September 4, 2013 at 5:59 pm
Thanks Gail. Excellent material and well stated opinion.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
September 4, 2013 at 6:08 pm
GilaMonster (9/4/2013)
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (9/4/2013)
Easily marked doesn't seem to be necessarily an impossible barrier. .... for that matter I'm sure they know how to mark a test.The lab exam (which is the part of the MCM exams that made it hard to game/cheat since you had to actually sit down and do stuff) had to be hand-marked by someone who knew the material. It couldn't be marked by a computer as someone had to go through the completed lab (a virtual machine) and check what was done, it couldn't be marked by the Prometric people as they weren't familiar with the material being tested. From what I heard it took longer to mark than to write.
Eliminate the lab and you have a multiple choice exam that can be braindumped (as the current low level ones are). Keep the lab and it's not scalable to the thousands that would be the target for low level exams without hiring loads of people to mark, and that makes it more expensive to run, pass the costs to the candidates and you have an exam that's too expensive.
I've already been to labs and talked to some folks who took labs at costs employers could afford, and given the seriousness of the skills we're talking about and their value to employers and the actual existance of testing and instructional centers doing exactly what you assert cannt be done, you're just going to have to assume I'm stuck on my posted opinion.
If a student has financed multiple thousands of dollars in computer science tuition, why would this student then subsequently balk at the fees we're talking about to pull down a vendor based certification?
Additionally, I suspect that colleges have been staffing proctors in exams for as long as colleges have been in existance.
I'm not saying your objections aren't worthy of consideration. I'm just posting an alternative opinion here and some counterpoints for the sake of discussion.
It it were a simple problem someone (MS/Oracle/Cisco/Prometric/someone else) would have solved it a long time ago and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
These organisations are in fact currently offering certification in skill levels apart from the MCM. I offered discussion regarding an adjustment to skill levels and additionally relayed my desire for a focus on more of the fundamentals and basics. I'm of the opinion that the MCM is not the only valid certification and I'm guessing that Microsoft might not disagree with that.
September 4, 2013 at 6:45 pm
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (9/4/2013)
...If a student has financed multiple thousands of dollars in computer science tuition, why would this student then subsequently balk at the fees we're talking about to pull down a vendor based certification?
Lots of people taking these exams aren't students. They're professionals that don't easily consider investments in themselves this way. It's sad, but it's a problem in tech. We don't often invest our own salaries back into testing. We do learn on our own, but there isn't any licensure or requirement like a CPA/MD/PE to continue to earn CEUs.
Additionally, I suspect that colleges have been staffing proctors in exams for as long as colleges have been in existence.
Indeed, but colleges are scaled. A proctor watches 30-100 students. These tests are often 1:1 or 1:3. Not easily scaled, though moving this to specific times could potentially help here. Then maybe the cost would make more sense and there would only be 1-12 times a year you could sit for the exam.
I'm not saying your objections aren't worthy of consideration. I'm just posting an alternative opinion here and some counterpoints for the sake of discussion.
These organisations are in fact currently offering certification in skill levels apart from the MCM. I offered discussion regarding an adjustment to skill levels and additionally relayed my desire for a focus on more of the fundamentals and basics. I'm of the opinion that the MCM is not the only valid certification and I'm guessing that Microsoft might not disagree with that.
Those other programs suffer similar issues. Before the MS stuff, it was the Novell CNA/CNE program.
Once there are a certain number of people taking the tests, there is incentive to cheat, to get braindumps, to circumvent the exams.
I'd argue there are ways around this, but they require a) a different approach and b) a large pool or questions that can be easily altered to deter rote memorization.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
September 4, 2013 at 6:49 pm
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (9/4/2013)
If a student has financed multiple thousands of dollars in computer science tuition, why would this student then subsequently balk at the fees we're talking about to pull down a vendor based certification?
The problem is that a college that is not part of the Prometric or similar system can't include the cost of the test in with tuition. So that ends up being additional cost that either has to be funded out of pocket, or by student loans before the beginning of the course. In my case I had the G.I. Bill, but could not do self-study and then use the G.I. Bill to fund the certification exams. I had to pretty much attend a school to get the simple certifications.
And there is a difference between comp-sci and a certification degree.
I was going the MCSE/MCDBA self study route in the late 90's/early 00's. The only tests I sat and passed were the networking test and the NT 4.0 Workstation. Then I ran into a newly minted MCSE that didn't know the <Ctrl>+C and <Ctrl>+V keyboard shortcuts. That sort of shocked me. (We nicknamed him NT for No Talent although he never knew what it meant.)
Since then I have worked my way up on my own. I used my certs from Experts Exchange (EE) to help get me in the door along with my portfolio for my current job, which was a nice step up from my prior position. To get an EE cert you have to show some talent beyond just reading a book or taking a simple test. The lower levels can be a google monkey, but to get to the EE genius level you have to put in work. SQL Server Central counts posts, not real contribution. (No defamation meant, but reality.)
So the MS/Oracle/whatever certs are good to get in the door. To get higher you need to be able to learn and grow.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
September 4, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Jim P. (9/4/2013)
I was going the MCSE/MCDBA self study route in the late 90's/early 00's. The only tests I sat and passed were the networking test and the NT 4.0 Workstation. Then I ran into a newly minted MCSE that didn't know the <Ctrl>+C and <Ctrl>+V keyboard shortcuts. That sort of shocked me. (We nicknamed him NT for No Talent although he never knew what it meant.)
I really want to zero in on this comment because I had a similar experience with a fellow who was similarily surprised by a similar shortcut I was using on windows, but this fellow was also so far beyond me in unix and database administration that his simple lack of trivial knowledge of a particular keyboard was completely meaningless, even if the fellow did routinely used windows during his daily tasks.
Just wanted to offer a counterpoint on that one!
September 4, 2013 at 7:24 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (9/4/2013)
Indeed, but colleges are scaled. A proctor watches 30-100 students. These tests are often 1:1 or 1:3. Not easily scaled, though moving this to specific times could potentially help here. Then maybe the cost would make more sense and there would only be 1-12 times a year you could sit for the exam.
I think that the scaling is clearly an interesting issue, with today's tech, I would keep the high proctoring ratios and then utilize technical leverage for the actual grading. Some of the labs I'm could imagine could use virtual machine technology, and I'd imagine its hard to cheat the evaluators out of whatever results the individual being tested generated on his machine image, especially if we're talking a larger focus on basics as I would hope would be the case.
Sure, this is just talk, and I'm happy to be proved wrong, and any direction taken with certs have complications, gaming opportunities with countergaming measures required, economic and logistical concerns etc, and I think this is a darn interesting subject, and I appreciate Gails efforts in even generating the conversation with the writeup even as I am slanted more towards a downvote on the MCM itself.
I spent a good part of my career working in education so that probably influences my bias against the "only one functional cert" sort of thing I see going on, so when I see counterpoints against the lower level certs and examples of cheating observations, its sort of natural for me to imagine workarounds instead of just giving up on those certs.
September 4, 2013 at 7:34 pm
In a way this doesn't really surprise me, it just confirms statements I've made in the past. Microsoft has shown zero loyalty to the outside developers/DBAs/others who have helped them get their products where they are today. MS has other names for it at each time, but eventually when a manufacturer continues to show complete disregard for those who ultimately got their product revenue, maybe it's time to look at other options.
Phil
September 4, 2013 at 8:53 pm
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (9/4/2013)
I really want to zero in on this comment because I had a similar experience with a fellow who was similarly surprised by a similar shortcut I was using on windows, but this fellow was also so far beyond me in Unix and database administration that his simple lack of trivial knowledge of a particular keyboard was completely meaningless, even if the fellow did routinely used windows during his daily tasks.Just wanted to offer a counterpoint on that one!
I can agree with your experience. There is a difference between OS shortcuts that some people just haven't seen yet and how they approach it. That was just one of several things that clued us in.
I'm not going say that was the sole clue, but it mostly happened in the 00's that he was claiming to be a Windows "god". But he had issues with building a basic batch file, automating reboots and much more. We had a UNIX dialer system. I knew more about it than him from prior experience. He never quite got it. We brought in an AS/400 system, he couldn't get it into the network correctly. There were other incidents.
I was trying to use a simple example. My apologies.
----------------
Jim P.
A little bit of this and a little byte of that can cause bloatware.
September 5, 2013 at 3:28 am
Michelle Gutzait (9/4/2013)
More to read by The Pythian Group[/url]:http://www.pythian.com/blog/the-death-of-the-mcm-program/[/url]
We have MCMs and few DBAs already passed first tests :angry:
Shame!!
That ones a pretty good read! I'm struck by this particular paragraph:
I still think it is beneficial to having an MCSE but the MCM (which I planned to get) meant so much more about the person’s knowledge and ability. I’ve seen numbers around the web indicating that < 1% of folks had it which made it that much more valuable.
When I read that and then realise that the MCM is the only cert many DBA's respect then I can certainly come to the conclusion that Microsoft could very well feel the need to make changes. What does it say when only 1 percent of an industry segment is able to certify competency even among their peers?
September 5, 2013 at 6:35 am
TravisDBA (9/4/2013)
Spot on. This has always been my major bone of contention with these exams. They are just too easy to illegitimately compromise by using braindumps, etc. As long as that exists then the certs don't mean very much IMHO.:-D
Well said and I would add that as long as there are highly successful people out there with no certs at all your point is confirmed that certs don't mean very much.
September 5, 2013 at 6:46 am
But not all of us are Joe Sacks, or Gails, I've only been doing this for about 5 or 6 years (Plus another 7 writing scrips on Oracle). I still think that for those of us still relatively new to administration of these potentially huge systems(at least I still feel new to this), that the Certs help us get our career started. The positions that I see (I'm in a small market city of about 700,000) still want the certs. I'm sure given the opportunity to interview I'd show that I know everything that my cert says I do. Who's to say that I'd get the interview without it? I know that's an entirely different arguement.
Maybe SQL Server central should be the question base. Lord knows there's enough questions in the forum. I'd like to see someone memorize all of this..
September 5, 2013 at 7:15 am
I'm not sure if there is a better place to suggest this but this discussion sounds like a good topic for a survey.
Survey Suggestion:
* I know more successful people who have a lot of certifications
* I know more successful people who have a few certifications
* I know more successful people who have no certifications
* I know roughly the same number of successful people with and without certifications
Enjoy!
September 5, 2013 at 7:23 am
Dave62 (9/5/2013)
TravisDBA (9/4/2013)
Spot on. This has always been my major bone of contention with these exams. They are just too easy to illegitimately compromise by using braindumps, etc. As long as that exists then the certs don't mean very much IMHO.:-DWell said and I would add that as long as there are highly successful people out there with no certs at all your point is confirmed that certs don't mean very much.
Exactly, those tests are just too easy to compromise and once a person has done it, they tend to forget it rather quickly and then what are they left with? Not much to deal with on a daily basis. i have seen far too much of this over the years and had to let several of those people go as well. It ends up costing us more time, money and energy in the long run. Now, I put people on a test server with a temporary login I provide for them and they have to SHOW me how they deal with daily issues in SQL Server. No more written or oral tests for me.. because they mean very little anyway. But don't tell Jonathan Kehayias or Brent Ozar that, they totally endorse them, but they had a vested interest in them, so you must keep that in mind as well:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
September 5, 2013 at 7:31 am
TravisDBA (9/5/2013)
Dave62 (9/5/2013)
TravisDBA (9/4/2013)
Spot on. This has always been my major bone of contention with these exams. They are just too easy to illegitimately compromise by using braindumps, etc. As long as that exists then the certs don't mean very much IMHO.:-DWell said and I would add that as long as there are highly successful people out there with no certs at all your point is confirmed that certs don't mean very much.
Exactly, those tests are just too easy to compromise and once a person has done it, they tend to forget it rather quickly and then what are they left with? Not much to deal with on a daily basis. i have seen far too much of this over the years and had to let several of those people go as well. It ends up costing us more time, money and energy in the long run. Now, I put people on a test server with a temporary login I provide for them and they have to show me how they deal with daily issues in SQL Server. No more written tests for me, because they mean very little anyway. But don't tell Johnathan Keyheyhias or Brent Ozar that, they totally endorse them, but they have a vested interest, so you must keep that in mind as well:-D
Even certs that were properly earned at one point in time can become meaningless pretty quickly if the skills are not used regularly. I hold a ton of them that aren't worth a nickle any more...CNE, Citrix Admin, etc. I am not saying that I am sorry to have spent my time and money on them - they held value for me at the time. I don't pursue certification any more because the returns have diminished. My work experience has served to get me job interviews and offers well enough and I hope not to go through that process again (5 years to retirement).
September 5, 2013 at 9:08 am
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (9/4/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (9/4/2013)
Indeed, but colleges are scaled. A proctor watches 30-100 students. These tests are often 1:1 or 1:3. Not easily scaled, though moving this to specific times could potentially help here. Then maybe the cost would make more sense and there would only be 1-12 times a year you could sit for the exam.
I think that the scaling is clearly an interesting issue, with today's tech, I would keep the high proctoring ratios and then utilize technical leverage for the actual grading. Some of the labs I'm could imagine could use virtual machine technology, and I'd imagine its hard to cheat the evaluators out of whatever results the individual being tested generated on his machine image, especially if we're talking a larger focus on basics as I would hope would be the case.
Sure, this is just talk, and I'm happy to be proved wrong, and any direction taken with certs have complications, gaming opportunities with countergaming measures required, economic and logistical concerns etc, and I think this is a darn interesting subject, and I appreciate Gails efforts in even generating the conversation with the writeup even as I am slanted more towards a downvote on the MCM itself.
I spent a good part of my career working in education so that probably influences my bias against the "only one functional cert" sort of thing I see going on, so when I see counterpoints against the lower level certs and examples of cheating observations, its sort of natural for me to imagine workarounds instead of just giving up on those certs.
I think non-profits are probably better suited to tackle this like it's a literature exam (heuristics and human intervention oriented) better than a for-profit company which tend to approach it like it's a math test (easy to program and therefore cheaper to administrate). I think the economics are solvable and that the cost can come down significantly, but I don't think it's going to be cheap no matter how you do it. That requires volume and this certification by it's nature isn't intended for your average SQL Server DBA. I believe it should demand an investment of your time/money and I think people will pay it if it has a credible curriculum.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 103 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply