Re: [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training - Mailing list pgsql-general

Before I begin, I think that most of us agree on the following points:

1:  The PostgreSQL project is not in a position at the moment to bless
any attempt to create an official curriculum or certification.

2:  The idea of patterning PostgreSQL certifications on Microsoft exams
is patently offensive as a paper PostgreSQL Certified DBA could do a
whole lot more damage than a paper MCSE.

3:  We are all for leveraging as many advocacy tools as possible.

4:  It is not easy to get PostgreSQL-specific training at the moment for
many people on this list.

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 04:49, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> > I think there *would* be resistance to labeling anything as "official
> > PostgreSQL certification", mainly because of the problem of who gets
> > to decide which things are "official".  No one will object if companies
>
> If we wanted something like that, it'd presumably end up being the
> community's responsibility to be doing some level of oversight. Possibly
> initial test/class material creation would be done that way too.  I don't
> really think we have people that could put in the effort necessary to
> build and then maintain such a system at the moment though, but I'm not
> sure that such a thing would necessarily be impossible.
>
Obviously, it is impossible to set up an official
curriculum/certification at this stage.  But I still think it could be
done in a gradual way.  Here is how we *could* do it.  Note that this is
NOT an overnight fix and will probably take years or decades to get to
the point where we have community approved standard certification.  We
may never even get there.  I think that is OK and things that are worth
doing are worth doing well and a graduated approach will mean that there
is some benefit to be had well before we get to the end-game.

Here is a clearer picture of what I am proposing:

1:  The development of a community curriculum project officially
separate from the PostgreSQL project, but working closely with the
PostgreSQL advocacy community.  This would lead to:

2:  The development of a community approved curriculum outline.  The
outline would not specify a temporal but rather a logical order covering
all topics the community feels must be covered in order to be considered
proficient with PostgreSQL.  Much of the information could be
product-inspecific.  This would lead to:

3:  The development of curriculums derivative of the outline by members
and third parties.  It could also lead to online tutorials, references
(above and beyond the Postgrsql documentation).  At some point a
non-profit organization may need to be formed to manage the ability of
others to claim that their curriculums complied with the outline.  Third
parties, such as Brainbench may be persuaded to offer some
certifications of this sort as well.

4:  Eventually such an organization may wish to create a certification
process for PostgreSQL skill.  This would likely include an exam similar
to the CCIE or RHCE-- a theory written test, an installation/database
design hands-on test, and a troubleshooting/fix this install hands on
test.  This would likely be a LONG way away and would be predicated on
having a large community of trainers and examiners around the world.

I think that it is WAY to early to be contemplating creating an official
PostgreSQL certification.  But it is not to early to start laying the
groundwork for community-maintained curriculum outlines, etc. that can
be extremely useful as an advocacy tool.  And if the PostgreSQL project
wanted to bless such an effort as being official, I think that would be
great.  It is not, strictly speaking, necessary however.

> > (Disclaimer: I have no reason to think that Red Hat might offer any
> > such certification program for Postgres in the foreseeable future.
> > Too bad.)
> It is, because they're probably the closest group we have to being able to
> offer a reasonably large scale centralized training/testing program.
>
Not to mention:  The RHCE is a good exam because it tests hands-on skill
rather than the ability to pass multiple-guess tests.  It is expensive
and when I get a chance, I will likely take it.

As a footnote-- when I worked at Microsoft, I was required to pass a
certain number of MCP exams every year, so I have a reasonable feel for
what is wrong with that system, but also how it has helped Microsoft
continue to build market share in the server market.  Certifications and
well thought-out curriculums ARE important advocacy tools and they also
help companies reduce training costs, and though whether this results in
a net benefit is not clear, it tends to be a successful marketing
strategy.

One thing I noticed in the MCP exams that I took was that most of them
were simply multiple-guess and many of them served either to point out
the flaws in the test designer's mind or the OS (NDA prohibits providing
examples, but the NT4 Server in the Enterprise is a test that comes to
mind).  There was, however, one well designed exam-- the IIS 4 exam
simulated actual hands-on problems featuring a functional MMC.  I was
very disappointed that I didn't see these sorts of questions in later
MCP exams.  I found it amusing how it was often ranked the hardest exam
simply because the hands-on format was not conducive towards the
"memorize the answers and/or textbook" approach.  The same hands-on
approach has been a strength in the written exams in the LPIC exams.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers