|
Home > Archive > microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd > March 2004 > value of certification
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
value of certification
|
|
| Jay Walters 2004-03-15, 11:24 am |
| These are issues we have all been concerned with.
Not to de-credit your effort, however for those wanting
to cheat they can always find some help posted accross
the net. However, I think it's fairly easy for a company
(during the interview process) to weed out "paper mcsds"
and the real deals.
>-----Original Message-----
> I've passed 70-316 exam and received score of 971.
But I'm very
>disappointed. There was hardly a question that I had not
seen in the
>Internet before. The questions had even the same typos.
Everyone can receive
>the certification with a smallest effort.
> Why can not Microsoft renew its test questions from
time to time if it
>is too difficult to keep secrecy? The value of mcp has
greatly decreased in
>my eyes.
>
>
>.
>
| |
| The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere 2004-03-15, 5:24 pm |
| >However, I think it's fairly easy for a company
>(during the interview process) to weed out "paper mcsds"
>and the real deals.
Which begs the question, what is the point? Well from an employers
prospective anyway.
If an employer see's a resume which includes certs, but the employer
know's the cert's don't mean the candidate actual know's jackshit
(brain dumps etc), why should that employer give any merit to the
certification process?
Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
| |
| The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere 2004-03-16, 3:24 am |
| >Round and Round we go.... We'd make for a descent comedy
>team you and I.
hee, hee!
>There are so many ways to attack this,
>I think everyone's situation is unique.
This maybe part of the problem, lack of standardization in the
industry....
>First, there are employers that don't really know about
>the pitfalls of certification or have any real .NET
>resources or talents (demonstrated by the large number of
>job postings listing MCSD as a plus).
>
>For those companies that do know about the pitfalls, they
>obviously will exam work experience more closely. I think
>it depends on the skill set they are looking for. For
>example, a cert doesn't really add anything to my resume
>(or yours). Employers will look at our work history and
>decide how much they're willing to pay. But for a junior
>developer with little experience this is of course
>different.
The 'pitfall' is simply that a company, any company, can not be
reassured that a microsoft certification holder has truly earn the
title. Which is why certification titles do NOT add 'anything' to our
resumes.
According to microsoft, their certifications are not targeted at
'newbies' or 'juniors'. As such certs 'should' be a way for
experienced professional to prove themselves, and which 'juniors'
strive to achieve.
>A consulting company won't pay any attention to the
>certification unless it comes down to a choice between
>two equally skilled and personable developers asking for
>the same salary. It's practically the last consideration
>as the cert helps them to maintain their status.
Or they are an ms partner which has managed to stay in business, and
for some reason need additional certs to keep their status.
>The size of the company (and bureaucracy) also plays a
>role.
>
>Again, I think the value of the cert varies based on the
>individual and the company. And as a last point, (other
>than experience), this is the only tool companies can use
>(for better or for worse).
I agree, but they don't and we all know why. Unless the format and
structure of the certification process changes, the worth of such
certs with continue to wain.
Location also plays a part. I've spent a fair amount of time over here
in the UK. I can tell that over here, certs are almost unheard of.
I've only met a couple of mcsd's and about a dozen mcse's. Rarely do
you see vacancies for cert holders.
>What do you think?
I could right a [crappy] book on what I think!
The biggest problem in IT is that it's not regulated. This has lead to
an ever increasing number of unskilled/unquilfied people at all
levels. As such, the amount of companies that do not have a clue how
to implement and maintain an IT infrastructure has ballooned. I used
to get quite upset about this, but now I think what the heck - it's
real funny!
My on view is that any company that uses and relies on their own
software and IT services or provides such services, should be
accredited with some form of certification along the lines of the
lines of the iso 9000-3 guidelines (and I don't mean ms partner
status, which is meaningless). If that places the unskilled/unquilfied
people at the end of the welfare line, so be it.
Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
| |
| Nice Chap 2004-03-16, 6:24 am |
| I agree entirely with Sergey, the exams have to be reviewed and changed
every fornight or so, otherwise there is simply NO point of getting a
certificate. I feel DEPRESSED after 8 months of preparation. I studied so
many things knowing for sure I would never probably use them. The time spent
on such topics just for the sake of passing exams is what is most
frustrating. At the end of the day if the certificate means nothing then all
that time is a big waste. I agree that I have gained a lot of knowledge BUT
if I had invested the same time on topics that 'I' enjoy, I would be far
happier than I am today.
| |
| Jay Walters 2004-03-16, 12:24 pm |
| Round and Round we go.... We'd make for a descent comedy
team you and I. - There are so many ways to attack this,
I think everyone's situation is unique.
First, there are employers that don't really know about
the pitfalls of certification or have any real .NET
resources or talents (demonstrated by the large number of
job postings listing MCSD as a plus).
For those companies that do know about the pitfalls, they
obviously will exam work experience more closely. I think
it depends on the skill set they are looking for. For
example, a cert doesn't really add anything to my resume
(or yours). Employers will look at our work history and
decide how much they're willing to pay. But for a junior
developer with little experience this is of course
different.
A consulting company won't pay any attention to the
certification unless it comes down to a choice between
two equally skilled and personable developers asking for
the same salary. It's practically the last consideration
as the cert helps them to maintain their status.
The size of the company (and bureaucracy) also plays a
role.
Again, I think the value of the cert varies based on the
individual and the company. And as a last point, (other
than experience), this is the only tool companies can use
(for better or for worse).
What do you think?
~ Jay
>-----Original Message-----
mcsds"[color=blue]
>
>Which begs the question, what is the point? Well from an
employers
>prospective anyway.
>
>If an employer see's a resume which includes certs, but
the employer
>know's the cert's don't mean the candidate actual know's
jackshit
>(brain dumps etc), why should that employer give any
merit to the
>certification process?
>
>Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
>.
>
| |
| Brad Williams 2004-03-16, 12:24 pm |
| I think MCAD or MCSD is a plus now because .NET is relatively new. It is
unusual for people to have a broad knowledge of .NET even after working with
it for 2 years, given how big it is. I always ignored getting certified
prior to .NET, but I have learned a lot from Mr. Kalani, a lot I didn't know
even after working on an ASP.NET app for 1.5 years. Though I admit that in
the interviews I had recently, people seemed to hardly care that I'm
certified. I think it is important to sell the value of your
certifications -- more importantly, the value of your studying for the
certifications -- during the interview. I tell the interviewer about the
"broad though shallow" knowledge benefit of reading three 1000-page books to
get certified. Because it is true.
"Jay Walters" <remove.jjwalters3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfc201c40b09$58107020$a10
1280a@phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Round and Round we go.... We'd make for a descent comedy
> team you and I. - There are so many ways to attack this,
> I think everyone's situation is unique.
>
> First, there are employers that don't really know about
> the pitfalls of certification or have any real .NET
> resources or talents (demonstrated by the large number of
> job postings listing MCSD as a plus).
>
> For those companies that do know about the pitfalls, they
> obviously will exam work experience more closely. I think
> it depends on the skill set they are looking for. For
> example, a cert doesn't really add anything to my resume
> (or yours). Employers will look at our work history and
> decide how much they're willing to pay. But for a junior
> developer with little experience this is of course
> different.
>
> A consulting company won't pay any attention to the
> certification unless it comes down to a choice between
> two equally skilled and personable developers asking for
> the same salary. It's practically the last consideration
> as the cert helps them to maintain their status.
>
> The size of the company (and bureaucracy) also plays a
> role.
>
> Again, I think the value of the cert varies based on the
> individual and the company. And as a last point, (other
> than experience), this is the only tool companies can use
> (for better or for worse).
>
> What do you think?
>
> ~ Jay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> mcsds"
> employers
> the employer
> jackshit
> merit to the
| |
| The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere 2004-03-16, 1:24 pm |
| >I think MCAD or MCSD is a plus now because .NET is relatively new.
Two years in IT is a *very* long time. Excluding the beta's, it won't
be tooooo long before dot net enters it's third generation!
> It is
>unusual for people to have a broad knowledge of .NET even after working with
>it for 2 years, given how big it is.
No really. People need to be aware of how 'things' can be done in dot
net. Dot net only offers another way to do the same things which were
being done (and still are) with pre-dot net tools.
Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
| |
| Brad Williams 2004-03-17, 1:24 pm |
| > >> It is[color=blue]
> even after working with
Well that's been my observation. There are some people out there who are
becoming wise old-timers at .NET, but all the people I've worked with using
..NET could benefit from some good ol' study. With only one year or so of
experience in such a big technology, it's easy for there to be some pretty
bad knowledge gaps. Like the ASP.NET programmer who won't even consider
remoting for his next project, unless he goes off and reads a little about
it. That's where that wide shallow knowledge can come in handy.
By the way, I don't think 2 years is that long for a big technology change.
How many years did it take Don Box to go from "COM is love" to disparaging
all of it's limitations? And people like him move faster than the
programming community.
| |
| The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere 2004-03-17, 2:25 pm |
| > Like the ASP.NET programmer who won't even consider
>remoting for his next project,
And they would be right. Microsoft won't be promoting 'remoting' for
too much longer.
>By the way, I don't think 2 years is that long for a big technology change.
Two years is a long time the technology field. While many conceptional
theories stay the same, technologies and their resulting tools and/or
components change fast, it's how companies compete and get funding for
the next round of initiatives. A good examle can be seen within the
software games market.
>How many years did it take Don Box to go from "COM is love" to disparaging
>all of it's limitations? And people like him move faster than the
>programming community.
There is also the political factor involved here. Without doubt corba
was a far better technical achievement then COM. Granted that this was
mainly to do with the need to cater for good old vb, but nevertheless
it was not as good. As such, microsoft would not want to replace
something that worked pretty well within the microsoft world and admit
that something else was better..
Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
| |
| Brad Williams 2004-03-18, 3:24 am |
| > > Like the ASP.NET programmer who won't even consider
>
> And they would be right. Microsoft won't be promoting 'remoting' for
> too much longer.
I didn't know that. If it's true, it goes to my point that it takes quite a
while for a community (or a company) to understand these big technologies,
how best to use or not use them.
I haven't been around too long, but I did see most of the OLE/COM lifespan.
It went like this: first it was scary because Brockschmidt claimed you had
to study it for a long long time until you achieved OLE Nirvana. (In
retrospect, IUnknown et al are child's play.) A few years later, experts
were asserting on the DCOM mailing list that DCOM is *just like* in-proc
COM...it's that easy! (As everyone admits now, DCOM configuration is hell.)
And for a long time, dual interfaces seemed like our best friend -- until an
expert publicly realized that if your object is exposing multiple dual
interfaces, you'd better put the bong down, because that's pointless. (I
remember an MS employee denying it at the time.)
Now actually COM/DCOM is simple stuff, but I'm impressed by how long the
learning curve actually was for the community. .NET is a much bigger and
more complex, so I'm guessing that at best the programming community is just
now getting a solid grip on best practices for this stuff.
Not to say that I disagree with what you guys are saying, I think my point
is a bit different.
Cheers 
| |
| The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere 2004-03-18, 4:24 pm |
| >I haven't been around too long, but I did see most of the OLE/COM lifespan.
Then you've been around since '93 then?
>It went like this: first it was scary because Brockschmidt claimed you had
>to study it for a long long time until you achieved OLE Nirvana. (In
>retrospect, IUnknown et al are child's play.) A few years later, experts
>were asserting on the DCOM mailing list that DCOM is *just like* in-proc
>COM...it's that easy! (As everyone admits now, DCOM configuration is hell.)
>And for a long time, dual interfaces seemed like our best friend -- until an
>expert publicly realized that if your object is exposing multiple dual
>interfaces, you'd better put the bong down, because that's pointless. (I
>remember an MS employee denying it at the time.)
Can't see how the configuration of DCOM can be considered hard, even
without clireg32!!!
Configuration problems are down to peoples' ignorance and stupidity.
DCOM has rules which MUST be followed, if people ignore those rules,
then indeed, all hell breaks out.
When you refer to 'dual interfaces' do you mean the fact you can only
expose one dispatch (the default) interface to scripts? Well, that's
what I meant about VB (piss poor). However it is possible for scripts
to [late] bind to different interfaces exposed by a single COM object
- you just need to know how!
>Now actually COM/DCOM is simple stuff, but I'm impressed by how long the
>learning curve actually was for the community. .NET is a much bigger and
>more complex, so I'm guessing that at best the programming community is just
>now getting a solid grip on best practices for this stuff.
Yes COM is simple, it does all the work for you, rarely do you need to
build in your own plumbing.
Too right dot net's bigger! But then it is completely different to COM
- dot net's a framework, COM was a standard.
>Not to say that I disagree with what you guys are saying, I think my point
>is a bit different.
A point worth making.
Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
|
|
|
|
|