Society and Computers 6

[mutant]

I guess the issue I am trying to raise here is in parallel with the title of this forum. The variation is:

"How should the computer profession define it's standards for being a computer professional?"

In various engineering professions, you must pass a governing body's administered exam to become say a certified civil engineer. Or, you must pass the bar exam to practice law. And, the same for becoming a doctor. Getting a degree in a field doesn't guarantee that you are going to be able to practice the profession.

Will there ever be a point when there is a major meltdown of technology that society will require the computer profession to maintain equivalent standards for certification as civil engineers, lawyers or doctors? I'm not talking about hokey MS Certifications; I'm talking serious certification by a real governing body.

Computer technology is driving the industrial world and a major meltdown could cause extreme problems. As a side note, everyone knows it takes a certified person to get something as simple as an antibiotic Rx (yes, I do want to self-medicate myself). You don't have to have a PhD to write a Rx. There are many certified nurses that can do that. But, the basic point is, the person writing the Rx and also filling the Rx are certified. So, to jump back to the main point, is society placing too much faith in computers systems that are being developed by the self-taught computer experts that probably learned from other self-taught computer experts?

Where is this lack of certification going to lead the computer profession? Is there really a definition for "computer professional?" As a parallel, I might be able to self-medicate myself with a little research, but I would never want to take the responsibility for delivering a baby. It really appears that society has opted for the computer professional to be a lesser profession with lower expectactions of them.

I probably will not reply to this. I just wanted to stir up something.

 

[dwarfthrower]

Sorry mutant but this reeks of BS to me. As a self-taught (100% certification free) IT professional I firmly believe that society (by proxy, via industry) places far too much faith in certification over real-world experience.

 

[SPguru]

This has been addressed before and there are far too many different areas in the field to regulate, and the idea seems to have an odor of superiority.

So, with a Master's in Education and eight years of AIX and having worked half of them at a Fortune 500 company, you profess that I am not qualified?

There are reasons for having certain professions carry licenses, but IT certainly isn't one of them.

I saw another post you wrote, mutant, about Data Architect, and you seem to want to impress everyone very much with a lot of bullsh!t.

 

[RiverGuy]

Computer Professional is similar to Engineer -- its too broad to define it briefly.

How about "Customer Services Manager". That title can be many faceted, in any industry, with differing amounts of repsonsibility. Would you try to put a certification on that?

A doctor has a minimum set of skills he or she must be proficient in -- doctors deal with the life and death of human beings.

Just because you work with computers during the course of your employment does not designate a minimum set of skills needed. Thats what the company that hires you is there for.
On the otherhand, patients cannot assess a doctor's ability in the same way an IT Manager can assess his emplyees'.

 

[Kjonnnn]

Formal training vs self taught have always been at odd with each other.

As a musician too, musicians who purely "play by ear" are hugely defensive about learning any music theory or other mechanics of music. Formally trained musician often look down their noses at the selftaught .... while actually both could learn from each other. There are the formally trained musician who can only play what is written down in front them. They are lost in an ad lib situation. The "by ear" musicians can sit down and play and make it up as they go along and just flow, but they can't communicate the music to others.

I find the same the same scenario in Computers. While certification isnt the end all I think it has its place. I've talked to enough "self taught" techs to think "HUH? What are u talking about."
Hands on experience is irreplaceable. It seems there should be a happy medium between the two. Certification without hands on would be like getting an online medical degree.

For those that are anti-certification, is there some screening device that to someone that doesnt know me would suggest that I know my stuff at least a little. I was self taught... got laid off .... couldnt get a job until I went and got a little piece a paper that said that I at least had "seen" a computer close up. It didnt prove me as the most competent person, but I know "something."

I think there SHOULD be some type of standard. I had to deal with tech, who called himself a professional, and swore I ruined a hardrive because I installed an HP printer. "Those HP drivers tear up the harddrive" he said.

Sad.

 

[venkman]

So, to jump back to the main point, is society placing too much faith in computers systems that are being developed by the self-taught computer experts that probably learned from other self-taught computer experts?

First off, the question has to be asked, which group of techies are you talking to. It appears to me that the majority of people on this site are network administrators and sys admins. Your post seems to be directed towards programmers.

That aside the reason that certification does not work is that the field changes too often to keep up. A certification that was good 2 years ago may mean nothing now.

-Venkman

 

[Tarwn]

Ok, I think a couple people missed the point here.
From what I read it isn't a "are certuified people better" questions, but instead, "Should there be a certification process for computer fields similar to the Engineering certifucation".
-----------------------------------
I think right now the field is to wide to issue a single, overall "Certification" for computer tech work. I mean look at ASE certified mechanics. They may be required by their work place to have that, but that means they can fix cars. They aren't certified to design the car, manufacture the car, or appraise the car, only fix it.

So say we split it down.
Maybe software engineers have to be tested on design and development cycles, object oriented concepts, some theory, and other programming concepts.
Computer techs who repair computers would have to be able to explain a computer inside and out, diagnose problems from to little information, etc.
Network techs would have to do the same for networks, except also know some of the theory behind ther protocols (or at least what things like TCP, UDP, and IEEE stand for).
DBAs would have to know databse concepts, be able to diagnose problems, know some theory behind development of db designs, SQL, etc

Well, we still have web developers, pixel pushers, software installation people, reverse engineering people, computer engineers (ie, designing hardware, etc), and on and on

So while I could see some of these fields getting certifications down the road, I doubt we could do somehting like that now.

And for the record, certifications as I used it above is not to mean anything like what it does when people usually talk about computer certifications. Instead I'm using it like it was meant before these companies polluted the word, as proof of skill that you already have.

I think it would be nice if we could find a way to certify people for skills they have, but there will always be these little places making some easy money off showing people what to memorize for the test. If anything,the biggest failing of the current "certifications" is that a) they are given in the name of the company that is getting paid, and b) they are to easy. If they were to make them more difficult and less easy to cram for ahead of time, then perhaps those "Certifications" would still mean the same thing as they did when they originall came out.

[sub]01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111[/sub]

http://www.tiernok.com/

The never-completed website

 

[RiverGuy]

The only problem with REQUIRING certification for each class of work in IT is that a lot of companies cannot afford nor need full-time employees for each specific area.

In the above scenario, I would required to possess a "programming certificate", because that is my job. If a co-worker went on vacation, I would be unable to help out in his absence if I didn't possess the "troubleshooting certificiate". Unless one works for a very large company, it is highly unlikely that he or she will fit into one category only.

Large consulting firms that hire people who only program all day every day or who only support sytems all day--their reputation should speak for itself as to whether or not they hire competent people.

 

[chucknln]

Certifications are a tool, but there is no substitute for continuous study and acquistion of experience. Too many professionals get a degree and then spend the rest of their careers playing politics. Certifications are great if you want to work for a company that uses a resume scanner in place of making human contact and networking.

As a senior manager, I look for human values. The rest I can teach. The hardest two things anyone of us learns is to walk and talk. If you have the passion in your heart, you can learn anything else.

Companies are teams of real people. If I hire and fire based on specific knowledge, instead of growing my people, how can I expect the trust and respect that molds individuals into teams.

 

[SpiderBear6]

Can I work for you, chucknln ? You sound like a great boss.

 

[willir]

So many people have made so many excellent points in this thread.

I look at the computer industry and espcially the Internet as a Pandora's box.

The box has been opened and there is no going back.

- Yes certication can be good
- Yes a certified professional who scored high on the tests may be useless in the field
- Yes, an uncertified professional may outclass a highly trainined professional, or they may not
- And yes, the industry is changing so fast, the only thing we can do is have a good collection of transferable skills, and run as fast as we can to try and keep up with the changing world and new technologies.

I have three big beefs on this issue...
- As part of the sales pitch, a company will use the number certifications to equate to the expertize of their staff. For example company ABC will state we have x number of certified profressionals.

- Too many certified qnd uncertied professionals and companies have no scruples to integrity and ethics. The original post pondered this issue, and unfortunatelly, the certification process does test for the "bad guys". (Often, the certification process just means money being paid out to other professionals). Often, it is the greed factor or another human failing that is more important than anything else. This is human nature.

The Internet is a real good example of this problem.

- Lastly, people with vision are powerful people. People with vision may determine the outcome of things to come for many people. And if the vision is flawed, disaster follows. For example, the CEO of company ABC wants to become the best and largest supplier to technical support. They then go out and buy out the competition, foster elveated training, and then run out of money -- a lot of people are suddenly out of work. I have seen this scenario play out too many times.

Another example... A rumour has it certain indivudal, way back in the command line and dot command days, saw a graphical interface screen being used by another comapny to manipulate a computer. This individual had a vision that the graphical interface would be how computers will be used. As he focused on making this vision a reality, his vision grew that the OS would do this and that. But I feel he forgot about human nature, and my second beef. He built systems with too many holes. And since the vision was so enticing, a lot of people bought into the vision. And now in a single day, a ton of money can be lost and lives ruined because of one person without scruples.

Pandora's box has been opened. Free enterprize and a bit of greed and human nature will keep it open. We exist in a world economy, and closing the loop hole in country will still leave loop holes open in other countries.

 

[sleipnir214]

chuckln:
You're correct for the most part. But I've met a couple of those who prove the rule: burning to further their knowledge and experience in IT, but having talents so completely unsuited for the job that no amount of tutoring or passion can get them anywhere.

willir:
You missed a step. Bill Gates wasn't the first person to come out with a mass-market computer with a GUI. Steve Jobs was.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[lespaul]

Yes but Bill did a much better marketing job then Steve did. How many non-computer people know who Bill Gates is? How many know who Steve Jobs is?

 

[sleipnir214]

lespaul
I don't understand your point.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[willir]

First, thanks for the clarification sleipnir214. I have taking my dumb-dumb pills today. I will now go to the corner and hang my head in shame.

I believe Lespaul's point is that Steve Job was strong technically, but he may have been less strong on the vision thing. One thing Bill Gates did was to give DOS away for free on new computers. Steve Job charged an arm and leg for Apple. People bought DOS PC's because they were cheaper.

Clarification on one of the beefs... In re-reading my first beef, I now realize it boils down to ignorance. Specifically, non-technical people making technical decisions.

 

[sleipnir214]

willir:
Specifically, non-technical people making technical decisions.

You hit that one on the head. It's especially true when you throw marketing into the mix.

There is an old adage:
The three most dangerous things in the universe are:[ul][li]a hardware guy in front of a keyboard[/li][li]a software guy with a screwdriver in his hand[/li][li]a user with an idea[/li][/ul]

Actually, the original Macintosh OS was free. It's just that it ran on technically more advanced but proprietary and much more expensive hardware.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Pyg]

Some of these posts crack me up.

The trend seems to be this...

"We want a certification process so hard that nobody can pass it except *ME* otherwise it's a worthless certification."

This is not the only place I've seen this trend. I've talked to other tech people who feel the same way.

Being certified gives companies and recruiters minimun benchmarks when looking for employees. A cert might not reflect anything more than a persons ability to memorize books but an employer should not hire someone based only on the ability to pass a cert test.

on a side note...

One person I know who did the IT hiring at a company would always ask the hardware people he interviewed how many computers they owned. He told me that if they only had one PC that he knew they did not have a passion for their craft.

The frauds are always found out one way or another.

 

[sleipnir214]

Pyg:
If hiring folks are going to use certification possession as an eligibility filter, it seems intuitively obvious to me that the more people that fail to get the cert, the more valuable that cert will be to those who successfully obtain it.


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Pyg]

Sleipnir,

Have you ever thought that maybe some of this IT stuff is really just not that hard?

 

[sleipnir214]

I agree. Some if it is not. That's why there are no certifications in "Setting an IP address" or "Turning on a computer".

But if the possession of a certification can mean the difference between a person's being employed or being unemployed, then that certification should mean something. It should be a valid metric of a person's skill in IT, not skill in memorization techniques.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!