Re: cert discussion

[pomeranz@netcom.com (Hal Pomeranz)]

} I'm not sure why you think [certification] will reduce salaries; 
} the Microsoft/Netware crowd seems to believe it increases salaries.
} Are there any relevant facts?

I was commenting to somebody last night that some historical research
is probably in order.  I wonder which historical precedent to consult,
however.

} My intuition is that it increases low-end
} salaries and does nothing to high-end salaries, because high-end
} salaries are driven by pure desperation. But my intuition vs. your
} intuition is not a fruitful argument. 

I tend to agree about intuition vs. intuition arguments, but for
the record I believe that certification (particularly at a low
level) will tacitly create in the minds of hiring managers a pool
of essentially fungible resources, causing them to think about
this group as a commodity and driving entry-level salaries down.

} I'm also not sure how a certification program *could* either enforce
} a rigid status quo, *or* discrimate against non-traditional administrators.

Whatever goes onto the exam is the somebody's notion of the minimum
acceptable knowledge in a given field.  If I completely disagree with
the exam writer, but employers are using that credential to screen
applicants, I'm forced to tacitly support the exam-writers world-view
at least enough to pass the exam and put that on my resume.  Since I'm
also generally lazy, there's not much incentive to originate new
thought in the area.

Also, I meant "non-traditional administrators" in the sense of growing
up outside of the SAGE/USENIX sphere of thought.  I think there are
a lot of practicing administrators out there who don't share our
prejudices.

} (For instance, testing programs routinely
} provide adaptations for people with learning disabilities;

Testing programs also still routinely disenfranchise large segments
of the population.  Hey, I don't care, I'm a male WASP, so I kick
serious butt on these tests and the rest of you just improve my
overall ranking.

} it's also
} possible to provide an alternate non-test certification route.)

The usual tactic here is to grandfather in people with a certain amount
of work experience.  But if the certification exam is the only way for
people new to the profession to get a job, then they're in a bit of a
catch-22.

} I know several people who're "non-traditional" if that means
} "non-degreed"; one of them would be actively aided by a certificate
} program, since he could easily get one and it would distract employers
} from his lack of degree. The other probably wouldn't get a certificate --
} although he could ask for and receive adaptations, it's an incredible
} nuisance to do so, and the test is inherently much harder for him
} than for most of the rest of us. And he has no great reason to care;
} employers are so blinded by his accomplishments that relatively few
} of them even notice he's missing a degree.

You conveniently leave out the people who would be actively aided by a
certificate because of the lack of some other credential (a degree,
work experience, etc.), but for whom the same issues that prevented
them getting the other credentials they need will also prevent them
from getting an certificate that SAGE offers.

}  >-- It is morally wrong because SAGE is not representative of the global
}  >   administration community or even the global Unix administration 
}  >   community.  
} 
} I really don't see where this matters. A SAGE system administration
} certificate is a SAGE system administration certificate, not a decree
} of absolute truth. [...]
} [...] If SAGE
} doesn't represent its community, that makes its certificates worthless
} pieces of paper, but I don't think it makes the enterprise immoral. 

If the certificates are worthless pieces of paper than it would at least
be wrong in a fiduciary sense for SAGE to be pursuing certification.
This gets back to a response I wanted to make to a comment you made in
a previous message.  There's really no shortage of productive things the
Board could be doing besides certification.  And the Board shouldn't 
wait for good proposals to be dropped in front of them.  We elected the
Board to proactively operate in our best interests.

}  >   Furthermore, I believe the Board is pursuing certification
}  >   without a clear mandate from the membership.
} 
} This I basically agree with; that is, I think clear mandates from
} the membership are rarer than perfectly sunny days in Seattle, but
} that this is an issue where things are much worse than unclear. 
} I would like it clarified ASAP, because we've been going through this
} every 3 months for SAGE's entire history. It's time to either do it,
} or kill it. Just kinda not doing it is not a useful option. 

Yes, I've been having this really strong feeling of deja vu.  Hello,
Board?  Where are the survey results we've been asking for?  I'd also
love to send out the survey again now that we've had this discussion
in front of the membership.  Bet we'd get a lot more response this time
and it would be more strongly polarized.  Could we also archive this
discussion somewhere so we don't have to have it all over again?

Don't you think we also ought to survey hiring managers, recruiters,
HR departments, etc. to see if they think a certificate from us would
be worthwhile?

}  >Let me further state that just because employers might be clamoring for
}  >some sort of ranking system for System Administration candidates, and even
}  >if Sun, Microsoft, and every other vendor in the world panders to this sort
}  >of inane credentialism, there is no reason in the world why SAGE should
}  >pursue such a course.
} 
} Amen, brother! But... I think you're partly fighting a straw man here.
} Yeah, some of the reason people want to do this boils down to "Everybody
} else is, why can't I?" and that's an argument beneath contempt. But
} "employers are clamoring" really is "SAGE members are clamoring", which
} is a good argument. And "everybody else is doing it really badly, which
} annoys me, and I can do it right and make the world a better place" is
} an argument which might be factually incorrect, but isn't ridiculous.

So we're pretty much in violent agreement about the parameters of
discussion.  There's a significant, if not vocal, group of folks in
SAGE who are, shall we say, less than excited about the prospect of
certification.  I also submit that there are ways to satisfy the 
faction who _are_ clamoring without pursuing certification.  I don't
think we've done a very good job understanding what people are actually
clamoring for, which is shameful considering this is what we all do
every day as a profession.

Then also you and I and other people who have joined this discussion
have been spending some time arguing about whether we can do it right
and whether that will make the world a better place, though I think
the jury's still out.

Hal Pomeranz, Principal        Deer Run Associates        hal@deer-run.com
      Network Connectivity and Security, Systems Management, Training