Windows IT Pro is the authoritative and independent resource for windows nt, windows 2000, windows 2003, windows xp. Features a collection of resources and magazines for windows IT professionals.
  
  
  Advanced Search 


January 1999

The Problem with Certification Programs


RSS
Subscribe to Windows IT Pro | See More Training and Certification Articles Here | Reprints | Or get the Monthly Online Pass—only $5.95 a month!

Beware of superficial qualifications

Professional computer certification programs have been around for a long time, but none has been as successful as Novell's Certified NetWare Engineer (CNE) program or the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) program. Novell and Microsoft created these programs to provide an additional revenue stream for themselves and for third-party companies offering training aids and services. This motivation doesn't mean these programs aren't good, and it doesn't mean the companies' original intent--­to provide a certification process that gives computer professionals recognition for their skills--­was a poor one.

I first ran into a problem with certification programs about 7 years ago when I was hiring the staff for a computer-testing lab. At that time, Microsoft certification programs didn't exist, and Novell's CNE program had been around for only a couple years. The lab's classified advertisements for these staff positions asked for candidates with a 4-year degree or related computer experience. Many applicants for these networking team positions were CNEs.

After interviewing a half dozen promising candidates, I discovered that they all had attended Novell training and had worked on classroom networks, but had no real-world experience. Not that this lack of experience was necessarily bad. All the candidates qualified for entry-level tech positions. However, none of the candidates had applied for entry-level positions, nor did they have what I call the inference engine. That is, not one of the candidates could draw on the information they had learned in the classroom and apply it in an unfamiliar situation. The candidates were able to answer the questions we asked them or perform the tasks we gave them on our test network--­as long as the candidates had covered the questions or tasks in their class work.

I don't mean that every CNE on the planet fell into this category; I knew quite a few who didn't. But I had the misfortune of getting lots of applicants from local computer training schools that promised students they could "be a CNE in 8 weeks; no experience necessary." And I'm pretty sure these applicants weren't the cream of the crop.

I talked to people from Novell about the quality of the CNEs these certification mills were turning out. They listened with great concern, but didn't think they could prevent the existence of such programs. And because businesses were beginning to require CNE training as the price of admission to job interviews, I doubt Novell felt compelled to make any serious changes.

When Microsoft introduced its certification programs, the company really raised the bar compared to the CNE training. Microsoft's program required a higher level of knowledge, offered more intense training, and gave more difficult tests. But the same thing that happened to the CNE program is starting to happen to the MCSE program. As businesses have begun to require MCSE training (in some cases, certification is the only requirement), certification training has become an industry that has spawned dozens of third-party products designed to teach the novice the information necessary to pass the tests. Given the depth of knowledge necessary to pass the tests, the availability of training products seems like a good thing.

The problem is that a noticeable percentage of the MCSE certification test questions have three answers: the right answer, the wrong answer, and the Microsoft answer. An experienced computer professional usually knows the right answer, but also understands the testing process well enough to know the Microsoft answer. The result is that people who have received MCSE training, but don't have experience to back it up, get shortchanged. These people learn how to answer the test questions but don't learn a nonbiased answer or develop the skills to apply the knowledge they've been force-fed. They never realize that MCSE training prepares them for a life in a Microsoft product environment.

I'm starting to see more and more people with the letters MCSE after their name who are less than qualified to be certified systems engineers. I subscribe to seven active NT mailing lists that cover topics ranging from general NT information to hardcore NT development. Over the past 6 months, I've noticed a disturbing trend on these lists: People with the letters MCSE in their .sig files have been asking very basic computer questions. And the trend is not limited to two or three people--­at least 10 to 20 people on almost every list ask questions that anyone with a year or two of on-the-job experience can answer.

   Previous  [1]  2  Next 


Reader Comments
Some of the comments David Chernicoff made in Forefront: “The Problem with Certification Programs” (January) irked me. Having an MCSE or a CNE is a double-edged sword: You get ridiculed for having a certification and not knowing answers to basic questions, but if you don’t have a certification and have little networking experience, no one wants to hire you.
I view a certification no differently from a college degree. Do college grads hide their degree until they have a few years of work experience? No—–they use their degree to help land a job; then, they begin to learn how the real world operates. Why should obtaining an MCSE or a CNE be any different?<br>
--webboy01@earthlink.net

webboy01 August 06, 1999


In recent months, I’ve read several letters and articles in Windows NT Magazine complaining that MCSEs are not worth their salt. I have an easy solution: Require practical experience as part of certification.
I’m a Certified Management Accountant (CMA), an MCP+Internet, and an MCSE. Before I became a CMA, I had to pass courses and exams and complete a minimum of 2 years of relevant work experience. Most professional organizations have similar practical experience requirements for certification. Technology appears to be one of only a few professions without an experience require-
ment for certification. Perhaps now is the time to change.<br>
--Wilson Sun

Wilson Sun August 06, 1999


You may get a lot of mail criticizing David Chernicoff’s Forefront column, “The Problem with Certification Programs” (January 1999), but I am praising it. I stopped striving toward my MCSE when I started working with MCSEs whose work I constantly had to fix. I lost all faith in Microsoft’s approach to certification.
I’ve teamed with several MCSEs who have come up through the ranks and put in the necessary time to understand the environment they perform in and know what works and what doesn’t. However, too many MCSEs have come from fast-track programs and don’t view things from a big-picture perspective. They don’t understand how everything fits together as a system.
A sore point with me is that our industry doesn’t have stringent standards for professional conduct and knowledge levels. The organizations that set up certification processes don’t really provide the student with anything other than a piece of paper. Requiring a minimum knowledge level plus proven hands-on experience is the process we need. Kudos to David for speaking up, and shame on Microsoft for butchering a process that started out on the right track.<br>
--Martin Ercse

Martin Ercse August 06, 1999


As an IS Manager for the past 7 years, I’ve not been impressed with support technicians who attach acronyms at the end of their names. Sure, some MCSEs have sufficient experience to live up to the expectations of being a certified professional. It’s always refreshing to run into a computer support technician who has sufficient experience to have developed what David Chernicoff refers to as an internal inference engine. If only we could certify the ability to apply information to unfamiliar situations instead of the ability to pass a test.<br>
Tom Cross

Tom Cross August 06, 1999


As an IS Manager for the past 7 years, I’ve not been impressed with support technicians who attach acronyms at the end of their names. Sure, some MCSEs have sufficient experience to live up to the expectations of being a certified professional. It’s always refreshing to run into a computer support technician who has sufficient experience to have developed what David Chernicoff refers to as an internal inference engine. If only we could certify the ability to apply information to unfamiliar situations instead of the ability to pass a test.<br>
Tom Cross

Tom Cross August 06, 1999


The ongoing certification debate in Letters (starting in the March issue) in response to David Chernicoff’s Forefront: “The Problem with Certification Programs” (January) has interested and bemused me. I’m constantly surprised by the number of professionals who complain about <i>paper MCSEs</i>. Certification is paper, and passing tests <i>is</i> simply that.
During my former career as a scientist, I found myself correcting the mistakes of master’s degree or Ph.D. graduates regularly. This fact didn’t negate the value of the graduates’ degree, but instead underscored the value of practical experience. I doubt that this situation is uncommon in any professional field that requires a degree, and blaming colleges for producing <i>paper graduates</i> would be absurd. Academic training is only a precursor to the experience of applying knowledge in a business environment.
MCSE training at a Microsoft Authorized Technical Education Center (ATEC) provided a gateway for me to retrain for a new career in IS and prove that I was qualified for an entry-level job (even though I had no computer experience). Training also provided a foundation of knowledge for me to build on with practical experience. We shouldn’t expect someone fresh out of college to have the practical knowledge of a grizzled veteran, nor should we expect the same from a newly certified professional.<br> --David Mann

David Mann August 06, 1999


You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.




Top Viewed ArticlesView all articles
PsExec

This freeware utility lets you execute processes on a remote system and redirect output to the local system. ...

Microsoft Delivers Service Pack 2 Beta 2 for Vista, Server 2008

Microsoft on Tuesday announced the availability of the Beta 2 version of Service Pack 2 (SP2) for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. Since both operating systems were developed from the same code base, they have a common servicing structure and thus ...

Command Prompt Tricks

One reader shares his tip for setting up the command prompt to reflect a remote path. ...


Windows OSs Whitepapers Why SaaS is the Right Solution for Log Management

Related Events Check out our list of Free Email Newsletters!

Windows OSs eBooks Understanding and Leveraging Code Signing Technologies

Safeguarding Your Windows Servers

A Guide to Windows Certification and Public Keys

Related Training and Certification Resources Become a VIP member of the Windows IT Pro community!
Get it all with the VIP CD and VIP access. A $500+ value for only $279!

Subscribe to Windows IT Pro!
Solve your toughest technical problems with our experts and access 10,000 + articles online. 30% off

Monthly Online Pass - Only $5.95!
Get instant access to 10,000+ articles from Windows IT Pro Magazine!

TechNet Virtual Labs
Evaluate and test Microsoft's newest products.


Windows IT Pro Home Register FAQ for Windows WinInfo News
Europe Edition About Us Contact Us/Customer Service Media Kit Affiliates / Licensing  
SQL Server Magazine Office & SharePoint Pro Windows Dev Pro IT Job Hound ITTV
IT Library Technology Resource Directory Connected Home Windows Excavator Windows SuperSite 
 
 Windows IT Pro is a Division of Penton Media Inc.
 Copyright © 2008 Penton Media, Inc., All rights reserved. Terms and Use | Privacy Statement | Reprints and Licensing