For Sale - Certifications!

Comments

# Brian Madsen said on October 9, 2006 9:17 AM:

i can see why this one irks you so much Bill...it puts a bad rep on those that's actually taken MS certs (or cisco for that matter).

if the training course is in training facilities and they actually have to pass an exam - then i'm fine by it..

but these guys are promising the certification WITHOUT an exam!!!

# Tobin said on October 9, 2006 4:07 PM:

I have the right people looking at this now. I would also caution you that the reputation of ANY site is in question when they have a main menu item spelled "Testimonil".

# Brian Madsen said on October 10, 2006 2:32 AM:

didn't even pick up on that Tobin..now that's helluva funny!!!

# Sara Morgan said on October 14, 2006 9:41 PM:

The other day I was sitting in my office (at the coffee shop) and I noticed that the guy sitting next to me had a document that was listing questions related to one of the certification exams. It looked like he said some sort of internal Microsoft document related to one of the exams (I know this because I see what they look like since I write the training kits and have worked on developing an Objective Domain for one of the exams). So, excitedly I asked this guy if he worked for Microsoft. I thought perhaps he did what I did. NOT. He was cheating. He had bought and downloaded the document off some web site. He did not tell me where. I told him he should be ashamed of himself b/c he was making the whole process meaningless. He told me that he had already failed the exam once and if he did not pass it this time he would lose his job, so he felt he had no choice. Sad, when people feel they have to cheat to keep their jobs. What are we really accomplishing here people?

# William said on October 15, 2006 11:57 PM:

unfortunately Sara, I think he's the norm more than the exception. It's hard to have a discussion about certs without the word braindump coming up.  I was at a major event about two weeks ago and I heard quite a few people talking about how certs are all BS and all you need is the piece of paper and than braindumps are the way to go.

The one valid point I've heard is that you can be an expert in .NET but not study at all for the exams and still not pass.  but you can konw nothing about .NEt and use a braindump and pass.  And that if you study your a55 off and get a perfect score, there's no distinction between you and the guy that got a 70%. People will point out that Medical boards, the Bar Exam, the CPA and the PE, you actually need to know the material to pass and that prep courses may help you for a few points, but if you don't know the material you're dead in the water. Moreover most practicing attorney can pass the bar today. Most doctors can pass the medical boards today.  So while people draw this distinction mainly as a rationalization for cheating, I think the process does need improvement.

But you and I both worked with MS on this and we know better than anyone that MS does care and is trying (and doing a damn good job) fixing this. Computer programming is new whereas being a doctor, lawyer or engineer isn't. So there isn't parity yet but we'll get there some day and the new MS Architect certification sounds like a wonderful start.

one thing I think is the real problem is how recruiters and managers view certs. It's like they put guys in a position where they have to get the cert or get fired. Personally, I'd just study my a55 off.  But I can certainly imagine  a case where most people might use a braindump if our job depended on it.  How your job could depend on it (unless you're a trainer) is inance to me. I mean, if you can do your job so that people are satisfied, who cares if you have a cert or not? I agree it's a great enhancement, but it's just that, an enhancement - saying basically, " I can do my job, my work history shows that, and yes, I've got the paperwork to show that I know the pragmatic way of doing things and producing results, but I also have the book smarts to match.'

I've found though that recruiters often act like I'm full of crap when they see my resume and then hear I don't have my certs.  I've gotten asked so many times "You've been in IT this long and you don't have any certs?"  Then i point out that i've authored a few books, including two training kits, and that I'm a MVP and then they usually back off. But it's like recruiters just want something tangible they can show clients. And many managers act like as long as you have a cert, they can justify hiring you even if you're a complete retard.  I mean, one company I interviewed at had me scheduled for a 3 hour session of interviews and wanted me to take the Brainbench exams and anotehr set by ProveIt and i was ready to go.  the last company i was at actually had access to all the ProveIt stuff so I was already familiar with it and found it laughably easy.  I was to go to Atlanta to take all this crap (they wanted to be able to monitor you as you took the ProveIt/brainbench stuff) then the HR manager did a quick final screen. she asked me about the books since she hadn't seen that part of my resume before. I told her about them and she said "so you wrote the CERT training kit? " I said "well I coauthored one of them but yes." She wanted to look it up on Amazon and then when she saw it was MS Press, she said "Well if you can write the prep books there's no need in you wasting your time travelling down here" and that was pretty much it. I got the offer the next day. So I got a job offer at a major player in the entertainment/news industry at a really large salary and I did not get one single direct question about .NET. Not one.  All b/c i wrote a book about certs.  While I'm not complaining b/c it makes my life easier, I don't think it's warranted and I don't think I'd really want to work anywhere where they took my pedigree as all the proof they needed about my technical skill. when I interview, i still want the guy/gal to open up VS.NET or Sql Server and perform some tasks.  There's too much cheating going on with certs and even if there wasn't, unless i'm paying you to pass tests, your ability to pass them might correlate with knowledge but it's not a a definite relationship and one that I think should be viewed with scepticism.