<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Reasons to consider certification	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lobsterpot.com.au/blog/2009/02/27/reasons-to-consider-certification/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lobsterpot.com.au/blog/2009/02/27/reasons-to-consider-certification/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:14:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: robfarley		</title>
		<link>https://lobsterpot.com.au/blog/2009/02/27/reasons-to-consider-certification/#comment-670</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[robfarley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/blogs/robfarley/archive/2009/02/27/reasons-to-consider-certification.aspx#comment-670</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Microsoft does offer upgrade certifications, but I think just as importantly, it versions its offerings. If you have passed exams in SQL 2005, you have a SQL 2005 certification. That doesn&#039;t mean you have a certification in SQL 2000 or SQL 2008. Then there are upgrade exams to shift to the SQL 2008 stream. This does put a few people in the situation of slowing updating their skills but without having updated their certification level, but also combats the problem of having someone with a 10-year-old certification claiming to have skills in the latest products.

They&#039;re increasing the hands-on nature of the exam with simulation and emulation questions too. And I would challenge people who feel they have enough skills to be worthy of a certification to go and sit the exams to see how they go. Most of the time, someone who already has the skills should be able to pass without any further study.

Rob]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Microsoft does offer upgrade certifications, but I think just as importantly, it versions its offerings. If you have passed exams in SQL 2005, you have a SQL 2005 certification. That doesn&#8217;t mean you have a certification in SQL 2000 or SQL 2008. Then there are upgrade exams to shift to the SQL 2008 stream. This does put a few people in the situation of slowing updating their skills but without having updated their certification level, but also combats the problem of having someone with a 10-year-old certification claiming to have skills in the latest products.</p>
<p>They&#8217;re increasing the hands-on nature of the exam with simulation and emulation questions too. And I would challenge people who feel they have enough skills to be worthy of a certification to go and sit the exams to see how they go. Most of the time, someone who already has the skills should be able to pass without any further study.</p>
<p>Rob</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: TheRobDog		</title>
		<link>https://lobsterpot.com.au/blog/2009/02/27/reasons-to-consider-certification/#comment-669</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TheRobDog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/blogs/robfarley/archive/2009/02/27/reasons-to-consider-certification.aspx#comment-669</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I think providers offering certification need to tune their offerings to more reflect the ongoing style of IT work and the (typically) ongoing need for certification - to reduce the appearance of it looking like an ongoing money-sink with no end. In many (most?) instances, complete recertification is required &#039;n&#039; years down the track, often when the individual has been using the skills on a daily basis and gaining experience with incremental releases as they arrive. This model might be suitable for a certification junkie who never touches the product in anger, but not for people who are certifying to meet a direct need. Sure there are a few &#039;upgrade&#039; certs out there, but they seem to be in the minority to me ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think providers offering certification need to tune their offerings to more reflect the ongoing style of IT work and the (typically) ongoing need for certification &#8211; to reduce the appearance of it looking like an ongoing money-sink with no end. In many (most?) instances, complete recertification is required &#8216;n&#8217; years down the track, often when the individual has been using the skills on a daily basis and gaining experience with incremental releases as they arrive. This model might be suitable for a certification junkie who never touches the product in anger, but not for people who are certifying to meet a direct need. Sure there are a few &#8216;upgrade&#8217; certs out there, but they seem to be in the minority to me &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
