Thread: Certification Available +Pronounce
two-queries, 1) Is there a PostgreSQL equivalent certification to the MySQL Core Certification (btw drawn #8 in certcites.com hottest 05 certifications list) http://certcities.com/editorial/features/print.asp?EditorialsID=86, If not, maybe this could be another target to increase pg's popularity? 2)Do you pronounce PostgreSQL as [post-grey-S-Q-L] or [post-gresq-whl] or other
Robert Cleary wrote: > two-queries, > > 1) Is there a PostgreSQL equivalent certification to the MySQL Core > Certification (btw drawn #8 in certcites.com hottest 05 certifications > list) > http://certcities.com/editorial/features/print.asp?EditorialsID=86, > If not, maybe this could be another target to increase pg's popularity? There have been discussions, you should look in the archives. I think some independent companies are offering certifications. There are no official PostgreSQL certifications, tough. Others can probably name some companies. > 2)Do you pronounce PostgreSQL as [post-grey-S-Q-L] or [post-gresq-whl] > or other It's pronounced post-gres-Q-L. There was once an audio file on the old homepage of postgresql. Don't know where it's gone. Best Regards, Michael
> > 2)Do you pronounce PostgreSQL as [post-grey-S-Q-L] or > [post-gresq-whl] > > or other > > It's pronounced post-gres-Q-L. There was once an audio file > on the old homepage of postgresql. Don't know where it's gone. It's in the FAQ, question 1.1. Direct link is at http://www.postgresql.org/files/postgresql.mp3 //Magnus
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:49:22PM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote: > >2)Do you pronounce PostgreSQL as [post-grey-S-Q-L] or [post-gresq-whl] > >or other > > It's pronounced post-gres-Q-L. There was once an audio file on the old > homepage of postgresql. Don't know where it's gone. See question #1.1 in the FAQ -- it has a link to the MP3 file: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html#1.1 -- Michael Fuhr
David Fetter wrote:
My point being, that with the latest developments with pgsql, and the media awareness EnterpriseDB has brought by winning the SanFrancisco LinuxWorld 05 Best-Database-Solution award, people will begin to become aware of pgsql, as a more advanced open-source solution with all the readily seen advantages thereof.
Now, if I can also get certified in that, then why not go for pgsql instead.
The more DB beginners going for pgsql the better for it's future, no?
Well, if those completely-new to databases - see, that outside of Microsoft Access, SQL Server, and Oracle - MySQL is the most widely downloaded _open-source_ solution (http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/); and also, that, by learning to become proficient in this, they can also get a certification (recognised by managers etc.) - then, why not become a mysql guru.On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Robert Cleary wrote:two-queries, 1) Is there a PostgreSQL equivalent certification to the MySQL Core Certification (btw drawn #8 in certcites.com hottest 05 certifications list) http://certcities.com/editorial/features/print.asp?EditorialsID=86, If not, maybe this could be another target to increase pg's popularity?I'm not sure I understand this question. Could you explain what purposes and whose interests such a certification, if it existed, would serve? Cheers, D
My point being, that with the latest developments with pgsql, and the media awareness EnterpriseDB has brought by winning the SanFrancisco LinuxWorld 05 Best-Database-Solution award, people will begin to become aware of pgsql, as a more advanced open-source solution with all the readily seen advantages thereof.
Now, if I can also get certified in that, then why not go for pgsql instead.
The more DB beginners going for pgsql the better for it's future, no?
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Robert Cleary wrote: > two-queries, > > 1) Is there a PostgreSQL equivalent certification to the MySQL Core > Certification (btw drawn #8 in certcites.com hottest 05 > certifications list) > http://certcities.com/editorial/features/print.asp?EditorialsID=86, > If not, maybe this could be another target to increase pg's > popularity? I'm not sure I understand this question. Could you explain what purposes and whose interests such a certification, if it existed, would serve? Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
david@fetter.org (David Fetter) writes: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Robert Cleary wrote: >> two-queries, >> >> 1) Is there a PostgreSQL equivalent certification to the MySQL Core >> Certification (btw drawn #8 in certcites.com hottest 05 >> certifications list) >> http://certcities.com/editorial/features/print.asp?EditorialsID=86, >> If not, maybe this could be another target to increase pg's >> popularity? > > I'm not sure I understand this question. Could you explain what > purposes and whose interests such a certification, if it existed, > would serve? There's a clear set of steps... 1. Create PostgreSQL Certification Program 2. Collect underpants^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcertificants 3. ___ ____ __ _____, ___ _____ ___ 4. Profit!^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPopularity! Sorry, I can't clarify point #3 further; I can only repeat it :-) -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "ntlug.org") http://cbbrowne.com/info/languages.html Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate.
Robert, SRA America offers certification testing: http://www.sraapowergres.com/en/index.html#silver They've been doing this for a while in Japan, and are finally offering it in the US. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
David Fetter wrote: >On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 04:51:01PM +0100, Robert Cleary wrote: > > >>David Fetter wrote: >> >> >>>On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Robert Cleary wrote: >>> >>> >>>>1) Is there a PostgreSQL equivalent certification to the MySQL >>>>Core Certification (btw drawn #8 in certcites.com hottest 05 >>>>certifications list) >>>>http://certcities.com/editorial/features/print.asp?EditorialsID=86, >>>>If not, maybe this could be another target to increase pg's >>>>popularity? >>>> >>>> >>>I'm not sure I understand this question. Could you explain what >>>purposes and whose interests such a certification, if it existed, >>>would serve? >>> >>>Cheers, >>>D >>> >>> >>> >>Well, if those completely-new to databases - see, that outside of >>Microsoft Access, SQL Server, and Oracle - MySQL is the most widely >>downloaded _open-source_ solution >>(http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/); and also, that, by >>learning to become proficient in this, they can also get a >>certification (recognised by managers etc.) - then, why not become a >>mysql guru. >> >> > >If this certification makes a person a "MySQL guru," that's great for >MySQL AB, the corporation, especially in meeting their fiduciary >responsibility to their shareholders. > >However, in my experience, there is, if anything, a fairly strong >*negative* correllation between actual skills and acquiring >certifications. It is far from obvious to me that stamping out a >bunch of "Certified PostgreSQL Professionals" would do any good to >PostgreSQL project, however profitable it might be to the certifying >authority. > > > >>My point being, that with the latest developments with pgsql, and >>the media awareness EnterpriseDB has brought by winning the >>SanFrancisco LinuxWorld 05 Best-Database-Solution award, people will >>begin to become aware of pgsql, as a more advanced open-source >>solution with all the readily seen advantages thereof. >> >> > >Those marketing advantages can quite quickly vanish, or even go >turn into a liability, should a cadre of incompetents brandishing >certificates appear. > > > >>Now, if I can also get certified in that, then why not go for pgsql >>instead. >> >> > >See above. > > > >>The more DB beginners going for pgsql the better for it's future, >>no? >> >> > >Not when those beginners are labeled "professionals." > >Cheers, >D > > Fair-point!, the only reason I came to this query - is that i'm currently looking up proffessional certifications at work; there is also mixed opinions about certifications for most other IT areas. I agree with you, a certification doesn't tell much - experience is allways the telling-point someones ability; but when you hear that some one is CISCO certified proffessional, or Sun Certified Java programmer, or Red Hat Certified Engineer for example - a certain air of respect carries with these titles. I'm of the opinion, that good certifications are worth while, and provide a foundation on which quality of design - and work - results etc., but then certain-people have this ability naturaly, by interest and dedication.
SRA Japan has a certification exam available via Pearson Vue. Its available in English, and its the same track that SRA Japan has been doing in Japan for the past few years. Also SRA Armerica - New York is getting ready to launch a training program to go along with the certification exam. The course (Silver) is intended for existing computer/IT professionals to bring them up to speed on DBs and PGSQL. Going from basics up to mid-level DBA skills. So, yes there is stuff going on. We are getting all the pieces together to do a good job at it. Brian Kilpatrick - Project Manager SRA America Powergres Group PostgreSQL Services : Consulting, Migration, Support, and Training One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Tel: 212.244.8833 x 22 www.sraapowergres.com briank@sraapowergres.com On Oct 4, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Robert Cleary wrote: > David Fetter wrote:On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Robert > Cleary wrote: >> >>> two-queries, >>> >>> 1) Is there a PostgreSQL equivalent certification to the MySQL Core >>> Certification (btw drawn #8 in certcites.com hottest 05 >>> certifications list) >>> http://certcities.com/editorial/features/print.asp?EditorialsID=86, >>> If not, maybe this could be another target to increase pg's >>> popularity? >>> >> I'm not sure I understand this question. Could you explain what >> purposes and whose interests such a certification, if it existed, >> would serve? >> >> Cheers, >> D >> > http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/); and also, that, by > learning to become proficient in this, they can also get a > certification (recognised by managers etc.) - then, why not become a > mysql guru. > > My point being, that with the latest developments with pgsql, and the > media awareness EnterpriseDB has brought by winning the SanFrancisco > LinuxWorld 05 Best-Database-Solution award, people will begin to > become aware of pgsql, as a more advanced open-source solution with > all the readily seen advantages thereof. > Now, if I can also get certified in that, then why not go for pgsql > instead. > > The more DB beginners going for pgsql the better for it's future, no?
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 04:51:01PM +0100, Robert Cleary wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:39:30AM +0100, Robert Cleary wrote: > >>1) Is there a PostgreSQL equivalent certification to the MySQL > >>Core Certification (btw drawn #8 in certcites.com hottest 05 > >>certifications list) > >>http://certcities.com/editorial/features/print.asp?EditorialsID=86, > >>If not, maybe this could be another target to increase pg's > >>popularity? > > > >I'm not sure I understand this question. Could you explain what > >purposes and whose interests such a certification, if it existed, > >would serve? > > > >Cheers, > >D > > > Well, if those completely-new to databases - see, that outside of > Microsoft Access, SQL Server, and Oracle - MySQL is the most widely > downloaded _open-source_ solution > (http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/marketshare/); and also, that, by > learning to become proficient in this, they can also get a > certification (recognised by managers etc.) - then, why not become a > mysql guru. If this certification makes a person a "MySQL guru," that's great for MySQL AB, the corporation, especially in meeting their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. However, in my experience, there is, if anything, a fairly strong *negative* correllation between actual skills and acquiring certifications. It is far from obvious to me that stamping out a bunch of "Certified PostgreSQL Professionals" would do any good to PostgreSQL project, however profitable it might be to the certifying authority. > My point being, that with the latest developments with pgsql, and > the media awareness EnterpriseDB has brought by winning the > SanFrancisco LinuxWorld 05 Best-Database-Solution award, people will > begin to become aware of pgsql, as a more advanced open-source > solution with all the readily seen advantages thereof. Those marketing advantages can quite quickly vanish, or even go turn into a liability, should a cadre of incompetents brandishing certificates appear. > Now, if I can also get certified in that, then why not go for pgsql > instead. See above. > The more DB beginners going for pgsql the better for it's future, > no? Not when those beginners are labeled "professionals." Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 05:12:08PM +0100, Robert Cleary wrote: > David Fetter wrote: > >Not when those beginners are labeled "professionals." > > > Fair-point!, the only reason I came to this query - is that i'm > currently looking up proffessional certifications at work; there is > also mixed opinions about certifications for most other IT areas. I am not aware of any area where the opinions are "mixed" on certifications, except in the sense that incompetent HR people like them and the people who have to work with (or worse yet, deal with the result from) certified incompetents do not. > I agree with you, a certification doesn't tell much This is precisely where we *dis*agree. Although I have met several competent people who hold certifications, my experience is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, a certificate tells you that the person is *not* competent. > - experience is allways the telling-point someones ability; but when > you hear that some one is CISCO certified proffessional, or Sun > Certified Java programmer, or Red Hat Certified Engineer for example > - a certain air of respect carries with these titles. What air of respect? Among people competent to make hiring decisions, such a certificate conveys an air of disrespect. I am not denying the possibility of a certification that really means something, but that would mean that at a minimum: 1. There would be a significant, checkable prior work requirement for taking the certification exam, and 2. Some large percentage of those who take the exam fail it and would not immediately get another chance to re-take it. 3. The exam would involve quite complicated hands-on use cases and would not contain any questions whose correct answer was a quote from the documents. These criteria are anathema to the profit motive, which is why, to my knowlege, no such certification currently exists. Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 02:15:13PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > David, > > > I am not aware of any area where the opinions are "mixed" on > > certifications, except in the sense that incompetent HR people > > like them and the people who have to work with (or worse yet, deal > > with the result from) certified incompetents do not. > > PostgreSQL (and other OSS software) is being considered for > government agencies and some companies where written certifications > are required for consideration. No matter how you personally feel > about the validity of certifications, there are large organizations > which are wedded to them. PostgreSQL not having certifications > won't change their minds; it'll just exclude PostgreSQL from > competition. Excellent point. We need to make sure that any PostgreSQL certification that they use actually means something, as I outlined above. That these certifications may be very expensive by their nature doesn't exclude this from happening :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
David, > I am not aware of any area where the opinions are "mixed" on > certifications, except in the sense that incompetent HR people like > them and the people who have to work with (or worse yet, deal with the > result from) certified incompetents do not. PostgreSQL (and other OSS software) is being considered for government agencies and some companies where written certifications are required for consideration. No matter how you personally feel about the validity of certifications, there are large organizations which are wedded to them. PostgreSQL not having certifications won't change their minds; it'll just exclude PostgreSQL from competition. Of course, I also believe that certification (like other-DB compatibility and back-patches) is appropriate for commercial PostgreSQL companies and not for the project. Which is why it's keen that SRA has decided to offer their test in the US. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On August 24, 2005 05:52 pm, David Fetter wrote: > > government agencies and some companies where written certifications > > are required for consideration. No matter how you personally feel > > about the validity of certifications, there are large organizations > > which are wedded to them. PostgreSQL not having certifications > > won't change their minds; it'll just exclude PostgreSQL from > > competition. > > Excellent point. We need to make sure that any PostgreSQL > certification that they use actually means something, as I outlined > above. That these certifications may be very expensive by their > nature doesn't exclude this from happening :) Are you guys familiar with the community movement of creating a BSD certifications standard, http://bsdcertification.org?
As some one who holds many certifications (in order of value: MCSA, MCSE, Inet+, A+, Server+, Network+, LPIC-2), I feel inclined to chime in here...... For the record, I passed the LPIC-2 and Server+ exams during their beta testing stage. At the end of the email I will share my thoughts about PostgreSQL certification, but the rest is certification experience in general. David Fetter wrote: >On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 05:12:08PM +0100, Robert Cleary wrote: > > >>David Fetter wrote: >> >> >>>Not when those beginners are labeled "professionals." >>> >>> >>> >>Fair-point!, the only reason I came to this query - is that i'm >>currently looking up proffessional certifications at work; there is >>also mixed opinions about certifications for most other IT areas. >> >> > >I am not aware of any area where the opinions are "mixed" on >certifications, except in the sense that incompetent HR people like >them and the people who have to work with (or worse yet, deal with the >result from) certified incompetents do not. > > > This is a big point. When I worked at Microsoft, I was required to pass a certain number of Microsoft certifications per year. I passed the other ones to keep myself balanced and sane because I didn't want to be trapped working with Windows the rest of my life..... >This is precisely where we *dis*agree. Although I have met several >competent people who hold certifications, my experience is that in the >overwhelming majority of cases, a certificate tells you that the >person is *not* competent. > > With all due respect, it depends on the certification. There can be well designed certifications, but these usually have a hands-on lab component. I passed the IIS4 (and entirely based on my Apache and IIS 5 experience, no less) exam without cracking a book and was rather amused to see it rated as one of the hardest exams in the NT4 series. I suppose this is because it was the only exam that Microsoft designed that was ever worth anything. Similarly the LPIC-1 exams were really good. They were *really* difficult (but with a low passing score). But they really tested one's sense of fluency with the command line among other things. I *learned* a lot taking these exams. But this is the problem: People often see certifications as a quick and easy substitute for learning the technology. Of course, in the long run, learning the technology is far less effort than bumbling around a system you think you know how to use but don't really understand how it works, but this is not the rational most people have, both those who want to be technicians and those who want to hire technicians but don't know what they do. Finally almost all certifications end at the "technician" level. It is very hard to test someone's deep understanding of a technology without resorting to formuleic questions which are easily memorized. As far as I am concerned the only "certified engineers" are those with college degrees in engineering disciplines (including CS). To call someone a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer is like saying that someone holds a Masters in Electrical Engineering from a Non-Accredited University (and just paid his $50 to get the diploma). To test this point, I had considered trying to see if I could pass the VB MCSD certifications without actually learning any real VB.... The reason why I don't tout my certifications is simply that I know my material reasonably well and I don't want to be associated with those MCSE's who cannot figure out how to fix Microsoft Word when it opens minimized..... >>- experience is allways the telling-point someones ability; but when >>you hear that some one is CISCO certified proffessional, or Sun >>Certified Java programmer, or Red Hat Certified Engineer for example >>- a certain air of respect carries with these titles. >> >> > >What air of respect? Among people competent to make hiring decisions, >such a certificate conveys an air of disrespect. > > Knowing what I know about the RHCE program, I would probably see it as a positive step. But again, all you know you are getting is someone you hope will be a decent technician *not* a certified engineer. >I am not denying the possibility of a certification that really means >something, but that would mean that at a minimum: > >1. There would be a significant, checkable prior work requirement for >taking the certification exam, and > > This is the real problem (chicken-or-egg). Furthermore the definitions of work in this case would prove problematic. Where exactly one draws a line here is pretty tough. >2. Some large percentage of those who take the exam fail it and would >not immediately get another chance to re-take it. > > > No problem here. But what do you do when vendor training is often offered as a part of the certification problem (like the RHCE)? >3. The exam would involve quite complicated hands-on use cases and >would not contain any questions whose correct answer was a quote from >the documents. > > This is one of the things I have liked about the RHCE documentations is that it emphasizes hands-on work. >These criteria are anathema to the profit motive, which is why, to my >knowlege, no such certification currently exists. > > Aside from criteria 1, it is more an issue of degree than substance. Now for PostgreSQL certification. A *real* PostgreSQL certification project would be extremely difficult and runs up against at least the following issues: 1) There is a lot of bad information out there about database design 2) Unlike Oracle, administering the basic server is not that complicated. I.e. the barrier to being a technician is pretty low. 3) Very few programmers want to know how to use an RDBMS properly (part of why MySQL is so popular). So you are stuck. Most vendor-sponsored certification programs are marketing programs in disguise "Look at the Cool Stuff(tm) you can do with our software." In the case of the MCP exams, they often fail miserably. In other words, they teach on features rather than substance which is *why* you get people working well above their ability simply because they have a certification (they didn't realize it but they were being trained to sell the software rather than use it). Do we really want that image for PostgreSQL? If I wanted to recommend existing certifications for someone who wanted to get a cert that would help him be a safe DBA, I would suggest that he/she start with the Server+, and then take the LPI track. As for database design, that is another matter. Study, Study, Study. No certification required. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
... > > Now for PostgreSQL certification. A *real* PostgreSQL certification > project would be extremely difficult and runs up against at least the > following issues: > > 1) There is a lot of bad information out there about database design > 2) Unlike Oracle, administering the basic server is not that > complicated. I.e. the barrier to being a technician is pretty low. > 3) Very few programmers want to know how to use an RDBMS properly (part > of why MySQL is so popular). > > So you are stuck. > > Most vendor-sponsored certification programs are marketing programs in > disguise "Look at the Cool Stuff(tm) you can do with our software." In > the case of the MCP exams, they often fail miserably. In other words, > they teach on features rather than substance which is *why* you get > people working well above their ability simply because they have a > certification (they didn't realize it but they were being trained to > sell the software rather than use it). Do we really want that image for > PostgreSQL? > > If I wanted to recommend existing certifications for someone who wanted > to get a cert that would help him be a safe DBA, I would suggest that > he/she start with the Server+, and then take the LPI track. As for > database design, that is another matter. Study, Study, Study. No > certification required. I think the chances here are to make at least one postgres based certification which is really about sane database design - e.g. can be applied on many other rdbms. This includes detection of steps to improve queries by reading the explain output for example. This means you need a practizing kind of process and not the simple multiple choice (most test vendors go practice tests these days). The other problem is the international trustworthy hosting of these tests. So first we would need an agreeement among a group of individuals, forming an organisation which is the authority of the certs and watches the fulfillment of all requirements and can actually revoke certifications.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:23:00PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote: > As some one who holds many certifications (in order of value: MCSA, > MCSE, Inet+, A+, Server+, Network+, LPIC-2), I feel inclined to > chime in here... The more, the merrier :) > For the record, I passed the LPIC-2 and Server+ exams during their > beta testing stage. At the end of the email I will share my > thoughts about PostgreSQL certification, but the rest is > certification experience in general. > >I am not aware of any area where the opinions are "mixed" on > >certifications, except in the sense that incompetent HR people like > >them and the people who have to work with (or worse yet, deal with > >the result from) certified incompetents do not. > > > This is a big point. When I worked at Microsoft, I was required to > pass a certain number of Microsoft certifications per year. I > passed the other ones to keep myself balanced and sane because I > didn't want to be trapped working with Windows the rest of my > life..... > >This is precisely where we *dis*agree. Although I have met several > >competent people who hold certifications, my experience is that in > >the overwhelming majority of cases, a certificate tells you that > >the person is *not* competent. > > > With all due respect, it depends on the certification. There can be > well designed certifications, but these usually have a hands-on lab > component. I passed the IIS4 (and entirely based on my Apache and > IIS 5 experience, no less) exam without cracking a book and was > rather amused to see it rated as one of the hardest exams in the NT4 > series. I suppose this is because it was the only exam that > Microsoft designed that was ever worth anything. In what ways was it "worth something?" To me, that your relevant experience and lack of rote learning got you through the test where cracking open their book did not would be a good sign. :) > Similarly the LPIC-1 exams were really good. They were *really* > difficult (but with a low passing score). But they really tested > one's sense of fluency with the command line among other things. I > *learned* a lot taking these exams. That's sounding like a criterion, too. > But this is the problem: People often see certifications as a quick > and easy substitute for learning the technology. Of course, in the > long run, learning the technology is far less effort than bumbling > around a system you think you know how to use but don't really > understand how it works, but this is not the rational most people > have, both those who want to be technicians and those who want to > hire technicians but don't know what they do. > > Finally almost all certifications end at the "technician" level. It > is very hard to test someone's deep understanding of a technology > without resorting to formuleic questions which are easily memorized. I don't know that anything *cheap* can test this deep understanding at all, even to the level of a vague guess. Writing a specification and a rationale for same given incomplete requirements and a few hard-to-schedule people would be one way, but it's not cheap to arrange nor to assess. > As far as I am concerned the only "certified engineers" are those > with college degrees in engineering disciplines (including CS). And even among them, there is a distressing percentage who either spent so much time on Proprietary Product(TM) that they have no idea what the underlying principles are, or on the other end, there are the math-turbatory cowboys (they're always boys, however old they are) who imagine that they can (and should) derive the entire thing from the principles of set theory, but can't in fact code their way out of a wet paper bag. A good certification must protect people from both ends of this. > To call someone a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer is like > saying that someone holds a Masters in Electrical Engineering from a > Non-Accredited University (and just paid his $50 to get the > diploma). To test this point, I had considered trying to see if I > could pass the VB MCSD certifications without actually learning any > real VB.... I have this awful feeling that you passed. > The reason why I don't tout my certifications is simply that I know > my material reasonably well and I don't want to be associated with > those MCSE's who cannot figure out how to fix Microsoft Word when it > opens minimized..... And that's *just* the kind of certification that could do PostgreSQL a lot of harm without doing it any good as a tradeoff. > >>- experience is allways the telling-point someones ability; but > >>when you hear that some one is CISCO certified proffessional, or > >>Sun Certified Java programmer, or Red Hat Certified Engineer for > >>example - a certain air of respect carries with these titles. > > > >What air of respect? Among people competent to make hiring > >decisions, such a certificate conveys an air of disrespect. > > > Knowing what I know about the RHCE program, I would probably see it > as a positive step. But again, all you know you are getting is > someone you hope will be a decent technician *not* a certified > engineer. I know that this sounds corny, but I'd rather get somebody with that elusive quality called common sense and a liberal arts degree. They're likely to be able to do something that's hard to test, namely use their imagination on a really novel situation. > >I am not denying the possibility of a certification that really > >means something, but that would mean that at a minimum: > > > >1. There would be a significant, checkable prior work requirement > >for taking the certification exam, and > > > > > This is the real problem (chicken-or-egg). Furthermore the > definitions of work in this case would prove problematic. Where > exactly one draws a line here is pretty tough. Too tough to be worth pursuing? I'm thinking that an employer's signed recommendation would be one way. > >2. Some large percentage of those who take the exam fail it and > >would not immediately get another chance to re-take it. > > > No problem here. But what do you do when vendor training is often > offered as a part of the certification problem (like the RHCE)? Frankly, that is a conflict of interest, and should disqualify the certification. It is simply too hard to avoid "teaching to the test." > >3. The exam would involve quite complicated hands-on use cases and > >would not contain any questions whose correct answer was a quote > >from the documents. > > > This is one of the things I have liked about the RHCE documentations > is that it emphasizes hands-on work. :) > >These criteria are anathema to the profit motive, which is why, to my > >knowlege, no such certification currently exists. > > > Aside from criteria 1, it is more an issue of degree than substance. Is it? > Now for PostgreSQL certification. A *real* PostgreSQL certification > project would be extremely difficult and runs up against at least the > following issues: > > 1) There is a lot of bad information out there about database design True. > 2) Unlike Oracle, administering the basic server is not that > complicated. I.e. the barrier to being a technician is pretty low. Also true. However, having a candidate be able to describe, or maybe even demonstrate, how they'd find the answer to a question that involves reference material would be instructive. I've been known to ask people questions like, "what do you think of chapter 5 of book foo" and eliminate them as a candidate if they have a detailed opinion without consulting the book. It tells me that they are much more likely lacking imagination and bad at setting priorities than that they have an eidetic memory. > 3) Very few programmers want to know how to use an RDBMS properly > (part of why MySQL is so popular). One perennial complaint is that programmers have a tendency to test things with one row. Perhaps an exercise on putting together what the person presumes to be representative sample data sets including what assumptions were made could be a part of this. > So you are stuck. I think each of these things presents an opportunity :) > Most vendor-sponsored certification programs are marketing programs > in disguise "Look at the Cool Stuff(tm) you can do with our > software." In the case of the MCP exams, they often fail miserably. > In other words, they teach on features rather than substance which > is *why* you get people working well above their ability simply > because they have a certification (they didn't realize it but they > were being trained to sell the software rather than use it). Do we > really want that image for PostgreSQL? I'm pretty sure my opinion on this is clear ;) > If I wanted to recommend existing certifications for someone who > wanted to get a cert that would help him be a safe DBA, I would > suggest that he/she start with the Server+, and then take the LPI > track. As for database design, that is another matter. Study, > Study, Study. No certification required. :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
If certifications are seen in a bad-light, I believe it's directly because people sell-out their principles, or just plain set-out to make cash.
Now, if a pgsql certification was set-up, justified and qualified by a peer-reviewed examining process - rooted - in the quality/pride
principle that seems to be pgsql, I can't see how it would damage pgsql.
This might be a mad-idea, but if you can build an open-source DBMS, why can't you build a certification by the same process?: open-source collaboration for its inception, elaboration, construction and deployment?
David Fetter wrote:
Now, if a pgsql certification was set-up, justified and qualified by a peer-reviewed examining process - rooted - in the quality/pride
principle that seems to be pgsql, I can't see how it would damage pgsql.
This might be a mad-idea, but if you can build an open-source DBMS, why can't you build a certification by the same process?: open-source collaboration for its inception, elaboration, construction and deployment?
David Fetter wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:23:00PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:As some one who holds many certifications (in order of value: MCSA, MCSE, Inet+, A+, Server+, Network+, LPIC-2), I feel inclined to chime in here...The more, the merrier :)For the record, I passed the LPIC-2 and Server+ exams during their beta testing stage. At the end of the email I will share my thoughts about PostgreSQL certification, but the rest is certification experience in general.I am not aware of any area where the opinions are "mixed" on certifications, except in the sense that incompetent HR people like them and the people who have to work with (or worse yet, deal with the result from) certified incompetents do not.This is a big point. When I worked at Microsoft, I was required to pass a certain number of Microsoft certifications per year. I passed the other ones to keep myself balanced and sane because I didn't want to be trapped working with Windows the rest of my life.....This is precisely where we *dis*agree. Although I have met several competent people who hold certifications, my experience is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, a certificate tells you that the person is *not* competent.With all due respect, it depends on the certification. There can be well designed certifications, but these usually have a hands-on lab component. I passed the IIS4 (and entirely based on my Apache and IIS 5 experience, no less) exam without cracking a book and was rather amused to see it rated as one of the hardest exams in the NT4 series. I suppose this is because it was the only exam that Microsoft designed that was ever worth anything.In what ways was it "worth something?" To me, that your relevant experience and lack of rote learning got you through the test where cracking open their book did not would be a good sign. :)Similarly the LPIC-1 exams were really good. They were *really* difficult (but with a low passing score). But they really tested one's sense of fluency with the command line among other things. I *learned* a lot taking these exams.That's sounding like a criterion, too.But this is the problem: People often see certifications as a quick and easy substitute for learning the technology. Of course, in the long run, learning the technology is far less effort than bumbling around a system you think you know how to use but don't really understand how it works, but this is not the rational most people have, both those who want to be technicians and those who want to hire technicians but don't know what they do. Finally almost all certifications end at the "technician" level. It is very hard to test someone's deep understanding of a technology without resorting to formuleic questions which are easily memorized.I don't know that anything *cheap* can test this deep understanding at all, even to the level of a vague guess. Writing a specification and a rationale for same given incomplete requirements and a few hard-to-schedule people would be one way, but it's not cheap to arrange nor to assess.As far as I am concerned the only "certified engineers" are those with college degrees in engineering disciplines (including CS).And even among them, there is a distressing percentage who either spent so much time on Proprietary Product(TM) that they have no idea what the underlying principles are, or on the other end, there are the math-turbatory cowboys (they're always boys, however old they are) who imagine that they can (and should) derive the entire thing from the principles of set theory, but can't in fact code their way out of a wet paper bag. A good certification must protect people from both ends of this.To call someone a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer is like saying that someone holds a Masters in Electrical Engineering from a Non-Accredited University (and just paid his $50 to get the diploma). To test this point, I had considered trying to see if I could pass the VB MCSD certifications without actually learning any real VB....I have this awful feeling that you passed.The reason why I don't tout my certifications is simply that I know my material reasonably well and I don't want to be associated with those MCSE's who cannot figure out how to fix Microsoft Word when it opens minimized.....And that's *just* the kind of certification that could do PostgreSQL a lot of harm without doing it any good as a tradeoff.- experience is allways the telling-point someones ability; but when you hear that some one is CISCO certified proffessional, or Sun Certified Java programmer, or Red Hat Certified Engineer for example - a certain air of respect carries with these titles.What air of respect? Among people competent to make hiring decisions, such a certificate conveys an air of disrespect.Knowing what I know about the RHCE program, I would probably see it as a positive step. But again, all you know you are getting is someone you hope will be a decent technician *not* a certified engineer.I know that this sounds corny, but I'd rather get somebody with that elusive quality called common sense and a liberal arts degree. They're likely to be able to do something that's hard to test, namely use their imagination on a really novel situation.I am not denying the possibility of a certification that really means something, but that would mean that at a minimum: 1. There would be a significant, checkable prior work requirement for taking the certification exam, andThis is the real problem (chicken-or-egg). Furthermore the definitions of work in this case would prove problematic. Where exactly one draws a line here is pretty tough.Too tough to be worth pursuing? I'm thinking that an employer's signed recommendation would be one way.2. Some large percentage of those who take the exam fail it and would not immediately get another chance to re-take it.No problem here. But what do you do when vendor training is often offered as a part of the certification problem (like the RHCE)?Frankly, that is a conflict of interest, and should disqualify the certification. It is simply too hard to avoid "teaching to the test."3. The exam would involve quite complicated hands-on use cases and would not contain any questions whose correct answer was a quote>from the documents.This is one of the things I have liked about the RHCE documentations is that it emphasizes hands-on work.:)These criteria are anathema to the profit motive, which is why, to my knowlege, no such certification currently exists.Aside from criteria 1, it is more an issue of degree than substance.Is it?Now for PostgreSQL certification. A *real* PostgreSQL certification project would be extremely difficult and runs up against at least the following issues: 1) There is a lot of bad information out there about database designTrue.2) Unlike Oracle, administering the basic server is not that complicated. I.e. the barrier to being a technician is pretty low.Also true. However, having a candidate be able to describe, or maybe even demonstrate, how they'd find the answer to a question that involves reference material would be instructive. I've been known to ask people questions like, "what do you think of chapter 5 of book foo" and eliminate them as a candidate if they have a detailed opinion without consulting the book. It tells me that they are much more likely lacking imagination and bad at setting priorities than that they have an eidetic memory.3) Very few programmers want to know how to use an RDBMS properly (part of why MySQL is so popular).One perennial complaint is that programmers have a tendency to test things with one row. Perhaps an exercise on putting together what the person presumes to be representative sample data sets including what assumptions were made could be a part of this.So you are stuck.I think each of these things presents an opportunity :)Most vendor-sponsored certification programs are marketing programs in disguise "Look at the Cool Stuff(tm) you can do with our software." In the case of the MCP exams, they often fail miserably. In other words, they teach on features rather than substance which is *why* you get people working well above their ability simply because they have a certification (they didn't realize it but they were being trained to sell the software rather than use it). Do we really want that image for PostgreSQL?I'm pretty sure my opinion on this is clear ;)If I wanted to recommend existing certifications for someone who wanted to get a cert that would help him be a safe DBA, I would suggest that he/she start with the Server+, and then take the LPI track. As for database design, that is another matter. Study, Study, Study. No certification required.:) Cheers, D
josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) writes: >> I am not aware of any area where the opinions are "mixed" on >> certifications, except in the sense that incompetent HR people like >> them and the people who have to work with (or worse yet, deal with the >> result from) certified incompetents do not. > > PostgreSQL (and other OSS software) is being considered for > government agencies and some companies where written certifications > are required for consideration. No matter how you personally feel > about the validity of certifications, there are large organizations > which are wedded to them. PostgreSQL not having certifications > won't change their minds; it'll just exclude PostgreSQL from > competition. That is an obvious reason for *need* for this. > Of course, I also believe that certification (like other-DB > compatibility and back-patches) is appropriate for commercial > PostgreSQL companies and not for the project. Which is why it's > keen that SRA has decided to offer their test in the US. It seems to me there's room for "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" on this matter. -> We have probably all observed scenarios where certifications were essentially so much waste paper. The "Minesweeper Consultant And Solitaire Expert" and such. We don't want a PG certification program to amount to this. -> There have historically been cases where certifications were regarded as valuable, notably with Cisco, where it was in fact really rather difficult to get the cert, and with SAP R/3, where, for a time, there was a perceived shortage of people with R/3 skills, and it was *ludicrously expensive* to get the cert, such that people would surely not waste money on it if they were complete morons. I don't think these scenarios are likely to be able to be the case for a PG certification; there is not so grave a "perceived shortage" of 'qualified' PG DBAs as to make any of these approaches to making a cert 'clearly worthwhile' practical. Hands up, anyone willing to pay $15K USD for a "PostgreSQL Partner Academy" certification? (I have such an SAP cert on my office wall, at home, and it did cost about that...) I don't see much likelihood of the "ludicrously expensive/valuable" cert emerging; there isn't the economics of consulting firms being able to bill an extra $50K/yr due to getting people with certs. There is, on the other hand, a regrettable risk of "Minesweeper Certified Expert." One of the values of a PG certification scheme is in the notion of publicity, which encourages there to be a lot of people with the cert. - Make it expensive, and nobody will want to pay for it - Make it really hard to pass the test, and there won't be many people certified, which makes the effort of building the test somewhat futile - Further, a really difficult test is likely to either be highly unobjective (and hence prone to wrong results), or extremely expensive to administer. (Head back to "Make it expensive, and ...) Unfortunately, there is the risk of that meaning that it winds up being both cheap and easy to get the certification, which points in the "Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert" direction :-(. Certifications are very difficult to do well. Consider the political issues surrounding standardized testing in schools; both in the US and Canada, there is a lot of controversy surrounding "standardized tests." Parents and politicians want there to be some form of "accountability", which has led to students spending more and more of their year writing such tests, with a concomitant reduction in the amount of time teachers can spend actually teaching them. They are increasingly 'well tested,' but less educated, because the time was spent on tests :-(. And consider that, despite the rather fuzzy results gotten, hordes of teachers and test designers spend enormous amounts of time preparing and administrating those tests. How can we expect to nail down hard and fast assertions about DBA competence in a two hour certification test if teachers don't do nearly so well when they have students for an entire year??? Certifications are /very/ difficult to do well... -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'acm.org'; http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sap.html "Funny, the only thing that makes me go Keanu about Microsoft is the fact that they are constantly behind the times and yet claim to be innovating." -- Steve Lamb <morpheus@despair.rpglink.com>
Tino Wildenhain wrote: > > I think the chances here are to make at least one postgres based > certification which is really about sane database design - e.g. > can be applied on many other rdbms. This includes detection > of steps to improve queries by reading the explain output for example. > > This means you need a practizing kind of process and not the > simple multiple choice (most test vendors go practice tests > these days). The other problem is the international trustworthy > hosting of these tests. > If I were trying to design a certification, I would do so in the following way: Section 1 is multiple choice, say 100 questions, and one must answer 80 of them right to qualify for the second stage. This is just a screening stage. The idea is simply that you want to weed out the people who don't know the basics from even trying on the more expensive/labor intensive stage. Section 2 would give you a complicated specification and maybe a blank database or a tool like DIA and ask you to design a database to the specification. This is then graded perhaps by the company which designed the certification and the candidate is either awarded or denied the certification on this basis. I would have the questions change frequently here and try to make the specification complex enough to prevent simple memorization. > So first we would need an agreeement among a group of individuals, > forming an organisation which is the authority of the certs and > watches the fulfillment of all requirements and can actually revoke > certifications. > Sure, and we can call it the X509 Certification Authority :-) Just kidding.... Really the best certification IMO is actually having a tangible open source project one has built. But that is not from the corporate entity's perspective. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Robert, > If certifications are seen in a bad-light, I believe it's directly > because people sell-out their principles, or just plain set-out to make > cash. Well, actually: you're asking a group of users and proponents of an OSS RDBMS that has no certifications, and until a few years ago wasn't supported by any large companies and didn't have any compliance certificates or major reference implementations, what they think of certifications. What answer did you expect to get? Serious hackers never like certifications; they see them as something that their boss is liable to waste their time making them take. The people who like certifications will not generally be subscribed to this list. > This might be a mad-idea, but if you can build an open-source DBMS, why > can't you build a certification by the same process?: open-source > collaboration for its inception, elaboration, construction and deployment? Well, first off, how would you keep the questions secret from potential test-takers? Also, keep in mind that designing a good certification exam is a lot of work, like 1000 hours of work. I'm lazy ... I'd rather just let SRA do their thing. ;-) -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
David Fetter wrote: >On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 11:23:00PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote: > > > >>With all due respect, it depends on the certification. There can be >>well designed certifications, but these usually have a hands-on lab >>component. I passed the IIS4 (and entirely based on my Apache and >>IIS 5 experience, no less) exam without cracking a book and was >>rather amused to see it rated as one of the hardest exams in the NT4 >>series. I suppose this is because it was the only exam that >>Microsoft designed that was ever worth anything. >> >> > >In what ways was it "worth something?" To me, that your relevant >experience and lack of rote learning got you through the test where >cracking open their book did not would be a good sign. :) > > > Microsoft made a bold experiment in the IIS 4 exam. A large percentage of the problems featured an interactive MMC and required configuring IIS4 to specific requirements. I thought it was easy because I was able to pass it due to my experience with related products, but it was actually exam most frequently rated "hardest" out of the electives (possibly out of the entire track). For this reason, Microsoft backed off. Talk about the tail wagging the dog... >>Similarly the LPIC-1 exams were really good. They were *really* >>difficult (but with a low passing score). But they really tested >>one's sense of fluency with the command line among other things. I >>*learned* a lot taking these exams. >> >> > >That's sounding like a criterion, too. > > > The LPIC-101 and 102 exams were two exams I never studdied for but wished I had. They had lots of text-field questions with "type in the command to do such-and-such." I passed by only 10 points. The LPIC-2 I took in beta as a combined exam. There were no study materials except the test outline, so I got a chance to study various topics (like the Linux boot sequence) in depth. It was a decent exam, but not nearly as difficult as either the LPIC 101 or 102. >I don't know that anything *cheap* can test this deep understanding at >all, even to the level of a vague guess. Writing a specification and >a rationale for same given incomplete requirements and a few >hard-to-schedule people would be one way, but it's not cheap to >arrange nor to assess. > > > As I suggested in a previous post, having a few of hours in a testing center where you build a database/data model (and perhaps a rationale document) might be good. This could then be sent to the testing authority for actual grading. >>As far as I am concerned the only "certified engineers" are those >>with college degrees in engineering disciplines (including CS). >> >> > >And even among them, there is a distressing percentage who either >spent so much time on Proprietary Product(TM) that they have no idea >what the underlying principles are, or on the other end, there are the >math-turbatory cowboys (they're always boys, however old they are) who >imagine that they can (and should) derive the entire thing from the >principles of set theory, but can't in fact code their way out of a >wet paper bag. > >A good certification must protect people from both ends of this. > > Good point. I have a liberal arts degree and a fairly disciplined learning approach, and I have found that I understand the foundations of the technology as well as maybe 60% of the CS degree holders I have met (there are CS degree holders who possess a *much* better grasp of things than I do but they are not too common. Many of them are, however, on this list). Once I can actually have the time to really teach myself assembly, maybe I will do even better. But the point is that I am not *certified* by an educational institution. I am self-taught. > > >>To call someone a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer is like >>saying that someone holds a Masters in Electrical Engineering from a >>Non-Accredited University (and just paid his $50 to get the >>diploma). To test this point, I had considered trying to see if I >>could pass the VB MCSD certifications without actually learning any >>real VB.... >> >> > >I have this awful feeling that you passed. > > Actually after hearing from several MCSD's that I could have easily passed, I decided it would be a waste of time. > > >>The reason why I don't tout my certifications is simply that I know >>my material reasonably well and I don't want to be associated with >>those MCSE's who cannot figure out how to fix Microsoft Word when it >>opens minimized..... >> >> > >And that's *just* the kind of certification that could do PostgreSQL a >lot of harm without doing it any good as a tradeoff. > > > Microsoft's certification programs fail because they listen too much to those who pass the exams about what is "too hard." I am also convinced that their network diagrams in the Windows 2000 track were designed by people with no real network design experience, but this is par for the course, I'm afriad. >>Knowing what I know about the RHCE program, I would probably see it >>as a positive step. But again, all you know you are getting is >>someone you hope will be a decent technician *not* a certified >>engineer. >> >> > >I know that this sounds corny, but I'd rather get somebody with that >elusive quality called common sense and a liberal arts degree. >They're likely to be able to do something that's hard to test, namely >use their imagination on a really novel situation. > > > So would I, and I would rather have someone with a proven track record in developing software too (maybe with one or two open source programs I can evaluate) than I would a CS grad. But this is my perspective. At the same time, for an entry-level technician, I have been suggesting the A+ certifications... The reason is that the A+ certified technicians I have met have a couple of real advantages on entry-level techs who don't have the certification. The first is that they understand the importance of environmental factors in troubleshooting systems. Things like heat and electrical supply are considered by many of these candidates while most other techs will start with software and end at the hardware. If the problem is heat or electrical supply-related they will never find it. >Too tough to be worth pursuing? I'm thinking that an employer's >signed recommendation would be one way. > > > Do you have an alternative for self-employed consultants? Also does not the employer have a conflict of interest here? >>No problem here. But what do you do when vendor training is often >>offered as a part of the certification problem (like the RHCE)? >> >> > >Frankly, that is a conflict of interest, and should disqualify the >certification. It is simply too hard to avoid "teaching to the test." > > > The only solution would be to ban all instruction relating to the test, as third parties are often worse than vendors in this regard. > > > >>Aside from criteria 1, it is more an issue of degree than substance. >> >> > >Is it? > > > For many certifications, yes. These include some Cisco certs (not all though) and probably the RHCE. > > >I think each of these things presents an opportunity :) > > > >>Most vendor-sponsored certification programs are marketing programs >>in disguise "Look at the Cool Stuff(tm) you can do with our >>software." In the case of the MCP exams, they often fail miserably. >>In other words, they teach on features rather than substance which >>is *why* you get people working well above their ability simply >>because they have a certification (they didn't realize it but they >>were being trained to sell the software rather than use it). Do we >>really want that image for PostgreSQL? >> >> > >I'm pretty sure my opinion on this is clear ;) > > > BTW, the MCSE exams helped prove to me how overmarketed NT4 was.... Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology COnsulting
I think this is the point where i humbly retreat,
i still think it's a fair argument that a certification would improve popularity - but for the aforesaid reasons, its probably not worth-it
based on the pros and cons.
thanks for the insight.
Josh Berkus wrote:
i still think it's a fair argument that a certification would improve popularity - but for the aforesaid reasons, its probably not worth-it
based on the pros and cons.
thanks for the insight.
Josh Berkus wrote:
Robert,If certifications are seen in a bad-light, I believe it's directly because people sell-out their principles, or just plain set-out to make cash.Well, actually: you're asking a group of users and proponents of an OSS RDBMS that has no certifications, and until a few years ago wasn't supported by any large companies and didn't have any compliance certificates or major reference implementations, what they think of certifications. What answer did you expect to get? Serious hackers never like certifications; they see them as something that their boss is liable to waste their time making them take. The people who like certifications will not generally be subscribed to this list.This might be a mad-idea, but if you can build an open-source DBMS, why can't you build a certification by the same process?: open-source collaboration for its inception, elaboration, construction and deployment?Well, first off, how would you keep the questions secret from potential test-takers? Also, keep in mind that designing a good certification exam is a lot of work, like 1000 hours of work. I'm lazy ... I'd rather just let SRA do their thing. ;-)
Robert, > I think this is the point where i humbly retreat, > i still think it's a fair argument that a certification would improve > popularity - but for the aforesaid reasons, its probably not worth-it > based on the pros and cons. > thanks for the insight. I don't follow you. Seriously, why do we want a certification separate from SRA's? -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
blast!, your-right sorry - late in evening, head tired. Josh Berkus wrote: >Robert, > > > >>I think this is the point where i humbly retreat, >> i still think it's a fair argument that a certification would improve >>popularity - but for the aforesaid reasons, its probably not worth-it >>based on the pros and cons. >>thanks for the insight. >> >> > >I don't follow you. Seriously, why do we want a certification separate from >SRA's? > > >
I want to chime in a bit here, and just perhaps add a few things and repeat a few thing, perhaps. I have been though a couple of IT training classes and certs in the day. And at the end of the day a lot of the reasons that certs exist are not due to the lack of technical ability of the people (as the postgres community clearly shows), but from a PHB management POV its a psychological thing. In the beginning a certification value is that of soothing the nerves of people as to have some kind of 'proof' that at least someone else claims a person can at least pass an exam. Later on as the field spreads out, a good training program and valid cert will help bring others in from associated fields and lend credibility. Credibility begats acceptance, acceptance begats usage, usage begats jobs; and so on. There are things to shake out along the way, but in the long run, having training and certification for the purpose of building a qualified group of people is the right way to go. As an aside, having been a computer/network tech for 10+ years, I have studied for the A+ exam, and never taken it. I found the sample tests to be filled with 'useless' reference material, and not very helpful for actual real world issues. There is a reason why there are reference manuals, so you dont have to memorize infrequently used minutia. Brian On Oct 5, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Robert Cleary wrote: > I think this is the point where i humbly retreat, > i still think it's a fair argument that a certification would > improve popularity - but for the aforesaid reasons, its probably not > worth-it > based on the pros and cons. > thanks for the insight. > Josh Berkus wrote:Robert, >> >> >>> If certifications are seen in a bad-light, I believe it's directly >>> because people sell-out their principles, or just plain set-out to >>> make >>> cash. >>> >> Well, actually: you're asking a group of users and proponents of an >> OSS RDBMS >> that has no certifications, and until a few years ago wasn't >> supported by any >> large companies and didn't have any compliance certificates or major >> reference implementations, what they think of certifications. What >> answer >> did you expect to get? >> >> Serious hackers never like certifications; they see them as something >> that >> their boss is liable to waste their time making them take. The >> people who >> like certifications will not generally be subscribed to this list. >> >> >>> This might be a mad-idea, but if you can build an open-source DBMS, >>> why >>> can't you build a certification by the same process?: open-source >>> collaboration for its inception, elaboration, construction and >>> deployment? >>> >> Well, first off, how would you keep the questions secret from >> potential >> test-takers? Also, keep in mind that designing a good certification >> exam is >> a lot of work, like 1000 hours of work. >> >> I'm lazy ... I'd rather just let SRA do their thing. ;-) >> >> >
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Robert, > > > If certifications are seen in a bad-light, I believe it's directly > > because people sell-out their principles, or just plain set-out to make > > cash. > > Well, actually: you're asking a group of users and proponents of an OSS RDBMS > that has no certifications, and until a few years ago wasn't supported by any > large companies and didn't have any compliance certificates or major > reference implementations, what they think of certifications. What answer > did you expect to get? > > Serious hackers never like certifications; they see them as something that > their boss is liable to waste their time making them take. The people who > like certifications will not generally be subscribed to this list. > > > This might be a mad-idea, but if you can build an open-source DBMS, why > > can't you build a certification by the same process?: open-source > > collaboration for its inception, elaboration, construction and deployment? > > Well, first off, how would you keep the questions secret from potential > test-takers? Also, keep in mind that designing a good certification exam is > a lot of work, like 1000 hours of work. > > I'm lazy ... I'd rather just let SRA do their thing. ;-) Given open source, companies will do their thing. They should fly or die on their own popularity and merits. Remember training and certification are lucrative businesses. Never forget that. My experience with mysql is that I installed a very old version and removed it the second I realized there were no views. Then I perused a book. Then I took the certification and passed. This was just to make a point. As a rule, I do not take certification tests. I would never take a PostgreSQL certification test. If people do not trust my credentials and references, oh well. I will, however, train people or write curriculum on the best uses and practices, et all. This is a very good (don't forget lucrative) business that also promotes PostgreSQL and fills in the gaps of misinformation. I would even suggest that more training, only, would achieve most of the goals people want for certification. -- Elein > > -- > Josh Berkus > Aglio Database Solutions > San Francisco > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >
Chris Browne wrote: > > -> We have probably all observed scenarios where certifications > were essentially so much waste paper. The "Minesweeper Consultant > And Solitaire Expert" and such. > > We don't want a PG certification program to amount to this. In defense of the Lite certification I'd say that that's exactly what most companys want. When I try to hire someone with a certification as opposed to a BS/MS/PhD; the task I have in mind is a straightforward commodity task - not some kind of rocket science. In the real business world there are zillions of mind-numbing tasks like that: "make a database to hold this list of people, etc". To accomplish this, I need any commodity database (Access, Oracle, MySQL, and postgresql will all do fine), and someone with the basic skills to run it. When I post a job posting, this is what a certification means to me. By having a large number of people with a "yes, I can do simple commodity tasks in postgresql" certification, it makes postgresql as likely to be used in those (surprisingly large number of) simple tasks that currently MCSEs do. It also says something good about postgresql -- that it's easy enough that zillions of people can do it well enough to be certified. I think the benefits for the simple certification are very real. I don't see the need for the high-end cert -- If I want a DBA for my mission critical application I'll spend a lot more time interviewing him; and expect him to have learned his database skills on the way to getting a real college degree or with substantial real-world work experience.
Josh Berkus wrote: > >Serious hackers never like certifications; they see them as something that >their boss is liable to waste their time making them take. The people who >like certifications will not generally be subscribed to this list. > > > In support of Josh's point, let me share my experience with the certification requirement. When I was at Microsoft, I was required to pass 2 MCP exams every year. After I passed an average of 6 MCP exams a year for two years (in addition to less marketing-centric exams like the Server+), I decided that it was pointless. I dropped to the minimum and began to heavily contribute to Microsoft's marketing strategy (it was my idea to take Services for UNIX to Linuxworld). The reaction of the management was "You are not surpassing the minumum on this goal of passing MCP exams. We cannot support you doing other things that don't contribute to your core metrics." It was not that long after this that I resigned my position at Microsoft though for other unrelated reasons. Most vendor-sponsored certs focus on marketing products. They are a great success in what they are supposed to do (generate large number of technicians who are married to a product). But in the long run, I think that they are a losing strategy. While advocacy is important, I think that substance is more important than marketing. I assume everyone else on this list agrees because otherwise we would be using MySQL.... This is also why I have long advocated the development of an open source database concepts curriculum. Lets build something which is actually *useful* and if someone wants to build a certification based on it, so be it. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 10:59:24AM -0700, Ron Mayer wrote: > Chris Browne wrote: > > > > We have probably all observed scenarios where certifications were > > essentially so much waste paper. The "Minesweeper Consultant And > > Solitaire Expert" and such. > > > > We don't want a PG certification program to amount to this. > > In defense of the Lite certification I'd say that that's exactly > what most companys want. Do they? Or have they become convinced that they want this because it's easy to quantify? I don't think that going down the road of "what companies imagine they want, no matter how useless it is," is a good strategy for the long run. > When I try to hire someone with a certification as opposed to a > BS/MS/PhD; the task I have in mind is a straightforward commodity > task - not some kind of rocket science. The Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert certifications *don't even test* the ability to do the "commodity task" of which you speak. > In the real business world there are zillions of mind-numbing tasks > like that: "make a database to hold this list of people, etc". Interesting you should mention this. Perhaps you find such tasks "mind-numbing," but a lot of us here find them quite challenging, especially when we're making one that both meets current requirements and is easily expandable to future ones. The essential techniques are out of DB Normalization 101, but the ability to apply those while looking toward the future is something most people only get by experience. In other words, with a little less 'tude about how this task is mind-numbing in nature, it's possible to do a lot less work and do it better and faster. > To accomplish this, I need any commodity database (Access, Oracle, > MySQL, and postgresql will all do fine), and someone with the basic > skills to run it. When I post a job posting, this is what a > certification means to me. I don't know about you, but I don't like to hire incompetents. Apart from the real but hard-to-quantify effects of stress and aggravation, they simply take too much time and resources to manage. > By having a large number of people with a "yes, I can do simple > commodity tasks in postgresql" certification, it makes postgresql as > likely to be used in those (surprisingly large number of) simple > tasks that currently MCSEs do. I'm with you on replacing them, but I'm not sure it's wise to attempt to replace them 1:1. For some kinds of stuff, one PostgreSQL person can replace *lots* of mindless drones. > It also says something good about postgresql -- that it's easy > enough that zillions of people can do it well enough to be > certified. I think that the barriers to entry on PostgreSQL are already pretty low :) Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
Robert Cleary wrote: > If certifications are seen in a bad-light, I believe it's directly > because people sell-out their principles, or just plain set-out to > make cash. > > Now, if a pgsql certification was set-up, justified and qualified by a > peer-reviewed examining process - rooted - in the quality/pride > principle that seems to be pgsql, I can't see how it would damage pgsql. > > This might be a mad-idea, but if you can build an open-source DBMS, > why can't you build a certification by the same process?: open-source > collaboration for its inception, elaboration, construction and deployment? I don't think that a certification can ever be open source for the reason that the testing method usually presupposes that people don't have a chance to research the questions ahead of time. Of course for a *really advanced* certification this might not be an obstacle. But in those cases, all we really need is a written/practical exam and an oral defence of it. Sort of similar to what we require of people who get graduate degrees...... But hey, you are then looking for people's ability to take information they have mastered and use it to come up with their own solutions to a specific problem. One could give people hard problems, and award certifications based on their abilities to solve them. The answers could then be provided online and used to evaluate students' performance by potential employers. The questions would change *frequently* (maybe once a month). However, I think that our time would be better spent on trying to come up with an open source curriculum which testing vendors could use for their certification exams, at least in the beginning. Such an advanced certification could be useful later, but I think we would need to start with qualifying certifications. If there is sufficient interest, I can set up a wiki for people to use to share thoughts. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Attachment
Guys, As somebody who works for SRA America there's two things I'd like to share with you that I hope will add to the discussionin regards to PostgreSQL testing and certification. First off; SRA Japan and SRA America, are two distinct business units in the same corporation who have different objectives.SRA Japan has been running PostgreSQL courses on its home turf (Japan) for the last couple of years now. However,the most recent developments that I've been part of has to do with the New York branch where we've recently portedthe Japanese courseware to English. SRA America is now running PostgreSQL courses for the North American market. The second fact that I want to bring up concerns PostgreSQL certification itself. The challenge we face is that at this timethere is no community derived certification for PostgreSQL. But.... in my opinion (I'm not speaking for the company nowfolks) certification is valid and worthwhile when the standards it follows has been developed on a community/consensualbasis. So do how we develop a standard that will be of high quality and accepted by the community? It so happens that I'm fairly close to another community project, several SRA America people are involved in, called theBSD Certification Group, http://bsdcertification.org. They are successfully developing a world-wide certification standardsfor all the BSD variants. Many of you BSD people know the BSD certification debates. Much of what's been discussed here, are exactly the same issuesdiscussed there. The point I want to make is .... this group is suceeding ..... The secret to their success is the "process" and excellent "documentation". There are ten people in the group. They coordinate the debates and policy implementation. They issued an online survey that got people to say what they thought wasimportant in a BSD standards. This is no small survey; it takes two hours to fill out and they had the survey translatedinto a number of languages. In the first two weeks they had recieved over 2,000 completed surveys. They've recentlyissued their Task Analysis Survey Report,http://bsdcertification.org/downloads/sr1_links.pdf, and it's a whopping144 pages long. And just yesterday they published their Certification Roadmap, http://bsdcertification.org/downloads/BSDCertificationRoadmap.pdf. The group finds itself getting support from all over the world. In the past seven months the group's chair has been invitedto speak at conferences in North America, Europe, South America (even a group in India wants to bring her over) aboutwhat they are doing. It is the BSD Certification Group's intention of documenting a how-to of what it will take for an opensource community tocreate a standards body similar to what they've done. Comments? Robert Bernier
Robert Bernier wrote: <snip> >The second fact that I want to bring up concerns PostgreSQL certification itself. The challenge we face is that at thistime there is no community derived certification for PostgreSQL. But.... in my opinion (I'm not speaking for the companynow folks) certification is valid and worthwhile when the standards it follows has been developed on a community/consensualbasis. So do how we develop a standard that will be of high quality and accepted by the community? > > > How many people are interested in participating? How do we get people to participate? I would be interested in doing what I can. I would suggest that if we do this well, we can (as a spinnoff) create enough beginner-level material to make PostgreSQL the de-facto database for learning RDBMS concepts and that would help promote PostgreSQL beyond the benefits of certifications. My own suggestion is creating something in the following ways: 1) Create an outline of what we feel is necessary to test and maybe what weight the subjects should have on the certification process. 2) Let participating firms create exams based on #1. 3) Create an official community and peer-reviewed curriculum teaching these topics. 4) Create an official body to certify that the exams covered in step #2 meet community requirements. In my view the community cannot create certification exams of most levels (advanced certifications might be possible though) due to the issue of secrecy of the questions. Instead, I would suggest "certifying the certifiers." This allows nearly all of the documentation created by the group to be open for review. It would also separate the certification from the standard which might allow for better certifications.... The secret to success will be to have several dedicated people involved, and have a chair who has strong coordination skills (who can keep the group on-target). >It so happens that I'm fairly close to another community project, several SRA America people are involved in, called theBSD Certification Group, http://bsdcertification.org. They are successfully developing a world-wide certification standardsfor all the BSD variants. > >Many of you BSD people know the BSD certification debates. Much of what's been discussed here, are exactly the same issuesdiscussed there. > >The point I want to make is .... this group is suceeding ..... > >The secret to their success is the "process" and excellent "documentation". There are ten people in the group. They coordinate the debates and policy implementation. They issued an online survey that got people to say what they thought wasimportant in a BSD standards. This is no small survey; it takes two hours to fill out and they had the survey translatedinto a number of languages. In the first two weeks they had recieved over 2,000 completed surveys. They've recentlyissued their Task Analysis Survey Report,http://bsdcertification.org/downloads/sr1_links.pdf, and it's a whopping144 pages long. And just yesterday they published their Certification Roadmap, http://bsdcertification.org/downloads/BSDCertificationRoadmap.pdf. > > > Will bsdcertification.org actually prepare their own certification exams? Or will they have other companies do it? >The group finds itself getting support from all over the world. In the past seven months the group's chair has been invitedto speak at conferences in North America, Europe, South America (even a group in India wants to bring her over) aboutwhat they are doing. > >It is the BSD Certification Group's intention of documenting a how-to of what it will take for an opensource community tocreate a standards body similar to what they've done. > >Comments? > > Since you have been involved in the bsdcertification.org group, how would you see us going forward? Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
Having taken part in the "Certification Available + Pronounce thread", and thought about it, I think the other guys are right. The SRA certification would suffice. I think, it would be better to put efforts into really good RDBMS tutorial documentation - make them the best out there, and therein target the Universities. Universities i'm sure will link to these excellent resources, and the knock on effect would be to get beginners a) learning RDBMS the right-way, and b) with a slant towards PostgreSQl usage. Really good get-up-and-running documentation, and examples of graduate-year style sample projects - and hints and tips on and good-practice, database design, and compatibility issues explained would be most beneficial. This way, you get open-source training - improving the quality of new-comer's knowledge of RDMBS's (They'll read till the cows come home if it means they get help on there projects and learn key database-point that they can impress in their reports). This well trained new wave will then (I think) provide the best means of securing the brightest future for PostgreSQL and database systems of the future etc. Chris Travers wrote: > Robert Bernier wrote: > <snip> > >> The second fact that I want to bring up concerns PostgreSQL >> certification itself. The challenge we face is that at this time >> there is no community derived certification for PostgreSQL. But.... >> in my opinion (I'm not speaking for the company now folks) >> certification is valid and worthwhile when the standards it follows >> has been developed on a community/consensual basis. So do how we >> develop a standard that will be of high quality and accepted by the >> community? >> >> >> > How many people are interested in participating? How do we get people > to participate? I would be interested in doing what I can. > > I would suggest that if we do this well, we can (as a spinnoff) create > enough beginner-level material to make PostgreSQL the de-facto > database for learning RDBMS concepts and that would help promote > PostgreSQL beyond the benefits of certifications. > > My own suggestion is creating something in the following ways: > > 1) Create an outline of what we feel is necessary to test and maybe > what weight the subjects should have on the certification process. > 2) Let participating firms create exams based on #1. > 3) Create an official community and peer-reviewed curriculum teaching > these topics. > 4) Create an official body to certify that the exams covered in step > #2 meet community requirements. > > In my view the community cannot create certification exams of most > levels (advanced certifications might be possible though) due to the > issue of secrecy of the questions. Instead, I would suggest > "certifying the certifiers." This allows nearly all of the > documentation created by the group to be open for review. It would > also separate the certification from the standard which might allow > for better certifications.... > > The secret to success will be to have several dedicated people > involved, and have a chair who has strong coordination skills (who can > keep the group on-target). > >> It so happens that I'm fairly close to another community project, >> several SRA America people are involved in, called the BSD >> Certification Group, http://bsdcertification.org. They are >> successfully developing a world-wide certification standards for all >> the BSD variants. >> Many of you BSD people know the BSD certification debates. Much of >> what's been discussed here, are exactly the same issues discussed there. >> >> The point I want to make is .... this group is suceeding ..... >> The secret to their success is the "process" and excellent >> "documentation". There are ten people in the group. They coordinate >> the debates and policy implementation. They issued an online survey >> that got people to say what they thought was important in a BSD >> standards. This is no small survey; it takes two hours to fill out >> and they had the survey translated into a number of languages. In the >> first two weeks they had recieved over 2,000 completed surveys. >> They've recently issued their Task Analysis Survey >> Report,http://bsdcertification.org/downloads/sr1_links.pdf, and it's >> a whopping 144 pages long. And just yesterday they published their >> Certification Roadmap, >> http://bsdcertification.org/downloads/BSDCertificationRoadmap.pdf. >> >> >> > Will bsdcertification.org actually prepare their own certification > exams? Or will they have other companies do it? > >> The group finds itself getting support from all over the world. In >> the past seven months the group's chair has been invited to speak at >> conferences in North America, Europe, South America (even a group in >> India wants to bring her over) about what they are doing. >> >> It is the BSD Certification Group's intention of documenting a how-to >> of what it will take for an opensource community to create a >> standards body similar to what they've done. >> >> Comments? >> >> > Since you have been involved in the bsdcertification.org group, how > would you see us going forward? > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > Metatron Technology Consulting > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match
On August 26, 2005 01:00 pm, Chris Travers wrote: > >The second fact that I want to bring up concerns PostgreSQL certification > > itself. The challenge we face is that at this time there is no community > > derived certification for PostgreSQL..... how we develop a standard that will be of high quality and accepted by thecommunity? > How many people are interested in participating? How do we get people > to participate? STEP ONE: debate the merits of creating a standards organization on this mail list This I think is job 1. There's going to be respectful disagreement and I'd like to hear from everybody on this. I'm pro standardsgroup, especially after seeing how well the BSD Certification Group have done their work. STEP TWO (assuming there's enough consensus AND only minor disagreement): assemble a team creating a standards organization STEP THREE: get this team on chat and hash out the nitty gritty. I can ask the BSD Certification chair to sit in on a chatsession and tell us their experiences. > Will bsdcertification.org actually prepare their own certification > exams? Or will they have other companies do it? Companies are being encouraged to run their own testing/certification infra-structure. The BSD Certification Group has takenthe position that competition is good. What they want is to create a set of standards that others will use. Maybe CompTIAwould be a valid example here. If you can, I encourage to glance through the survey results but read the roadmap thoroughly. Every idea or issue that youcan imagine regarding certification standards was covered (at least it sure seems that way).
Robert Bernier wrote: >On August 26, 2005 01:00 pm, Chris Travers wrote: > > >>>The second fact that I want to bring up concerns PostgreSQL certification >>>itself. The challenge we face is that at this time there is no community >>>derived certification for PostgreSQL..... how we develop a standard that will be of high quality and accepted by the community? >>> >>> > > > >>How many people are interested in participating? How do we get people >>to participate? >> >> > >STEP ONE: debate the merits of creating a standards organization on this mail list > >This I think is job 1. There's going to be respectful disagreement and I'd like to hear from everybody on this. I'm prostandards group, especially after seeing how well the BSD Certification Group have done their work. > > Ok. I see where you are going. I am pro-standards-group too, in case nobody had guessed :-) However, my question (especially since you work for SRA) is what the perspective is likely to be from the main player in this area? After all we would be lowering the barrier to entry substantially. The second corrolary question is what the scope of such a standards group should be? Should it be limited to certification? Or should it cover curriculum development as well? Personally I think curriculum development is even more important than certification for such a group, but I have no real objection to a group solely focused on certification. I do wonder if it is putting the cart before the horse however. >>Will bsdcertification.org actually prepare their own certification >>exams? Or will they have other companies do it? >> >> > >Companies are being encouraged to run their own testing/certification infra-structure. The BSD Certification Group has takenthe position that competition is good. What they want is to create a set of standards that others will use. Maybe CompTIAwould be a valid example here. > > CompTIA manages their own certification tests, though. I.e. I am not aware of any spinnoffs of the A+ that they endorse. FWIW, I have liked the CompTIA exams I have taken (and the A+ is generally a useful exam, though I have never had need to know how to use an ammeter). So the question is whether we are looking at certifications managed by this group or whether the group will endorse programs by other companies (or both, but I am not sure that it is feasible to pursue both avenues). >If you can, I encourage to glance through the survey results but read the roadmap thoroughly. Every idea or issue that youcan imagine regarding certification standards was covered (at least it sure seems that way). > > Will do that this weekend. Thanks :-) Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:41:29PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> david@fetter.org (David Fetter) writes:
> > I'm not sure I understand this question. Could you explain what
> > purposes and whose interests such a certification, if it existed,
> > would serve?
>
> There's a clear set of steps...
>
> 1. Create PostgreSQL Certification Program
> 2. Collect underpants^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcertificants
> 3. ___ ____ __ _____, ___ _____ ___
> 4. Profit!^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPopularity!
>
This is unfair. Large companies frequently require such
certification availability in order to consider a technology ready
for "Enterprise" use. The value of that technical judgement may be
0, but the adoption-rate value of it is not.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
"The year's penultimate month" is not in truth a good way of saying
November.
--H.W. Fowler
Oh, geez. Apparently it's my day to be beating people with the
testing-methodology stick.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 09:00:11AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> However, in my experience, there is, if anything, a fairly strong
> *negative* correllation between actual skills and acquiring
> certifications. It is far from obvious to me that stamping out a
[. . .]
> Those marketing advantages can quite quickly vanish, or even go
> turn into a liability, should a cadre of incompetents brandishing
> certificates appear.
All that tells you is that your certification process needs to be
good; not that certification is somehow guaranteed to be bad. An
instance of something in a class C that exhibits property P does not
entail that all Cs are Ps.
I'll happy agree that certain companies who sell the
most-common-desktop software and the targets-are-shaped-like-Os
database software created certifications that were mostly sales
programmes _instead of_ tests of competency in the areas purportedly
certified. That does not entail that industrial certifications are
worthless. In the network area, for instance, SANS certification is
certainly worth something, and even Cisco's offerings are good enough
that such people are usually worth listening to.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:11:04PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> Consider the political issues surrounding standardized testing in
> schools; both in the US and Canada, there is a lot of controversy
> surrounding "standardized tests." Parents and politicians want there
> to be some form of "accountability", which has led to students
> spending more and more of their year writing such tests, with a
> concomitant reduction in the amount of time teachers can spend
> actually teaching them. They are increasingly 'well tested,' but less
> educated, because the time was spent on tests :-(.
This is only indirectly related to the difficulty of writing good
tests. Good tests _are_ difficult to write, and are extremely
difficult to validate: ask the people who prepare the LSAT and GRE if
you doubt it. But that's not what the problem is with standardised
testing of schoolchildren. The problem there is that everyone _also_
expects that the standardized testing won't result in more children
flunking out. What people want is a standardized test that produces
happy results, rather than tests that are good predictors of academic
ability.
Which is why many certification tests are crap: they're there to seed
the market with enthusiastic product adopters; and giving someone who
just paid $1500 for the privilege of taking the test a failing grade
is not likely to gain new adherents.
What I'd be really interested in seeing, therefore, is an institute
that handled such test scores the way ETS handles GRE scores: you
agree to release such scores to interested parties when you take the
test.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner
On Monday 29 August 2005 17:19, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Which is why many certification tests are crap: they're there to seed
> the market with enthusiastic product adopters; and giving someone who
> just paid $1500 for the privilege of taking the test a failing grade
> is not likely to gain new adherents.
>
The interesting thing about this conversation is that what this project really
needs is a way to seed the market with enthusiastic product adoptors.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 12:41:29PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote: >>david@fetter.org (David Fetter) writes: >>>I'm not sure I understand this question. Could you explain what >>>purposes and whose interests such a certification, if it existed, >>>would serve? >> >>1. Create PostgreSQL Certification Program... >>4. Profit!... > > This is unfair. Large companies frequently require such > certification availability in order to consider a technology ready > for "Enterprise" use. The value of that technical judgement may be > 0, but the adoption-rate value of it is not. Hmm, if some companies like a large available pool of Certified users for a technology; and others want certified engineers whose certs really mean something, I could think of ways to do that. Why not bless every Postgresql Users Group with the ability to issue "official Postgresql Certifications" to whomever they wish based on the criteria they choose themselves. Some would choose to have the hardest-core guru-level certs - and those recruiters in the know would seek-out and favor those certs that indicate quality. Others would have the friendliest "click yes on the windows installer and you pass" certifications that would produce the volume of candidates to compete with the certified Access DBAs that employers might otherwise give job offers to. Best thing about this is that it might get more people to check out the user's groups - which I must admit was an eye-openingly good experience when I went.
Hi Chris, Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on this, Fridays can be such a drag. On August 26, 2005 03:26 pm, Chris Travers wrote: > >STEP ONE: debate the merits of creating a standards organization on this > > mail list > > > >This I think is job 1. There's going to be respectful disagreement and I'd > > like to hear from everybody on this. I'm pro standards group, especially > > after seeing how well the BSD Certification Group have done their work. > > Ok. I see where you are going. I am pro-standards-group too, in case > nobody had guessed :-) However, my question (especially since you work > for SRA) is what the perspective is likely to be from the main player in > this area? After all we would be lowering the barrier to entry > substantially. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Do you mean, how does SRA feel about how we would react if there was such a thing as a standards body? In that cae then Iwould say that a globally agreed set of standards makes it easier to train people exactly what they need to know to beable to work with PostgreSQL. There is no 'lowering the barrier' in the sense that an organization who decides to offerlegitimate training obtains credibility by demonstrating thay they follow what the industry says they need in theirDBAs. > The second corrolary question is what the scope of such a standards > group should be? I'd like to tackle this from the practical point of view. Standards do two things: 1. they tell people what the industry says they need to know 2. they promote good training programs Fly by night instructors are what normally forces standards to come into being. Yet standards don't necesarily exist at thebegining of a new paradign, especially if the pioneers do it right. > Should it cover curriculum development as well? Take a look at the BSD Certification Group's work. Their survey contains extensive data on this issue. > I think curriculum development is more important than certification ... I wonder if it is putting the cart before thehorse. Only if there's no debate in the community about PostgreSQL teaching. Consider the following questions: How do you know if the curriculum is any good? How do your peers know what you're about 'without' taking the time getting to know you? How does an employer know if you have good training? I've noticed people hire with confidence only when a 3rd party agency says you're good. -- Robert Bernier PostgreSQL Business Intelligence Analyst SRA AMERICA (Formerly of One WTC) PostgreSQL Services:Consulting,Migration,Support and Training One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Tel: 212.244.8833 ext:22 www.sraapowergres.com robertb@sraapowergres.com www.sraamerica.com
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 02:08:48PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on this, Fridays can be such a drag. Heh. > On August 26, 2005 03:26 pm, Chris Travers wrote: > > >STEP ONE: debate the merits of creating a standards organization > > >on this mail list > > > > > >This I think is job 1. There's going to be respectful > > >disagreement and I'd like to hear from everybody on this. I'm > > >pro standards group, especially after seeing how well the BSD > > >Certification Group have done their work. > > > > Ok. I see where you are going. I am pro-standards-group too, in > > case nobody had guessed :-) However, my question (especially > > since you work for SRA) is what the perspective is likely to be > > from the main player in this area? After all we would be lowering > > the barrier to entry substantially. > > I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. > > Do you mean, how does SRA feel about how we would react if there was > such a thing as a standards body? In that cae then I would say that > a globally agreed set of standards makes it easier to train people > exactly what they need to know to be able to work with PostgreSQL. > There is no 'lowering the barrier' in the sense that an organization > who decides to offer legitimate training obtains credibility by > demonstrating thay they follow what the industry says they need in > their DBAs. Sadly, this is often not true. Organizations quite frequently *buy* credibility for these kinds of courses through their marketing arms. I am not saying that SRA would do this, but to ignore this common practice is disingenuous. > > The second corrolary question is what the scope of such a > > standards group should be? > > I'd like to tackle this from the practical point of view. Standards > do two things: > > 1. they tell people what the industry says they need to know > > 2. they promote good training programs > > Fly by night instructors are what normally forces standards to come > into being. Yet standards don't necesarily exist at the begining of > a new paradign, especially if the pioneers do it right. I'm not sure what you mean by this. That an outfit is large and established does not prevent it from being shot through with rot and b.s. As far as standards go, it's not the existence of fly-by-night outfits that makes it important to have them, but the fact that people quite easily have conflicts of interest. It's *crucial* that the standards body and the promoting body be clearly separated by a bright, sharp, uncrossable line. > > Should it cover curriculum development as well? > > Take a look at the BSD Certification Group's work. Their survey > contains extensive data on this issue. :) > > I think curriculum development is more important than > > certification ... I wonder if it is putting the cart before the > > horse. > > Only if there's no debate in the community about PostgreSQL > teaching. Consider the following questions: > > How do you know if the curriculum is any good? Partly, you know it's possible that the curriculum is any good because the people making the curriculum and the people making the test are not in bed together. It is hard to overemphasize the deleterious effect that conflicts of interest have on the process. > How do your peers know what you're about 'without' taking the time > getting to know you? What makes you think that this is possible? > How does an employer know if you have good training? An employer needs to establish this during the hiring process, and this process cannot be made easy or cheap, no matter how many hiring managers wish it were. Taking a bunch of probing interviews and actually checking references is a *lot* cheaper than hiring somebody who turns out to be incompetent. > I've noticed people hire with confidence only when a 3rd party > agency says you're good. If by 3rd party, you mean previous employers, educators, and peers, then I agree. If by 3rd party, you mean some officious certification, then it signifies only to the foolish. Cheers, D -- David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote!
Robert Bernier wrote: <snip> >Only if there's no debate in the community about PostgreSQL teaching. Consider the following questions: > >How do you know if the curriculum is any good? > > > IMO, Peer review is the only solution here. >How do your peers know what you're about 'without' taking the time getting to know you? > > > http://www.metatrontech.com/projects/ and http://www.metatrontech.com/wpapers/ ;-) I have my doubts regarding whether a certification of any type (up to and including a PhD) will suffice for that broad question. However, the more common question of "Will this person make a competant DBA?" is probably more addressable in a certification program. >How does an employer know if you have good training? > > I would assume by the reputation of the training company, but who knows if this is really accurate. You can't reduce these things to numbers or statistics. For example, if only 10% of the people pass the exam after the training, does this mean that the exam was hard, that the individuals were not DBA material, or that the instructor was bad? If 9% pass, did the instructor help them memorize test questions and scenarios? Or was the instructor good? Or was the class composed entirely of experienced DBA's who could pass the exam in their sleep? I have great faith in people to play a numbers game and in marketeers with inferior products which appear bright and shiny to take over the world..... > > >I've noticed people hire with confidence only when a 3rd party agency says you're good. > > Did I already make a joke about this as an X.509 Certification Authority? I think that in the end a standards organization is good for the very simple reason that getting peer review involved in the process would be helpful. Part of the reason why I have advocated certifying the certifiers is that this brings peer review to the training and exam level in a way in which the conflicts of interest are minimized. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:37:37PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> The interesting thing about this conversation is that what this project really
> needs is a way to seed the market with enthusiastic product adoptors.
Well, you want _competent_ enthusiastic product adopters, right? I
mean, the reason many of the crappy certifications work so well is
because Bob Pointyhair and Marie Cheveuxpointus are setting up their
New Important Services Organisation des Services Importants Nouvaux
(NISOSIN), and they hire a bunch of twerps who have certification.
This is the real problem David was talking about: because we don't
have a whole service arm of the company (we don't have a company!)
that is here to rescue customers who already have incompetent staff,
we don't have a way to convince those potential users that our
software doesn't suck (when they use it wrong). My boss was just
yesterday telling me of a case he recently heard of in this vein:
some folks he knows couldn't make Postgres work, so they went and
used something else. They believe you Can't Do That With Postgres,
even though what they really should have concluded is probably one of
Don't Do That or you Can't Do That With Those Staff.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir?
--attr. John Maynard Keynes
Hello, The only certifications that are worth a darn are the ones that are hands on. If I can read a manual and pass the test, I don't deserve the cert. I have been certified in the past on many platforms, hardware and software. Everyone of them I could read a study guide over the weekend, take the test on Monday and Viola! I am certified. Any certification for PostgreSQL should be more like the RHCE or CISCO certs where there are hands on Lab exercies that must be resolved. I had a buddy that said (I have never taken it so I don't know) that with the CISCO cert, they will give you a lab, and arbitrarily break the config and leave you to fix it. That is real life people. A cert should incorporate not only general knowledge that can be retrieved from the manual, but more important it should at least contain some of the stuff that can't be retrieved from the manual. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:46, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 05:37:37PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > The interesting thing about this conversation is that what this project
> > really needs is a way to seed the market with enthusiastic product
> > adoptors.
>
> Well, you want _competent_ enthusiastic product adopters, right? I
> mean, the reason many of the crappy certifications work so well is
> because Bob Pointyhair and Marie Cheveuxpointus are setting up their
> New Important Services Organisation des Services Importants Nouvaux
> (NISOSIN), and they hire a bunch of twerps who have certification.
>
Gee, I don't know. It doesn't seem to stop people from setting up crappy
pre-2000 era functionality email systems with thier "certified exchange
administrator".
> This is the real problem David was talking about: because we don't
> have a whole service arm of the company (we don't have a company!)
> that is here to rescue customers who already have incompetent staff,
> we don't have a way to convince those potential users that our
> software doesn't suck (when they use it wrong). My boss was just
> yesterday telling me of a case he recently heard of in this vein:
> some folks he knows couldn't make Postgres work, so they went and
> used something else. They believe you Can't Do That With Postgres,
> even though what they really should have concluded is probably one of
> Don't Do That or you Can't Do That With Those Staff.
>
This anecdote seems to contradict itself since there *are* a lot of services
companies running around (which I am guessing they didn't try to make use
of). The other question is does having a lot of well trained people in the
market get people to use PostgreSQL? At some point it would, but I don't
think it does now...I certainly don't think it would have help the folks in
your example. I bet we'd be better off with a "certified postgresql user"
setup where people can easily get certified as long as they know the basics
of postgresql (command line tools, 10 most important conf settings,
familiarity with some anciallry tools like slony, pgadmin, ppa, pqa or some
such). Basically I'm not sure we've conquerued the "we don't use postgres
cause nobody uses it" excuse, and a simple certification might help do that.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Guys, I've taken a couple of days to respond to this thread so as to set up the following offer to the community ..... On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:39, Chris Travers wrote: > >Only if there's no debate in the community about PostgreSQL teaching. > > Consider the following questions: > > > >How do you know if the curriculum is any good? > > IMO, Peer review is the only solution here. Peer review is a great idea. So let's move to the next level: I am asking for members in the community to come forward and take our test that was developed by the SRA Japan branch. We're proud of what we have but community input is appreciated. The objective is to audit the test, see what's good and, where necesary, what can be improved upon. Richard Romanik, Vice President of Sales, has authorized the release of 12 vouchers for members of the Postgres community to take the SRA America Silver Certification Exam at any of the Pearson testing centers, http://www.vue.com/, which have locations around the World. All you need to do is contact Rich, rich@sraapowergres.com, and ask for a voucher. Vouchers are on a first come, first serve basis. -- Robert Bernier PostgreSQL Business Intelligence Analyst SRA AMERICA (Formerly of One WTC) PostgreSQL Services:Consulting,Migration,Support and Training One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Tel: 212.244.8833 ext:22 www.sraapowergres.com robertb@sraapowergres.com www.sraamerica.com
Robert, > All you need to do is contact Rich, rich@sraapowergres.com, and ask for a > voucher. Vouchers are on a first come, first serve basis. Hmmm ... wouldn't you want to qualify people who had an actual interest in "certifying" the test? And could be counted on to pass ;-) Or did you not mean to send this to the list yet? Ooops. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Thursday 01 September 2005 12:47, Josh Berkus wrote: > Robert, > > > All you need to do is contact Rich, rich@sraapowergres.com, and ask for a > > voucher. Vouchers are on a first come, first serve basis. > > Hmmm ... wouldn't you want to qualify people who had an actual interest in > "certifying" the test? And could be counted on to pass ;-) > > Or did you not mean to send this to the list yet? Ooops. I should have removed "draft communication" :-[ Otherwise, you have a point in stating the obvious; those people who contact us are understood to be well versed with PostgreSQLand are interested in promoting it i.e. take the test. robert
Please be patient and give us a couple of days to get back to all you who are voicing an interest. On Thursday 01 September 2005 13:29, Robert Bernier wrote: > On Thursday 01 September 2005 12:47, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Robert, > > > > > All you need to do is contact Rich, rich@sraapowergres.com, and ask for > > > a voucher. Vouchers are on a first come, first serve basis. > > > > Hmmm ... wouldn't you want to qualify people who had an actual interest > > in "certifying" the test? And could be counted on to pass ;-) > > > > Or did you not mean to send this to the list yet? Ooops. > > I should have removed "draft communication" :-[ > > Otherwise, you have a point in stating the obvious; those people who > contact us are understood to be well versed with PostgreSQL and are > interested in promoting it i.e. take the test. > > robert > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match
VOUCHER UPDATE Guys, we've got our names from those people who've shown an interest in getting a free voucher to take the SRA PostgreSQLSilver Certification test. We'll be contacting them in the next little while and will keep the rest of you up tospeed on how they found the test. W'ere coming into the labour weekend here in North America so please be patient about us responding to you. Holidays havea way of doing that :-) I'll keep you informed as events unfold. cheers Robert Bernier
Sorry, September was bad for lists in this part of the world.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 09:39:00AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:46, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > software doesn't suck (when they use it wrong). My boss was just
> > yesterday telling me of a case he recently heard of in this vein:
> > some folks he knows couldn't make Postgres work, so they went and
> > used something else. They believe you Can't Do That With Postgres,
> > even though what they really should have concluded is probably one of
> > Don't Do That or you Can't Do That With Those Staff.
> >
>
> This anecdote seems to contradict itself since there *are* a lot of services
> companies running around (which I am guessing they didn't try to make use
> of).
Right. Because when they ran into trouble, they couldn't go to
The Vendor. When you're dealing with that mindset, you run into some
trouble.
> The other question is does having a lot of well trained people in the
> market get people to use PostgreSQL? At some point it would, but I don't
> think it does now.
This is true; although the converse is certainly a bigger deal (not
having people available makes potential adopters go elsewhere). A
couple years ago, I decided not to take a job out in the suburbs
(because I didn't want to drive), and so the people used MySQL
instead of Postgres.
> your example. I bet we'd be better off with a "certified postgresql user"
> setup where people can easily get certified as long as they know the basics
> of postgresql (command line tools, 10 most important conf settings,
> familiarity with some anciallry tools like slony, pgadmin, ppa, pqa or some
> such). Basically I'm not sure we've conquerued the "we don't use postgres
> cause nobody uses it" excuse, and a simple certification might help do that.
There's something to this, but if I had a nickel for every "stupid
certified guy didn't know anything" story I've heard, I'd be able to
retire and set up a Postgres support company.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton