This week I finish up with my T3's for Apple with Advanced Server Administration. This class is focused primarily on running the ADDIE process (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate) throughout the IT infrastructure of a company, and build it up using both the GUI and Command Line tools. Because it is assumed that you have been learning the GUI tools up to this point (this is the capstone course), it primarily focuses on the command line tools available to the Mac.
I'm not sure when we will offer the class at the U, as much depends on other training offerings and any additional infrastructure we would need, but I already have a lot of people interested in this class. Most of them are Linux administrators who are going to be supporting the Apple platform, and want to do so with SSH (just as they would with Linux). I already have a list of people who would love to take that class.
Anyway, it all hinges on whether or not I'm judged "good enough" to train. Partly judged by my peers, partly judged by the Master Trainer, my fate rests in their hands. At this point, however, I'm less concerned. I'm rather more concerned with how my family is doing back home. I'm literally counting the days until I fly out. But I will miss the Chicago area.
Anyway, more details on the classes I attended during this trip sometime next week. I'll give a teaser for the classes, and give you my opinion of the materials and flow of the class.
Showing posts with label Certification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Certification. Show all posts
Monday, July 14, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Mac OS X Deployment 10.5 T3: Review
As promised, here is my review for the Mac OS X Deployment 10.5 T3 that I attended this last week.
First, the location. Of course I'm biased, but I have always loved Chicago, and as such enjoyed the trip Villa Park and Oakbrook Terrace. The hotel was nice, and the location of the training facility was fairly easy to get to. The only problem: no sidewalks. It makes it difficult to walk when you don't have sidewalks, and there isn't enough room to walk on the street (without getting hit). Other than that, the location was nothing to complain about.
The materials: There are quite a lot of material for this class, and I was a little concerned that it would be impossible to fit it all into a 2 day training. Luckily, that was the thought of the course developers as well, and as such the training was extended to 3 days. That fits in perfectly with my training schedule I have planned for the University, so I didn't complain.
The Subject Matter: There was still a lot that I wanted to cover but couldn't in the class, mostly those focusing around the command line. But then, there is a separate class for that, which I will be attending in two weeks. ^_^ But those important topics, such as deploying through the command line, and imaging through the command line, were covered in depth. Also planning, scaling, and third party utilities for managing a deployment option was well covered.
One really nice thing I liked about the class was a mandate for the student to immediately apply what they have learned to a real world situation. They do this through a Deployment planning sheet, which the trainer should have printed out for each student. We didn't have it, but it was made available to us in PDF form, and there is a link that comes with the learning materials to PeachPit's website for the same PDF. Once the form is filled out, the last chapter talks about real world solutions in many large companies, school districts, and training centers, and gives the student time to go through their document to see what they find useful, and what they don't need, in their deployment of OS X.
The Requirements: It is essential the student have a command of both the Mac OS X GUI and have command line experience before starting this course. Basically, students would need to have completed at least the Server Essentials course, and be able to manage a UNIX command line experience. Why? Because at the beginning of the course you are just expected to set up your computers with little assistance from the book. At this point, it is expected that the student knows already how to set up a brand new install of Mac OS X.
The command line experience would be more along the lines of familiar with syntax of commands. Most, if not all, of the commands used are Mac OS X Utilities and not your typical UNIX commands, yet the syntax is the same and therefore the student needs to be familiar with that syntax. There may be some situations when troubleshooting is necessary, and as such the student will need to know how to get to the man pages.
Something else that would be important before taking this class is having troubleshooting knowledge, and an understanding of what you are being prepared to learn. This way if something doesn't quite work they way it's written in the book, you can step outside of the given examples and find alternatives. That's part of learning, something that many students I have had in the past didn't quite understand. It requires reading/studying ahead of time, asking questions, and being attentive.
The Pace: Unlike both Support and Server Essentials where we pend a lot of time trying to catch the class up after some really long first setup exercises, this class is paced just right for the materials. We as a training class (of 10 trainers) finished with plenty of time on the last day to cover some topics more in depth, and that was with us doing the majority of the optional exercises. So with a typical class at this level, the pacing will be such that students will have some time to play with some configuration, or perhaps have a long lunch as a thank you for coming to the class.
Overall, it is the best designed Apple training course I have attended so far. The materials are well designed, the pace is just right (low to medium cognitive load), and the course talks well to adult students (through Constructivist methods). This is a class that may not run often here in Utah, but will most likely be a well attended class when it does. It is by far my most favorite class to date. ^_^
Also, I'd like to say thanks to everyone that attended, because they gave me some very welcomed constructive criticism, and the Master Trainer was a great host. If only the Cubs could have won all three games I was there, rather than just one of the two. Oh well, there is always next time.
First, the location. Of course I'm biased, but I have always loved Chicago, and as such enjoyed the trip Villa Park and Oakbrook Terrace. The hotel was nice, and the location of the training facility was fairly easy to get to. The only problem: no sidewalks. It makes it difficult to walk when you don't have sidewalks, and there isn't enough room to walk on the street (without getting hit). Other than that, the location was nothing to complain about.
The materials: There are quite a lot of material for this class, and I was a little concerned that it would be impossible to fit it all into a 2 day training. Luckily, that was the thought of the course developers as well, and as such the training was extended to 3 days. That fits in perfectly with my training schedule I have planned for the University, so I didn't complain.
The Subject Matter: There was still a lot that I wanted to cover but couldn't in the class, mostly those focusing around the command line. But then, there is a separate class for that, which I will be attending in two weeks. ^_^ But those important topics, such as deploying through the command line, and imaging through the command line, were covered in depth. Also planning, scaling, and third party utilities for managing a deployment option was well covered.
One really nice thing I liked about the class was a mandate for the student to immediately apply what they have learned to a real world situation. They do this through a Deployment planning sheet, which the trainer should have printed out for each student. We didn't have it, but it was made available to us in PDF form, and there is a link that comes with the learning materials to PeachPit's website for the same PDF. Once the form is filled out, the last chapter talks about real world solutions in many large companies, school districts, and training centers, and gives the student time to go through their document to see what they find useful, and what they don't need, in their deployment of OS X.
The Requirements: It is essential the student have a command of both the Mac OS X GUI and have command line experience before starting this course. Basically, students would need to have completed at least the Server Essentials course, and be able to manage a UNIX command line experience. Why? Because at the beginning of the course you are just expected to set up your computers with little assistance from the book. At this point, it is expected that the student knows already how to set up a brand new install of Mac OS X.
The command line experience would be more along the lines of familiar with syntax of commands. Most, if not all, of the commands used are Mac OS X Utilities and not your typical UNIX commands, yet the syntax is the same and therefore the student needs to be familiar with that syntax. There may be some situations when troubleshooting is necessary, and as such the student will need to know how to get to the man pages.
Something else that would be important before taking this class is having troubleshooting knowledge, and an understanding of what you are being prepared to learn. This way if something doesn't quite work they way it's written in the book, you can step outside of the given examples and find alternatives. That's part of learning, something that many students I have had in the past didn't quite understand. It requires reading/studying ahead of time, asking questions, and being attentive.
The Pace: Unlike both Support and Server Essentials where we pend a lot of time trying to catch the class up after some really long first setup exercises, this class is paced just right for the materials. We as a training class (of 10 trainers) finished with plenty of time on the last day to cover some topics more in depth, and that was with us doing the majority of the optional exercises. So with a typical class at this level, the pacing will be such that students will have some time to play with some configuration, or perhaps have a long lunch as a thank you for coming to the class.
Overall, it is the best designed Apple training course I have attended so far. The materials are well designed, the pace is just right (low to medium cognitive load), and the course talks well to adult students (through Constructivist methods). This is a class that may not run often here in Utah, but will most likely be a well attended class when it does. It is by far my most favorite class to date. ^_^
Also, I'd like to say thanks to everyone that attended, because they gave me some very welcomed constructive criticism, and the Master Trainer was a great host. If only the Cubs could have won all three games I was there, rather than just one of the two. Oh well, there is always next time.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Advanced Mac OS X IT Training: Getting Certified
This week I am preparing for training in Chicago (Villa Park) for OS X Deployment, 10.5. The class is newly remade, with a pretty hefty schedule for something that was supposed to be just 2 days long. As it sits now, It looks like it will be a good 3 days for the class, though I will find out for sure next week.
The course seems to be pretty straightforward, focusing on deploying Mac OS X to a large audience. All the bases are covered from planning to execution. It will be a great class to sit through, and prepare to take the certification exam.
This will be the second time I am leaving my wife and son for training. Luckily, this week will be a short one, as I am leaving on Monday, and coming back late Thursday night. This way I will still be able to teach my Server Essentials class on Friday, and not put the students one more day behind.
The next step will be going to Mac OS X Directory Services 10.5, and Advanced Server. These classes are 4 and 5 days each, respectively, and will put me a full 11 days away from my wife and son. I didn't do well last time around Christmas, but this time the major holiday will be behind me, and I will have another that following week to devote to my son.
At any rate, it will be the first time I have ever been to Chicago in my life, and I'm really excited. I'm a big Chicago Cubs fan, and have always wanted to see the Windy City. Perhaps I'll get a chance to head into town for the weekend. One can only hope.
The course seems to be pretty straightforward, focusing on deploying Mac OS X to a large audience. All the bases are covered from planning to execution. It will be a great class to sit through, and prepare to take the certification exam.
This will be the second time I am leaving my wife and son for training. Luckily, this week will be a short one, as I am leaving on Monday, and coming back late Thursday night. This way I will still be able to teach my Server Essentials class on Friday, and not put the students one more day behind.
The next step will be going to Mac OS X Directory Services 10.5, and Advanced Server. These classes are 4 and 5 days each, respectively, and will put me a full 11 days away from my wife and son. I didn't do well last time around Christmas, but this time the major holiday will be behind me, and I will have another that following week to devote to my son.
At any rate, it will be the first time I have ever been to Chicago in my life, and I'm really excited. I'm a big Chicago Cubs fan, and have always wanted to see the Windy City. Perhaps I'll get a chance to head into town for the weekend. One can only hope.
Friday, October 19, 2007
University of Utah to Offer Certification Exams For Credit!
Today we have received official word that the University of Utah will be offering For Credit classes that are official training certification courses for Apple, Cisco, and Linux. Starting this Spring the School of Computing will be offering special topics for the Cisco Network Academy's CCNA Exploration course, Apple Support and Server Essentials, and the Linux Professional Institute courses for level 1 and level 2. INterestingly enough, there has been a lot of interest from the Engineering students on learning Cisco, and and the Business IS students for Linux and Apple.
These classes will be graded (not Pass/Fail for those worried about their GPA), and the courses are electives so anyone can take them from any department. That being said, there will be a hefty special fee to augment the cost of the labs, and the cost of the training materials. You would be surprised how much companies charge for their proprietary training materials.
CCNA Exploration Course
The CCNA course will be the latest course offerings (as of September 2007), and will be a 4 credit hour course. This is because of the large amount of information you need to get through, and need to study up on in your free time. It is not for the faint at heart, so you may want to take a Networking course first to prepare for it. It covers network connections, Frame Relay, Router setup, Switch setup, different routing protocols (RIP, OSCL, IS-IS, ect.), and will even have a wireless section.
Much of the lab will be virtual, and since the virtual environment software is open source you can implement your own test system on your computer at home. ^_^ The instructor is phenomenal, having taught professionally and in the Academic world for years. But, to be ready for any certification exam, you would need to take both semesters. This is similar to the program that Weber State University has in place.
Linux Classes
The Linux classes are being taught with the materials from our good friends at Guru Labs, and are excellent. The first semester is Linux Fundamentals and Enterprise Linux Systems. The books are geared to general Linux distributions, but have specific information for both Red Hat/Fedora and SuSE Linux.
The instructor is currently a programming manager that graduated from Boston University. He is very knowledgeable in Linux, and will also be teaching our non-credit vi class.
Apple Support and Server Essentials
For the first couple of weeks, Support Essentials will have the materials of 10.4, because Apple will not have the 10.5 materials ready until February. That being said, the concepts and contents of Support Essentials (first half of the semester) is almost identical to the 10.5 contents, and as the instructor I will be providing all the necessary 10.5 materials in training. Server Essentials will be all 10.5, and will be almost completely different from the 10.4 materials. There will be focus on Web and Mail (which is currently not covered in 10.4), and the Collaboration software (Wiki, Blog, iChat's Jabber server, and iCal Server).
And, at the end of the class, we will have an open sandbox period to let you play with the server setup that you want, without someone breathing over your shoulder should you accidentally wipe your file server clean. ^_^
If you are interested in any type of technology degree from the University of Utah, and need some additional electives, I would recommend the certification classes. Not just because I teach one, but because I think it's important to have some practical experience with the theoretical concepts that are out there. That, and all the EE students that we told about the CCNA program were excited (they didn't have to do to SLCC to take the courses anymore). ^_^
Hope to see some of you in my class!
These classes will be graded (not Pass/Fail for those worried about their GPA), and the courses are electives so anyone can take them from any department. That being said, there will be a hefty special fee to augment the cost of the labs, and the cost of the training materials. You would be surprised how much companies charge for their proprietary training materials.
CCNA Exploration Course
The CCNA course will be the latest course offerings (as of September 2007), and will be a 4 credit hour course. This is because of the large amount of information you need to get through, and need to study up on in your free time. It is not for the faint at heart, so you may want to take a Networking course first to prepare for it. It covers network connections, Frame Relay, Router setup, Switch setup, different routing protocols (RIP, OSCL, IS-IS, ect.), and will even have a wireless section.
Much of the lab will be virtual, and since the virtual environment software is open source you can implement your own test system on your computer at home. ^_^ The instructor is phenomenal, having taught professionally and in the Academic world for years. But, to be ready for any certification exam, you would need to take both semesters. This is similar to the program that Weber State University has in place.
Linux Classes
The Linux classes are being taught with the materials from our good friends at Guru Labs, and are excellent. The first semester is Linux Fundamentals and Enterprise Linux Systems. The books are geared to general Linux distributions, but have specific information for both Red Hat/Fedora and SuSE Linux.
The instructor is currently a programming manager that graduated from Boston University. He is very knowledgeable in Linux, and will also be teaching our non-credit vi class.
Apple Support and Server Essentials
For the first couple of weeks, Support Essentials will have the materials of 10.4, because Apple will not have the 10.5 materials ready until February. That being said, the concepts and contents of Support Essentials (first half of the semester) is almost identical to the 10.5 contents, and as the instructor I will be providing all the necessary 10.5 materials in training. Server Essentials will be all 10.5, and will be almost completely different from the 10.4 materials. There will be focus on Web and Mail (which is currently not covered in 10.4), and the Collaboration software (Wiki, Blog, iChat's Jabber server, and iCal Server).
And, at the end of the class, we will have an open sandbox period to let you play with the server setup that you want, without someone breathing over your shoulder should you accidentally wipe your file server clean. ^_^
If you are interested in any type of technology degree from the University of Utah, and need some additional electives, I would recommend the certification classes. Not just because I teach one, but because I think it's important to have some practical experience with the theoretical concepts that are out there. That, and all the EE students that we told about the CCNA program were excited (they didn't have to do to SLCC to take the courses anymore). ^_^
Hope to see some of you in my class!
Thursday, June 07, 2007
The Quest for Standardized Certificates
The computer industry is truly a wonder. No other industry has so much innovation, grows so quickly, or comes up with such a diverse method of doing things. As such, the industry seems to lack specifics regarding how to best learn about the technology. Most people within the industry then learn by experimenting, after given some basic information from the developing company.
But what if the skills desired are not necessarily applicable to a single company, but range through an entire industry and has diverse applications? This becomes problematic, as the development of any training material or reference material can become outdated quickly, and yet the need for such material is overwhelming.
On such example is Search Engine Optimization. Currently, there are several programs out there that claim to offer certifications based on their own issuance, but there is no guarantee that the certificate is recognized as an industry standard. Because of this, Search Engine Optimization is treated like an art form, rather than a set of skills that can be applied in a given situation.
The Lack of Standardization
Standardization only comes from an overwhelming acceptance from the industry at large. This can either be done unilaterally (i.e., Microsoft Certification, Sun Certification, Red Hat Certification), through a cooperative that organizes themselves from the industry's base to form a set of skill standards (i.e., Linux Professional Institute), or from a set of recognized experts that determine the standard within their fields (i.e., standard college educational standards).
In the world of industrial training, the needs assessment is based on the skills required to do the job. Most companies conduct their own internal needs assessment, which will result in a job description. Some may even look at what other companies assign, and try to duplicate those requirements without truly understanding what the requirements mean. Either way, the needs assessment is completed based off of an individual company's needs.
How to Build Solidarity
Solidarity within an industry comes from an industry-wide recognition of the requirements for a specific position or skill. Once solidarity has been reached (i.e., network administrator tasks are identified), they can be customized based on the company's unique requirements and are more easily met by those looking to participate within that industry.
In order to gain that industry-wide recognition, it would be necessary to focus on building ties between the industry leaders, find the similarities, and focus on the skills that can bring about success as defined within the industry. This means conducting a massive task analysis across multiple companies in order to identify the standard skills that will benefit all.
The Daunting Task Simplified
While this may seem like an impossible dream, it can be achieved if identified in these generic terms:
1. What is the expected result?
2. What skills are necessary to achieve that result?
3. Which results and skills are unique to the company, and which are universal?
4. Which should be unique, and which should be universal?
5. How can the skills be best presented, so that those learning can apply them?
Once these questions are answered, a consensus has been reached to the point that training can be given, and that training has recognized industry approval. At that point, any certificate that comes with it can be seen as an industry standard. That is, provided that there is an evaluation system that can certify the skills can be practiced.
The Evaluation
All standard certificates come with some sort of standardized evaluation system. Whether it is the old reliable multiple choice test, or a more hands-on evaluation process, the results are the same. That person is now recognized by the industry to have the skills required to perform the job he was trained to do. Whether that be SEO Specialist, Linux System Administrator, or Underwater Basket Weaver, the evaluation system is necessary to identify what is being absorbed.
But that's not all! It's also an excellent way to evaluate how effective the training material is, or the reference material can be. It all comes down to the Bell Curve, that hated curve what was always incorrectly applied in High School. The Bell Curve is actually the shape of a graph showing the normal distribution where the mean, median and mode are all identical.
If the materials achieve a success rate that at least meets that normal distribution, then the material can be called a success. If it weights heavily below the acceptable level then there is something wrong with the materials or the evaluation method, and therefore needs review and revision. This is very much unlike the High School bell curve grading system, where the bell curve was applied after grading to assign grades. If that method were applied in professional training, it would do injustice to the skills required, as it does not accurately reflect learning.
But what if the skills desired are not necessarily applicable to a single company, but range through an entire industry and has diverse applications? This becomes problematic, as the development of any training material or reference material can become outdated quickly, and yet the need for such material is overwhelming.
On such example is Search Engine Optimization. Currently, there are several programs out there that claim to offer certifications based on their own issuance, but there is no guarantee that the certificate is recognized as an industry standard. Because of this, Search Engine Optimization is treated like an art form, rather than a set of skills that can be applied in a given situation.
The Lack of Standardization
Standardization only comes from an overwhelming acceptance from the industry at large. This can either be done unilaterally (i.e., Microsoft Certification, Sun Certification, Red Hat Certification), through a cooperative that organizes themselves from the industry's base to form a set of skill standards (i.e., Linux Professional Institute), or from a set of recognized experts that determine the standard within their fields (i.e., standard college educational standards).
In the world of industrial training, the needs assessment is based on the skills required to do the job. Most companies conduct their own internal needs assessment, which will result in a job description. Some may even look at what other companies assign, and try to duplicate those requirements without truly understanding what the requirements mean. Either way, the needs assessment is completed based off of an individual company's needs.
How to Build Solidarity
Solidarity within an industry comes from an industry-wide recognition of the requirements for a specific position or skill. Once solidarity has been reached (i.e., network administrator tasks are identified), they can be customized based on the company's unique requirements and are more easily met by those looking to participate within that industry.
In order to gain that industry-wide recognition, it would be necessary to focus on building ties between the industry leaders, find the similarities, and focus on the skills that can bring about success as defined within the industry. This means conducting a massive task analysis across multiple companies in order to identify the standard skills that will benefit all.
The Daunting Task Simplified
While this may seem like an impossible dream, it can be achieved if identified in these generic terms:
1. What is the expected result?
2. What skills are necessary to achieve that result?
3. Which results and skills are unique to the company, and which are universal?
4. Which should be unique, and which should be universal?
5. How can the skills be best presented, so that those learning can apply them?
Once these questions are answered, a consensus has been reached to the point that training can be given, and that training has recognized industry approval. At that point, any certificate that comes with it can be seen as an industry standard. That is, provided that there is an evaluation system that can certify the skills can be practiced.
The Evaluation
All standard certificates come with some sort of standardized evaluation system. Whether it is the old reliable multiple choice test, or a more hands-on evaluation process, the results are the same. That person is now recognized by the industry to have the skills required to perform the job he was trained to do. Whether that be SEO Specialist, Linux System Administrator, or Underwater Basket Weaver, the evaluation system is necessary to identify what is being absorbed.
But that's not all! It's also an excellent way to evaluate how effective the training material is, or the reference material can be. It all comes down to the Bell Curve, that hated curve what was always incorrectly applied in High School. The Bell Curve is actually the shape of a graph showing the normal distribution where the mean, median and mode are all identical.
If the materials achieve a success rate that at least meets that normal distribution, then the material can be called a success. If it weights heavily below the acceptable level then there is something wrong with the materials or the evaluation method, and therefore needs review and revision. This is very much unlike the High School bell curve grading system, where the bell curve was applied after grading to assign grades. If that method were applied in professional training, it would do injustice to the skills required, as it does not accurately reflect learning.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Apple Certifications: Quick Blurb about Server Essentials
This week I am teaching my Mac OS X Server Essentials class, and it's been going great so far. As such, I will be posting very little, but I wanted to make this post really quick.
For anyone interested in learning the basics about Mac OS X Server, I would nighly recomend attending the class. Granted, it's $2,000.00 (Apple set price), but not only do you get to learn about the server, but you get to create your own server environment at the end of the class. And no one will be yelling at you when you break something. ^_^
Seriously, I think it's the better of the two classes I currently teach. It's more fun to play with the server than to work out how to fix a broken computer. At least, that's my opinion.
And stay tuned for the new Mac OS X 10.5 Server Essentials class! Once the class is prepared by the Training team (after Leopard ships), then we will be offering that class as well. And it will be very different, spending more time on the new technologies, and less time on the Gateway Services (NAT and VPN).
For anyone interested in learning the basics about Mac OS X Server, I would nighly recomend attending the class. Granted, it's $2,000.00 (Apple set price), but not only do you get to learn about the server, but you get to create your own server environment at the end of the class. And no one will be yelling at you when you break something. ^_^
Seriously, I think it's the better of the two classes I currently teach. It's more fun to play with the server than to work out how to fix a broken computer. At least, that's my opinion.
And stay tuned for the new Mac OS X 10.5 Server Essentials class! Once the class is prepared by the Training team (after Leopard ships), then we will be offering that class as well. And it will be very different, spending more time on the new technologies, and less time on the Gateway Services (NAT and VPN).
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Career Fair: What Employers Want
Recently the University of Utah had a career fair for the students, with a number of employers from various industries around the country. Of such, several were looking for Information Technology and Programming students. Just for fun, I thought I would run a quick and impromptu survey with the employers to see what kind of candidate they were looking for. Before I discuss my findings, I want to first address the basics of the survey. Ultimately I was asking about certifications on top of degrees, and then asking the certifications that would be most helpful to those employers.
The Survey
This survey is only limited in it's relevance, as I only had a total of 10 employers that were hiring IT and programming staff. The questions were not standard questions, but were posed slightly differently to each of the employers. Many were aware of the basis of the survey, but were unaware of what the specific departments were looking for in regard to certifications. And finally, I had no control group from which to base the question on (i.e., I didn't ask how many applicants they talked with, and of such how many had certifications and would most likely be interviewed again). But I still think the responses were of use, because the employers were so ready with their replies.
The Results
Most of the employers I talked to were on a one-on-one basis. Each said they were looking for people that were IT professionals, or Computer Science students that had a good grasp on the conceptual as well as the practical. The biggest lament from these employers were that most students had a strong conceptual base, but because they had little practical experience in the regular grunt work, any new hire would need to go through additional training to get up to speed. This took money out of their pocket, and made them more likely to pass by a newly graduated student in favor of a more experienced professional.
So I posed the question: Would certifications help? The first answer I got was Yes!! It would cut down on the training time, and show some practical experience along with the conceptual. Then they started rattling off some certifications that would be of benefit. I won't cover the certifications here, since we are most likely going to offer them in future, but I will say that many were certifications that the Education Technology and Professional Education divisions of Continuing Education offer. But that was just one employer, so I checked with others.
Most came back with a yes, because it shows more dedication to the industry to receive a certification on top of a degree. Others said that they would be fairly open to a degree, and certifications would just be the icing on the cake. But ultimately, all of them were very positive toward the idea of a portfolio from a newly graduated student that included certifications.
The Conclusion
So, based on these discussions, it appears that having a certification program included as an option for graduating students would be of benefit to the employers, and therefore make the student body going into those fields more desirable as a potential hire. While this is not really news to the business world, it may have some impact on various institutions that are looking to become more competitive with the so-called "diploma mills" that focus on the certifications, rather than the conceptual ideas behind the computer world.
The Survey
This survey is only limited in it's relevance, as I only had a total of 10 employers that were hiring IT and programming staff. The questions were not standard questions, but were posed slightly differently to each of the employers. Many were aware of the basis of the survey, but were unaware of what the specific departments were looking for in regard to certifications. And finally, I had no control group from which to base the question on (i.e., I didn't ask how many applicants they talked with, and of such how many had certifications and would most likely be interviewed again). But I still think the responses were of use, because the employers were so ready with their replies.
The Results
Most of the employers I talked to were on a one-on-one basis. Each said they were looking for people that were IT professionals, or Computer Science students that had a good grasp on the conceptual as well as the practical. The biggest lament from these employers were that most students had a strong conceptual base, but because they had little practical experience in the regular grunt work, any new hire would need to go through additional training to get up to speed. This took money out of their pocket, and made them more likely to pass by a newly graduated student in favor of a more experienced professional.
So I posed the question: Would certifications help? The first answer I got was Yes!! It would cut down on the training time, and show some practical experience along with the conceptual. Then they started rattling off some certifications that would be of benefit. I won't cover the certifications here, since we are most likely going to offer them in future, but I will say that many were certifications that the Education Technology and Professional Education divisions of Continuing Education offer. But that was just one employer, so I checked with others.
Most came back with a yes, because it shows more dedication to the industry to receive a certification on top of a degree. Others said that they would be fairly open to a degree, and certifications would just be the icing on the cake. But ultimately, all of them were very positive toward the idea of a portfolio from a newly graduated student that included certifications.
The Conclusion
So, based on these discussions, it appears that having a certification program included as an option for graduating students would be of benefit to the employers, and therefore make the student body going into those fields more desirable as a potential hire. While this is not really news to the business world, it may have some impact on various institutions that are looking to become more competitive with the so-called "diploma mills" that focus on the certifications, rather than the conceptual ideas behind the computer world.
Friday, December 01, 2006
College Degrees and Training: Are They So Different?
This week has been marked with the constant negotiation with various certification entities to provide training for their products. I say negotiation, because most training departments are geared for professional training organizations with a for-profit business model. And, as a consesquence, they take various steps to ensure the training quality is acceptable to be associated with their name.
Working with eBay, we had several companies that were "Education Specialists", which meant they sepent the $150.00 to go through the online training in order to be considered officially licensed by eBay to provide training. If an educational facility wanted to provide similar training, they had to use the same method with no exceptions.
This example is actually very minimal considering the requirements that other tech companies have for their training. Many require high investments initially, high investments for training materials, and still more strict quality control through course evaluations. All of this most educational facilities are unable to expense, and therefore are not able to include in their curriculum. So the division between educational institutions and business training gets wider, and students need to go elsewhere in order to receive the training that they need.
Many educational institutions then begin to write off the inability to provide industry standard certification training as "beneath them", and unfortunately many of the students buy into the rhetoric from their professors, and think it's better not to get a certification...until they get out there in real life and realize their potential employers want either experience (which education is rarely considered as a replacement), or a certification of some sort. Why is that? Why do businesses see degrees from institutions as less-effective than certifications?
Experience is hard to teach, and even harder to fake. While learning theory and development is great for the thought process, the business world wants a more targeted focus from their employees. Granted, having a great problem-solver is a huge benefit to any company, but as problem-solvers are hired after proven track records the newly hired college graduate will be tasked with doing the basic tasks. They may know the theory, but they don't have (in the company's view) the experience or the proven track record that shows they can react in a real situation.
Training Strengths
Then enter those who have pretty much taught themselves in their field (usually within mechanical or technical fields). These people are generally exceptionally gifted, and often do not go on to get an actual college degree. Why? Because they don't have to. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on a 4-year degree that focuses on "liberal education", they go to a trade school or study on their own to pass the industry certification. With that certification, they have a proven track record of understanding which satisfies the industry. What could have been thousands of dollars can cost as little as just the testing process, and perhaps the purchase of one $50.00 book.
For those that go to a training facility, the costs are often offset by the employer. Employers like to have their employees certified in their respective fields, as it boosts confidence in their abilities and makes the company look more experienced. The boost to the share-holder confidence can often make the expense of training a worthwhile investment.
Training Weaknesses
But the problem with training is the "short-cut" techniques to get the certification. Many computer jobs have been ruined by an influx of low-quality employees with certifications that were earned from training geared towards a test and not the actual subject in hand. Test questions are memorized, time is spent more on quizzing than on applying the knowledge.
As the tests are generally multiple choice (for ease in scoring), they are fairly easy to pass with this method. Therefore, the certification becomes less of a benefit, and almost a liability. In fact, back in the dark ages at Packard Bell, I had intended to get my MCSE. I stopped (thank goodness!) when I found that many of the MCSE holders were grossly underqualified for the jobs they were getting. So I decided to move away from the industry in general, and move towards something a little less known. That is what originally pushed me towards open source operating systems.
But the real mystery is, businesses still look for the certification as a sign of competence. Why? Why do they rely on something as arbitrary as a certification, and often times treasure it more than a college degree? The answer is in the focus, as I will outline later.
College Degree Stengths
Nothing, in my opinion, can take the place of a college degree. The higher the degree, the more likely you have someone that will be able to reason, make real decisions, and overall benefit any organization with thought and logic. Colleges currently focus on liberal education, meaning that you need to have a broad exposure to your learning in order to graduate. Both the Arts and Sciences are taught to undergraduates, regardless of their focus in study. As both sides of the brain are excercised in this way, the ability to identify and reason is increased.
And even within the specific discipline that is being studied, the strength of the College education shines through. Theory is explored, experiements are used, and students understand the foundation of their craft before they build upon it. This is something that Training often neglects in the interest of time, which means a certification will generally represent less depth than a college degree.
And, for the degree, the student can often cover broad areas of the discipline, focusing on how everything relates to each other, rather than how one particular area works. Training is rarely designed in this fashion, as a specific skill is being targeted. A broader range would mean more training time, which starts to eat into the cost-benefit for the employer.
College Degree Weaknesses
But there are also colleges that spend too much time on the theory, and not enough time on the practical application. Therefore students leaving the academic world find themselves unable to perform at a level demanded by the employer. This leads to the decline in the value of the degree, and what ultimately lead to the need for industry certification in the first place.
Companies are looking for specific skillsets within specific situations that are often not covered by the college through theory. Instead, they expect the student to figure it out for themselves as they get out into the real world. Often times they can, but so many have not that even Universities have started to orient their educational structure toward skill training, and away from heavy theory doctrine.
And finally, there is the arrogance factor. As much as I respect professors, graduate students, and other experts in their respective fields, they can be condescending and rude to those that they feel do not "measure up". Often this arrogance is rooted in the belief that expertise in one area makes you an expert in all areas. This, in my mind, is the worst kind of folly any person can fall into. As the great scholar Socrates said, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance" (from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers). Acknowledging your ignorance is the first step to brilliance, in my mind.
Can the Two Be Resolved?
So, can the two methods of education be reconciled? I think it is very possible. The idea would be that students need both skill training and educational theory to strengthen their base, and therefore strengthen their marketability to the industry they want to enter. This can be done very easily by including industry certification training as part of the College or University curriculum as electives. They are not required for the degree, but give the student a chance to build up their skillset as part of their degree. Therefore the students get the best of both worlds, while often avoiding the pitfalls of each.
So Why Isn't It More Common?
It's a very good question, and one that has no simple answer. Businesses tend to enjoy their programs adoption into a College or University curriculum, as it lends a level of validation to their efforts. But, in the same token, they often price their curriculum out of the reach by most educational institutions. Also the various legal and procedural limitations put in place to preserve the quality of training and the brand name often becomes too difficult for a College or University to navigate.
Another problem is timing. Businesses are generally able to devote more time and energy to a project within a quarterly time frame, and can start or stop training on a dime. Education generally needs to have offerings planned for months in advance, if not a whole year. This means that education doesn't have the patience that Businesses have when it comes to contracts, funding, and start-up costs vs. projected revenue stream.
The Good News: It's Changing
Businesses realize that they need to start getting more reliable employees that have a stronger background in their respective fields. Colleges and Universities realize that they need to give their students more skill sets on top of their theory of understanding to keep the degree program popular. Both realize that they can benefit each other by making it easier for the partnership to exist.
One excellent example is Novell's Education program. They provide educational institutions with experienced faculty with the necessary tools to teach to their certification without the red tape they normally have for businesses. The universities win by getting certifications integrated into their degree programs, and the business wins because they are getting exposure to a whole generation of future technical professionals.
As more businesses start to learn from this model, and more universities start incorporating the industry certification program into their curriculum, the ultimate winner is the student. Students now have both the theory and certified skill set to be a major player within their chosen field.
Working with eBay, we had several companies that were "Education Specialists", which meant they sepent the $150.00 to go through the online training in order to be considered officially licensed by eBay to provide training. If an educational facility wanted to provide similar training, they had to use the same method with no exceptions.
This example is actually very minimal considering the requirements that other tech companies have for their training. Many require high investments initially, high investments for training materials, and still more strict quality control through course evaluations. All of this most educational facilities are unable to expense, and therefore are not able to include in their curriculum. So the division between educational institutions and business training gets wider, and students need to go elsewhere in order to receive the training that they need.
Many educational institutions then begin to write off the inability to provide industry standard certification training as "beneath them", and unfortunately many of the students buy into the rhetoric from their professors, and think it's better not to get a certification...until they get out there in real life and realize their potential employers want either experience (which education is rarely considered as a replacement), or a certification of some sort. Why is that? Why do businesses see degrees from institutions as less-effective than certifications?
Experience is hard to teach, and even harder to fake. While learning theory and development is great for the thought process, the business world wants a more targeted focus from their employees. Granted, having a great problem-solver is a huge benefit to any company, but as problem-solvers are hired after proven track records the newly hired college graduate will be tasked with doing the basic tasks. They may know the theory, but they don't have (in the company's view) the experience or the proven track record that shows they can react in a real situation.
Training Strengths
Then enter those who have pretty much taught themselves in their field (usually within mechanical or technical fields). These people are generally exceptionally gifted, and often do not go on to get an actual college degree. Why? Because they don't have to. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on a 4-year degree that focuses on "liberal education", they go to a trade school or study on their own to pass the industry certification. With that certification, they have a proven track record of understanding which satisfies the industry. What could have been thousands of dollars can cost as little as just the testing process, and perhaps the purchase of one $50.00 book.
For those that go to a training facility, the costs are often offset by the employer. Employers like to have their employees certified in their respective fields, as it boosts confidence in their abilities and makes the company look more experienced. The boost to the share-holder confidence can often make the expense of training a worthwhile investment.
Training Weaknesses
But the problem with training is the "short-cut" techniques to get the certification. Many computer jobs have been ruined by an influx of low-quality employees with certifications that were earned from training geared towards a test and not the actual subject in hand. Test questions are memorized, time is spent more on quizzing than on applying the knowledge.
As the tests are generally multiple choice (for ease in scoring), they are fairly easy to pass with this method. Therefore, the certification becomes less of a benefit, and almost a liability. In fact, back in the dark ages at Packard Bell, I had intended to get my MCSE. I stopped (thank goodness!) when I found that many of the MCSE holders were grossly underqualified for the jobs they were getting. So I decided to move away from the industry in general, and move towards something a little less known. That is what originally pushed me towards open source operating systems.
But the real mystery is, businesses still look for the certification as a sign of competence. Why? Why do they rely on something as arbitrary as a certification, and often times treasure it more than a college degree? The answer is in the focus, as I will outline later.
College Degree Stengths
Nothing, in my opinion, can take the place of a college degree. The higher the degree, the more likely you have someone that will be able to reason, make real decisions, and overall benefit any organization with thought and logic. Colleges currently focus on liberal education, meaning that you need to have a broad exposure to your learning in order to graduate. Both the Arts and Sciences are taught to undergraduates, regardless of their focus in study. As both sides of the brain are excercised in this way, the ability to identify and reason is increased.
And even within the specific discipline that is being studied, the strength of the College education shines through. Theory is explored, experiements are used, and students understand the foundation of their craft before they build upon it. This is something that Training often neglects in the interest of time, which means a certification will generally represent less depth than a college degree.
And, for the degree, the student can often cover broad areas of the discipline, focusing on how everything relates to each other, rather than how one particular area works. Training is rarely designed in this fashion, as a specific skill is being targeted. A broader range would mean more training time, which starts to eat into the cost-benefit for the employer.
College Degree Weaknesses
But there are also colleges that spend too much time on the theory, and not enough time on the practical application. Therefore students leaving the academic world find themselves unable to perform at a level demanded by the employer. This leads to the decline in the value of the degree, and what ultimately lead to the need for industry certification in the first place.
Companies are looking for specific skillsets within specific situations that are often not covered by the college through theory. Instead, they expect the student to figure it out for themselves as they get out into the real world. Often times they can, but so many have not that even Universities have started to orient their educational structure toward skill training, and away from heavy theory doctrine.
And finally, there is the arrogance factor. As much as I respect professors, graduate students, and other experts in their respective fields, they can be condescending and rude to those that they feel do not "measure up". Often this arrogance is rooted in the belief that expertise in one area makes you an expert in all areas. This, in my mind, is the worst kind of folly any person can fall into. As the great scholar Socrates said, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance" (from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers). Acknowledging your ignorance is the first step to brilliance, in my mind.
Can the Two Be Resolved?
So, can the two methods of education be reconciled? I think it is very possible. The idea would be that students need both skill training and educational theory to strengthen their base, and therefore strengthen their marketability to the industry they want to enter. This can be done very easily by including industry certification training as part of the College or University curriculum as electives. They are not required for the degree, but give the student a chance to build up their skillset as part of their degree. Therefore the students get the best of both worlds, while often avoiding the pitfalls of each.
So Why Isn't It More Common?
It's a very good question, and one that has no simple answer. Businesses tend to enjoy their programs adoption into a College or University curriculum, as it lends a level of validation to their efforts. But, in the same token, they often price their curriculum out of the reach by most educational institutions. Also the various legal and procedural limitations put in place to preserve the quality of training and the brand name often becomes too difficult for a College or University to navigate.
Another problem is timing. Businesses are generally able to devote more time and energy to a project within a quarterly time frame, and can start or stop training on a dime. Education generally needs to have offerings planned for months in advance, if not a whole year. This means that education doesn't have the patience that Businesses have when it comes to contracts, funding, and start-up costs vs. projected revenue stream.
The Good News: It's Changing
Businesses realize that they need to start getting more reliable employees that have a stronger background in their respective fields. Colleges and Universities realize that they need to give their students more skill sets on top of their theory of understanding to keep the degree program popular. Both realize that they can benefit each other by making it easier for the partnership to exist.
One excellent example is Novell's Education program. They provide educational institutions with experienced faculty with the necessary tools to teach to their certification without the red tape they normally have for businesses. The universities win by getting certifications integrated into their degree programs, and the business wins because they are getting exposure to a whole generation of future technical professionals.
As more businesses start to learn from this model, and more universities start incorporating the industry certification program into their curriculum, the ultimate winner is the student. Students now have both the theory and certified skill set to be a major player within their chosen field.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Linux Certifications Continued: SAIR or LPI? Oh, and Linux +
Yes, with my recent comparison with Red Hat and Novell, this comparison was bound to come about. One of the great strengths of Linux, or any open sourced OS, is the diversity that comes from using the same core but different methods for reaching the same goal. That diversity is both it's strength and it's weakness, as anyone that has been flamed by another Linux user for their choice of Distro can attest to. But that's a subject of another discussion all together. ^_^
For the purposes of training, it's important to give as broad a base as possible and not tie yourself to any one specific distribution. This means having a distro-neutral training ground that is well respected within the Linux and Corporate community. Of the advanced training options out there, I have found only two that seem to meet those requirements: SAIR and LPI. This entry will be a comparison of the two from a potential instructor's point of view.
LPI
In previous posts, I have outlined the role that LPI plays. This is because it was the one vendor neutral linux certification that I could find information on that was being offered. It is Internationally accepted by the Linux community, and even had a Linuxworld certification event in Koeln (Cologne) Germany. This indicated that the certifcation is alive and active in it's growth. The testing materials are currently only a year old in their current form, and they are very comprehensive. By all accounts, it's a definite certification to take seriously.
In addition to the certification, becoming a partnered learning center is also fairly easy. All you need are LPI certified materials (such as Guru Labs courseware materials) and a competent, trained staff that know how to teach. Most educational facilities can handle this, though the overall process is not geared to educational facilities. But that's the topic of another rant (i.e., the problem with business scaling to all entities). Regardless, LPI is a very viable option for any training facility that is looking to include vendor neutral Linux certification training. For more information on the LPI certification process and the topics covered in each section, check out their website here: http://www.lpi.org
SAIR
So there I was, thinking that I have finally found the one Linux certification that was very advanced, well designed, and covered a wide range of topics... until I found the SAIR Linux/GNU certification. SAIR was developed with the Linux Professional Group, and focuses on both Linux, and the GNU applications that enhance the Linux kernel. The really nice thing about their certification process is that it requires four training sessions and exams to qualify for one certification (with exception of their Master Linux Certified Engineer which only requires two). Each training session is 4 days long.
The first certification covers the OS itself, with emphasis on networking, administration, and security. Basically, it covers most of both the LPI certifications within it's one certification. That is the Linux Certified Administrator cert.
The second certification goes into applications that are used in conjunction with Linux, but can (and are) applied in other UNIX-like flavors. This includes basic concepts, the Apache Web Server, Samba, and Sendmail. While these applications are lightly covered in the second certification for LPI, whole sessions are dedicated to each application. Obviously, that would be more valuable to someone that spends a lot of time working in that field. Completion of these exams gives the Linux Certified Engineer cert.
Finally, the Master Linux Certified Engineer cert requires the completion of the Linux High Availability class, and the Postgres & MySQL Databases exams. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like these exams were ever given to Prometric for testing, and there is no indication on the SAIR website as to where these exams are offered.
And that's when I started to get concerned. Sure, this all sounds great. And on top of it all they have a very educational institution-friendly process of becoming a learning partner, but they don't seem to have very updated information on their website. So I checked various educational materials provided by bookstores out there... Most of the material is dated from 2001. There have been a lot of kernel changes since then, and even a shift in networking methods.
So, I checked Prometric to see if they still have the exams available for testing. They do, so that at least means something. Students can still test for the SAIR certifications and receive them. But can an instructor teach to the exam, and still remain on topic?
I sent an email off to SAIR to get more details, and have yet to hear back from them. Granted, it was 24 hours ago, but LPI replied to my inquiry within 12 hours. So, my concern is that the certification is no longer being updated, and therefore is about as useful as my A+ certification from 1998. For more information on the SAIR certification, please check out their website here: http://www.linuxcertification.org
Linux+
Yes, I know I didn't make a big mention of this at the beginning, and that's because the certification is meant to indicate a basic working knowledge of Linux, much like the LPI 1 certification. But it's worth a mention, as CompTIA has quite a reputation in the industry for overall vendor neutral certifications. Needless to say, it is something that any Linux training center should encourage for their learners, specifically since it gives them one more certification without an additional class. This is because all the topics covered in the LPI certifications are more than enough to pass the Linux+ certification. For more information on the CompTIA Linux+ cert, check out their website: http://certification.comptia.org/linux/
So, I'm afraid I'll have to leave you with yet another quandry. Which certification should be focused on? If I had more confidence in it, it would be the SAIR certification, as it covers the LPI quite well and goes into more detail with it's second and third tier certifications. But without a sure knowledge of it's current status, the LPI may be the only advanced Linux certification out there that is worth teaching for. If anyone knows of the status of the SAIR certification, please let me know.
For the purposes of training, it's important to give as broad a base as possible and not tie yourself to any one specific distribution. This means having a distro-neutral training ground that is well respected within the Linux and Corporate community. Of the advanced training options out there, I have found only two that seem to meet those requirements: SAIR and LPI. This entry will be a comparison of the two from a potential instructor's point of view.
LPI
In previous posts, I have outlined the role that LPI plays. This is because it was the one vendor neutral linux certification that I could find information on that was being offered. It is Internationally accepted by the Linux community, and even had a Linuxworld certification event in Koeln (Cologne) Germany. This indicated that the certifcation is alive and active in it's growth. The testing materials are currently only a year old in their current form, and they are very comprehensive. By all accounts, it's a definite certification to take seriously.
In addition to the certification, becoming a partnered learning center is also fairly easy. All you need are LPI certified materials (such as Guru Labs courseware materials) and a competent, trained staff that know how to teach. Most educational facilities can handle this, though the overall process is not geared to educational facilities. But that's the topic of another rant (i.e., the problem with business scaling to all entities). Regardless, LPI is a very viable option for any training facility that is looking to include vendor neutral Linux certification training. For more information on the LPI certification process and the topics covered in each section, check out their website here: http://www.lpi.org
SAIR
So there I was, thinking that I have finally found the one Linux certification that was very advanced, well designed, and covered a wide range of topics... until I found the SAIR Linux/GNU certification. SAIR was developed with the Linux Professional Group, and focuses on both Linux, and the GNU applications that enhance the Linux kernel. The really nice thing about their certification process is that it requires four training sessions and exams to qualify for one certification (with exception of their Master Linux Certified Engineer which only requires two). Each training session is 4 days long.
The first certification covers the OS itself, with emphasis on networking, administration, and security. Basically, it covers most of both the LPI certifications within it's one certification. That is the Linux Certified Administrator cert.
The second certification goes into applications that are used in conjunction with Linux, but can (and are) applied in other UNIX-like flavors. This includes basic concepts, the Apache Web Server, Samba, and Sendmail. While these applications are lightly covered in the second certification for LPI, whole sessions are dedicated to each application. Obviously, that would be more valuable to someone that spends a lot of time working in that field. Completion of these exams gives the Linux Certified Engineer cert.
Finally, the Master Linux Certified Engineer cert requires the completion of the Linux High Availability class, and the Postgres & MySQL Databases exams. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like these exams were ever given to Prometric for testing, and there is no indication on the SAIR website as to where these exams are offered.
And that's when I started to get concerned. Sure, this all sounds great. And on top of it all they have a very educational institution-friendly process of becoming a learning partner, but they don't seem to have very updated information on their website. So I checked various educational materials provided by bookstores out there... Most of the material is dated from 2001. There have been a lot of kernel changes since then, and even a shift in networking methods.
So, I checked Prometric to see if they still have the exams available for testing. They do, so that at least means something. Students can still test for the SAIR certifications and receive them. But can an instructor teach to the exam, and still remain on topic?
I sent an email off to SAIR to get more details, and have yet to hear back from them. Granted, it was 24 hours ago, but LPI replied to my inquiry within 12 hours. So, my concern is that the certification is no longer being updated, and therefore is about as useful as my A+ certification from 1998. For more information on the SAIR certification, please check out their website here: http://www.linuxcertification.org
Linux+
Yes, I know I didn't make a big mention of this at the beginning, and that's because the certification is meant to indicate a basic working knowledge of Linux, much like the LPI 1 certification. But it's worth a mention, as CompTIA has quite a reputation in the industry for overall vendor neutral certifications. Needless to say, it is something that any Linux training center should encourage for their learners, specifically since it gives them one more certification without an additional class. This is because all the topics covered in the LPI certifications are more than enough to pass the Linux+ certification. For more information on the CompTIA Linux+ cert, check out their website: http://certification.comptia.org/linux/
So, I'm afraid I'll have to leave you with yet another quandry. Which certification should be focused on? If I had more confidence in it, it would be the SAIR certification, as it covers the LPI quite well and goes into more detail with it's second and third tier certifications. But without a sure knowledge of it's current status, the LPI may be the only advanced Linux certification out there that is worth teaching for. If anyone knows of the status of the SAIR certification, please let me know.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Linux Certifications Revisited: RedHat or Novell?
A while ago I posted a listing for Linux certifications that I was looking into, along with a conclusion that all certifications would be benefitual. The next step is choosing an affiliation.
If one is to become a reputable Linux training center, one must build up relationships with the various training organizations out there. This means working with organizations like the Linux Professional Institute, CompTIA, Red Hat, and Novell. But each have their own requirements, making it necessary to timetable the process of becoming a training center very carefully.
In this discussion, I want to look at both Red Hat requirements, and Novell requirements. Both are very exact in what they require, but different in how they deploy their educational material, and therefore their partner programs.
Red Hat
Red Hat is probably alone in the certification program, in that they are not affiliated with any professional testing center for their testing. Instead, they provide it to the training center directly, along with their training materials. Normally that would raise some red flags in my book, but as they are Red Hat, it makes sense. They are also associated with Sun Microsystems (from what I can tell online), as well as IBM, which adds to their credibility. They also have very stringent requirements for their training facilities. Here is what they say in their Certified Training Partners website:
"About Red Hat Certified Training Partners
Delivering and administering the Red Hat Certified Engineer Program entails a great deal of responsibility.
That's why Red Hat, Inc., is very selective in deciding which organizations to authorize as Red Hat Certified Training Partners.
We select only leading training organizations with a strong background in UNIX or other POSIX compatible OS technology, networking, and Internet technologies. Red Hat Certified Training Partners must be committed to quality and integrity, while at the same time being effective at sales and marketing. They must have a reliable delivery capability, so that Red Hat's programs are made available as widely as possible while insuring quality."
Now, I can justify each of these claims, as it is important to keep control of training when dealing with a brand. That name is linked directly to the company, even if they are not directly employed by the company. I remember, while in charge of the training email queue for eBay, how many people complained about non-eBay sanctioned training. Quality control for anything representing the brand is important.
That being said, it requires a contact from Red Hat to explain what a "strong background" is, or why sales and marketing is so important. As of this writing, I have not received a reply as to what level is required to meet the expectations. But, in all fairness, I don't expect a reply within a couple of hours. ^_^
From what I can see initially, there isn't a requirement for the Instructor, other than they should obviously be certified in the course they provide. Instructor requirements are a touchy subject for me, as I feel there is a fine path that needs to be tread in this area.
Every instructor is not the same as the other. Many are just techs that have been asked to teach a course. As anyone who has taken such a course know, a Subject Matter Expert (SME) does not mean a Trainer. Just because you know something about what you are teaching, doesn't mean that you can teach that subject. There are requirements that need to be met, such as understanding the learning style of your students and adapting to those styles. As a trainer, you also need to be able to gauge the understanding of the learners, and organize the subject to suit their experience. It also helps to be able to build upon their experience level in order to help them best retain the information.
Also, it's important to recognize the instructor's abilities and accomplishments. Just because you may not know what they can do, doesn't mean they can't teach. A healthy skepticism is one thing, but to ignore it completely can cause the death of your program within a facility. Recognizing accomplishments, such as technical training certifications or educational degrees, should be considered as important as their technical certifications. While it may not be a guarantee of training ability, if someone has a MAEd or an EdD, chances are they know a little bit about teaching.
Okay, my little tirade is over, now on to the discussion. Red Hat doesn't include any instructor requirements that are easily seen online, so I am awaiting a response from them as to what specifically is available.
Novell
Novell has been getting a lot of bigotted press from the Linux community lately because of their recent deal with Microsoft. Regardless, they have one of the most comprehensive certification programs out there, second only to Red Hat. They also have a very well organized certification program.
The training center is basically the same as with the Linux Professional Institute program. Basic lab requirements, as well as someone that has a clue about teaching. CLP Instructors with educational backgrounds are respected for that, and therefore only need to receive a certification in the subject they are going to teach. They also need to work for a certified training center.
What I really like about Novell is the division between Commercial and Educational facilities. No other organization that I am aware of provides educational training options as well as commercial training options. Generally the Commercial is developed first, while the education facility needs to conform in some fashion.
So, in my research that I have performed, I found that though the Linux community may be a little upset with Novell right now, it's actually easier to be a Training Center for Novell than it is for Red Hat. That opinion may change as I get more information from Red Hat, but as it stands Novell has the lead.
If one is to become a reputable Linux training center, one must build up relationships with the various training organizations out there. This means working with organizations like the Linux Professional Institute, CompTIA, Red Hat, and Novell. But each have their own requirements, making it necessary to timetable the process of becoming a training center very carefully.
In this discussion, I want to look at both Red Hat requirements, and Novell requirements. Both are very exact in what they require, but different in how they deploy their educational material, and therefore their partner programs.
Red Hat
Red Hat is probably alone in the certification program, in that they are not affiliated with any professional testing center for their testing. Instead, they provide it to the training center directly, along with their training materials. Normally that would raise some red flags in my book, but as they are Red Hat, it makes sense. They are also associated with Sun Microsystems (from what I can tell online), as well as IBM, which adds to their credibility. They also have very stringent requirements for their training facilities. Here is what they say in their Certified Training Partners website:
"About Red Hat Certified Training Partners
Delivering and administering the Red Hat Certified Engineer Program entails a great deal of responsibility.
That's why Red Hat, Inc., is very selective in deciding which organizations to authorize as Red Hat Certified Training Partners.
We select only leading training organizations with a strong background in UNIX or other POSIX compatible OS technology, networking, and Internet technologies. Red Hat Certified Training Partners must be committed to quality and integrity, while at the same time being effective at sales and marketing. They must have a reliable delivery capability, so that Red Hat's programs are made available as widely as possible while insuring quality."
Now, I can justify each of these claims, as it is important to keep control of training when dealing with a brand. That name is linked directly to the company, even if they are not directly employed by the company. I remember, while in charge of the training email queue for eBay, how many people complained about non-eBay sanctioned training. Quality control for anything representing the brand is important.
That being said, it requires a contact from Red Hat to explain what a "strong background" is, or why sales and marketing is so important. As of this writing, I have not received a reply as to what level is required to meet the expectations. But, in all fairness, I don't expect a reply within a couple of hours. ^_^
From what I can see initially, there isn't a requirement for the Instructor, other than they should obviously be certified in the course they provide. Instructor requirements are a touchy subject for me, as I feel there is a fine path that needs to be tread in this area.
Every instructor is not the same as the other. Many are just techs that have been asked to teach a course. As anyone who has taken such a course know, a Subject Matter Expert (SME) does not mean a Trainer. Just because you know something about what you are teaching, doesn't mean that you can teach that subject. There are requirements that need to be met, such as understanding the learning style of your students and adapting to those styles. As a trainer, you also need to be able to gauge the understanding of the learners, and organize the subject to suit their experience. It also helps to be able to build upon their experience level in order to help them best retain the information.
Also, it's important to recognize the instructor's abilities and accomplishments. Just because you may not know what they can do, doesn't mean they can't teach. A healthy skepticism is one thing, but to ignore it completely can cause the death of your program within a facility. Recognizing accomplishments, such as technical training certifications or educational degrees, should be considered as important as their technical certifications. While it may not be a guarantee of training ability, if someone has a MAEd or an EdD, chances are they know a little bit about teaching.
Okay, my little tirade is over, now on to the discussion. Red Hat doesn't include any instructor requirements that are easily seen online, so I am awaiting a response from them as to what specifically is available.
Novell
Novell has been getting a lot of bigotted press from the Linux community lately because of their recent deal with Microsoft. Regardless, they have one of the most comprehensive certification programs out there, second only to Red Hat. They also have a very well organized certification program.
The training center is basically the same as with the Linux Professional Institute program. Basic lab requirements, as well as someone that has a clue about teaching. CLP Instructors with educational backgrounds are respected for that, and therefore only need to receive a certification in the subject they are going to teach. They also need to work for a certified training center.
What I really like about Novell is the division between Commercial and Educational facilities. No other organization that I am aware of provides educational training options as well as commercial training options. Generally the Commercial is developed first, while the education facility needs to conform in some fashion.
So, in my research that I have performed, I found that though the Linux community may be a little upset with Novell right now, it's actually easier to be a Training Center for Novell than it is for Red Hat. That opinion may change as I get more information from Red Hat, but as it stands Novell has the lead.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Linux Certifications: Which Are The Most Important?
Recently I have been interested in developing a comprehensive Linux training program that has real impact and value to the community. The goal is to create class designs that add value to anyone taking the course. But we then ran into the ultimate question: What Linux Certification is considered the best?
The Certification Schools
I began by doing some digging on Google, and found there were basically four different schools of certifications out there:
1. RedHat
2. Novell (SuSE)
3. Linux Professional Institute (flavor-neutral)
4. CompTIA's Linux + program (flavor-neutral)
RedHat is, of course, focused primarily on RedHat or RedHat-based distributions (like Fedora). While this is ideal for computer centers and administrators using RedHat exclusively, it's very limiting as several very popular versions of Linux are not considered.
Novell's certification is specifically geared to their distribution of Linux, SuSE. Again, while perhaps even more comprehensive in it's two levels of certification, it's still very limited to the SuSE distribution, and therefore not ideal.
LPI is perhaps the most impressive, as it is flavor-neutral. In fact, it focuses on the basic core of Linux, covers compiling as an instalation, and then even overviews the install processes of both Debian-based and RedHat-based packaging. And precious few facilities within the US are fully tied to the Linux Professional Institute.
CompTIA, for those that are familiar with their A+ certification, is basically a quick overview to prepare someone to deal with Linux as HelpDesk personel. It is, by no means, a comprehensive certification.
What was even more interesting was the distribution of the certifications. The two most distributed worldwide was RedHat and LPI, with RedHat leading domestically in the US and internationally, and LPI being more international with a growing domestic market. Novell's certifications would come behind these, because though Novell's NetWare certifications are well known, their Linux certifications are relatively new, and tied to their SuSE distribution of Linux. CompTIA is strong domestically, but I didn't notice an international presence.
The Certification Levels
The leveling also took me by surprise, though not completely. It basically broke down like this:
Basic
1. CompTIA Linux+
2. LPI 1
3. Novell Certified Linux Professional
4. RedHat Certified Technican
Intermediate
1. LPI 2
2. Novel Certified Linux Engineer
3. RedHat Certified Engineer
Advanced
1. RedHat Certified Systems Architect
2. RedHat Certified Security Specialist
3. LPI 3 (Currently in Beta, release date Jan. 2007)
Back to the Question...
So, this brings us back to the question at hand: What is the most important certification to receive, and which would be the best? Well, I immediately identified the LPI certification program as being the most global. Then I also noticed, once I started looking at the topics being covered, that the same class can cover all the other certifications as well. It would take a little bit of tweaking to the curriculum, but overall it would be possible to prepare someone to take all the certifications with the exception of the advanced classes. Those could then be added in later, providing a full gambit of Linux certifications with minimal resource allocations.
So, ultimately which is the best to provide? Because we are able to cover all of them for the same price as one, it doesn't really matter. But given the choice, which would you choose?
The Certification Schools
I began by doing some digging on Google, and found there were basically four different schools of certifications out there:
1. RedHat
2. Novell (SuSE)
3. Linux Professional Institute (flavor-neutral)
4. CompTIA's Linux + program (flavor-neutral)
RedHat is, of course, focused primarily on RedHat or RedHat-based distributions (like Fedora). While this is ideal for computer centers and administrators using RedHat exclusively, it's very limiting as several very popular versions of Linux are not considered.
Novell's certification is specifically geared to their distribution of Linux, SuSE. Again, while perhaps even more comprehensive in it's two levels of certification, it's still very limited to the SuSE distribution, and therefore not ideal.
LPI is perhaps the most impressive, as it is flavor-neutral. In fact, it focuses on the basic core of Linux, covers compiling as an instalation, and then even overviews the install processes of both Debian-based and RedHat-based packaging. And precious few facilities within the US are fully tied to the Linux Professional Institute.
CompTIA, for those that are familiar with their A+ certification, is basically a quick overview to prepare someone to deal with Linux as HelpDesk personel. It is, by no means, a comprehensive certification.
What was even more interesting was the distribution of the certifications. The two most distributed worldwide was RedHat and LPI, with RedHat leading domestically in the US and internationally, and LPI being more international with a growing domestic market. Novell's certifications would come behind these, because though Novell's NetWare certifications are well known, their Linux certifications are relatively new, and tied to their SuSE distribution of Linux. CompTIA is strong domestically, but I didn't notice an international presence.
The Certification Levels
The leveling also took me by surprise, though not completely. It basically broke down like this:
Basic
1. CompTIA Linux+
2. LPI 1
3. Novell Certified Linux Professional
4. RedHat Certified Technican
Intermediate
1. LPI 2
2. Novel Certified Linux Engineer
3. RedHat Certified Engineer
Advanced
1. RedHat Certified Systems Architect
2. RedHat Certified Security Specialist
3. LPI 3 (Currently in Beta, release date Jan. 2007)
Back to the Question...
So, this brings us back to the question at hand: What is the most important certification to receive, and which would be the best? Well, I immediately identified the LPI certification program as being the most global. Then I also noticed, once I started looking at the topics being covered, that the same class can cover all the other certifications as well. It would take a little bit of tweaking to the curriculum, but overall it would be possible to prepare someone to take all the certifications with the exception of the advanced classes. Those could then be added in later, providing a full gambit of Linux certifications with minimal resource allocations.
So, ultimately which is the best to provide? Because we are able to cover all of them for the same price as one, it doesn't really matter. But given the choice, which would you choose?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)