actually learned. How about the interview I conducted where a PHD in Mathematics couldn't tell me what 1416 converted to Base Ten would be?
Without some indication of what a person has actually learned, practiced, and retained, all those letters after a persons name are just expensive typesetting.
Now, why was this question important during the interview? Was there a requirement in the job to do such conversions?
Because of some third party apps, we did a whole lot of "bit wise" conversions. Further, if someone says, either directly or by letters after their name, that they know something, I like to find out if they actually learned anything or not. Could affect future performance on their part at work and is a basic "attititude check" for "did you actually do anything or did you coast?" I'm thinking that a PHD in Mathematics should have been able to answer such an easy question even if it wasn't a "requirement".
Okay, I was just curious. By the way, anything much larger and I would have needed paper and pencil to answer the question. Conversion between base 8 and base 16 I find quite easy on paper, just as a side comment.
March 31, 2010 at 1:55 pm
So... Microsoft makes no money on training?
Do you consider "makes no money" and "is not a profit center" to be the same thing?
I don't know whether MSFT makes any money from certifications or not. I do know that MSFT saves money indirectly through training and certification because smarter users = less support calls.
But does the # of certifications affect MSFT's stock price the way sales of Windows 7 or Office or other products do? Absolutely not. Why? Because it's not a profit center.
So, yes, MSFT is guilty of saving a little money by making the users of their products smarter in how to use them. But, no it's not a profit center.
March 31, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Robert Davis (3/31/2010)
So... Microsoft makes no money on training?
Do you consider "makes no money" and "is not a profit center" to be the same thing?
I don't know whether MSFT makes any money from certifications or not. I do know that MSFT saves money indirectly through training and certification because smarter users = less support calls.
But does the # of certifications affect MSFT's stock price the way sales of Windows 7 or Office or other products do? Absolutely not. Why? Because it's not a profit center.
So, yes, MSFT is guilty of saving a little money by making the users of their products smarter in how to use them. But, no it's not a profit center.
Heh... bean counter semantics... does training make money for Microsoft in one form or another or not? I don't have a problem with it if MS does but let's not couch it in terms like "training is not a profit center".
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 31, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Just thought I'd throw in my two bob's worth.
I've only ever worked as a permanent employee and I've changed companies (not jobs/roles) very infrequently (3 companies in 25 years).
At one stage I did decide to get my Novell certification. However at the first course there were a couple of the people who were long-term unemployed who, thanks to some government scheme, had been sent to get certification so they could get jobs. That immediately put me off that certification and all others.
My view now is that if a company uses the absence of certification as a filter then I don't want to work long-term at that company. If I was a consultant or someone who changed jobs regularly I would probably have a different, more inclusive attitude to maximise my prospects. However, with a long-term employment view I'd much rather people filter resumes on experience rather than certification. My view of the recruitment process is:
1. Filter resumes on experience
2. Short interview to focusing on soft-skills and personal fit into company, confirming technical knowledge on the side
rather than:
1. Filter on certifications
2. Long interview to determine knowledge, with less focus on personal aspects, or even a second interview.
The biggest issue I see with the vast majority of vendor certifications is that there is no entry criteria. Almost anyone off the street can pass the exams with a bit of effort, and there's been reports of cases of people paying others to sit exams (hopefully they get caught early in the interviews). If there were entry criteria such as "2 years experience in the relevant field" then I'd give certification much more serious consideration. There's the issue of policing the entry criteria, but to me the certification should confirm the knowledge, not allude to it.
The other thing that would make me give more weight to certification would be if the exams were more difficult, although I've never sat an exam so I'm basing that on anecdotal evidence only.
March 31, 2010 at 6:06 pm
I'm not sure MS makes money on training. If they do, it's so little that it doesn't register on the annual report. A quick scan through notes and details doesn't register MSPress or learning as much of an impact.
I suspect that the idea with MS Press and the training is that it makes customers feel confident in their people, and it gives authors and users a chance to showcase skills. If you've made an investment in the MCITP, then you are likely to use the technology, so more sales.
Not a profit center I think is a way of saying that that group isn't necessarily accountable for being a no-loss group. I suspect they try, but don't worry as long as they're not losing too much money.
March 31, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (3/31/2010)
I'm not sure MS makes money on training. If they do, it's so little that it doesn't register on the annual report. A quick scan through notes and details doesn't register MSPress or learning as much of an impact.I suspect that the idea with MS Press and the training is that it makes customers feel confident in their people, and it gives authors and users a chance to showcase skills. If you've made an investment in the MCITP, then you are likely to use the technology, so more sales.
Not a profit center I think is a way of saying that that group isn't necessarily accountable for being a no-loss group. I suspect they try, but don't worry as long as they're not losing too much money.
Keep in mind this also pays for a lot of the "free training" (for charities, the school programs etc...) from the certifications. MS actually does a LOt of that kind of pro bono work. So - the overall training budget essentially zeroes out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
March 31, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (3/31/2010)
I'm not sure MS makes money on training. If they do, it's so little that it doesn't register on the annual report. A quick scan through notes and details doesn't register MSPress or learning as much of an impact.I suspect that the idea with MS Press and the training is that it makes customers feel confident in their people, and it gives authors and users a chance to showcase skills. If you've made an investment in the MCITP, then you are likely to use the technology, so more sales.
Not a profit center I think is a way of saying that that group isn't necessarily accountable for being a no-loss group. I suspect they try, but don't worry as long as they're not losing too much money.
Now, that I can buy. Thanks, Steve.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 31, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Glenn Dorling (3/31/2010)
Just thought I'd throw in my two bob's worth.I've only ever worked as a permanent employee and I've changed companies (not jobs/roles) very infrequently (3 companies in 25 years).
At one stage I did decide to get my Novell certification. However at the first course there were a couple of the people who were long-term unemployed who, thanks to some government scheme, had been sent to get certification so they could get jobs. That immediately put me off that certification and all others.
My view now is that if a company uses the absence of certification as a filter then I don't want to work long-term at that company. If I was a consultant or someone who changed jobs regularly I would probably have a different, more inclusive attitude to maximise my prospects. However, with a long-term employment view I'd much rather people filter resumes on experience rather than certification. My view of the recruitment process is:
1. Filter resumes on experience
2. Short interview to focusing on soft-skills and personal fit into company, confirming technical knowledge on the side
rather than:
1. Filter on certifications
2. Long interview to determine knowledge, with less focus on personal aspects, or even a second interview.
The biggest issue I see with the vast majority of vendor certifications is that there is no entry criteria. Almost anyone off the street can pass the exams with a bit of effort, and there's been reports of cases of people paying others to sit exams (hopefully they get caught early in the interviews). If there were entry criteria such as "2 years experience in the relevant field" then I'd give certification much more serious consideration. There's the issue of policing the entry criteria, but to me the certification should confirm the knowledge, not allude to it.
The other thing that would make me give more weight to certification would be if the exams were more difficult, although I've never sat an exam so I'm basing that on anecdotal evidence only.
Steve actually wrote about the "Missing Certification" in one of his editorials and the discussion that follows (although it get's heated by a couple of tangents) is quite interesting. One of the things you might be interested in is that some folks are proposing that you have to have a certain amount of "time in service" for the very reasons you talked about above. I don't actually care about TIS so long as someone can get the job done and that's where the rest of the story comes in about this proposed missing certification... you'd have to go through a "peer review board" much like some folks have to with certain industrial certifications for journyman. In fact, the proposed name of the cert is "MCJ" which I believe stands for "Microsoft Certified Journyman". It's not a cert, yet, but I can see something of that nature coming about because current MS Certs frequently take a beating, again, for the very reasons you've stated... especially by folks like me. 😛
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 1, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Jeff Moden (3/31/2010)
Heh... bean counter semantics... does training make money for Microsoft in one form or another or not? I don't have a problem with it if MS does but let's not couch it in terms like "training is not a profit center".
Bean counting would be if I said, "My shirt's not red, it's maroon." What we're talking about would be more analogous to me saying, "My shirt's not red, it's blue."
The other poster stated that it was a profit center, and Jimmy said that it's not. You're the one who jumped semantics and tried to imply that Jimmy was saying that it does not make any money.
I merely tried to be specific to adress what you said as well as what the other poster said. Is it a profit center? No. Does MSFT make any money on certification? I don't know.
April 2, 2010 at 11:59 am
All I wanted to know is whether or not Microsoft makes money at training or not. My analogy is "is Microsoft wearing a shirt or not." 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply