Certification Process: Out With The Old!

elover_jm

jdmurray wrote:

sprkymrk wrote:

garv221 wrote:

I can think of better ways to invest my time and 25K than MCA, ALOT better investments.

Personally I'd rather buy a new car.

For 25K I'm keeping my old car and getting a Masters degree. Then I'll buy a new car...eventually.

Totally endorsed......

jwlazar

25K for an MS certification?!!

Sounds like an egregious example of corporate greed to me...

I'd rather spend that money on something more established (CCIE) then on something that is not universally recognized.

+1 on the Masters Degree


If you have so much expertise on M$ products to even pass such a cert, why would you even pay *them* to promote knowledge on their product line?

sprkymrk

I don't think too many are actually checking out the MCA links before making their opinions public.

Kaminsky

Looking at the cert (nod sprkymrk) it does read between the lines as an attempt to get to a prestige level like Cisco's CCIE and does seem a very tough one to get with the content and the policing.

One thing occurs to me though is that currently large installations are designed by MCSEs with other certs/qualifications and lots of experience. Apart from the obvious prestige that this cert would give, what return on investment of cash, time and serious hard work would someone get from this as they will probably be doing the architect job already? If they invested all that and then failed a portion of it to get the apprentice status, would they be bothered to resit with the costs so high?

Again, apart from the obvious prestige of having a new high level certification, I don't think the reward would be worth it until there are lots and lots of those certified people out there and hiring managers could afford to specify this as the minimum requirement for the gig.

Certainly, companies that provide design/implementation consultancy services for large installations may put their people through this to gain them more contracts if they can afford to do without them for a certain amount of time while they certify.

blargoe

The MCA is more geared toward large corporations or consulting firms that service those very large corporations, rather than Joe Administrator. The value is not there yet but it will come around before too long simply because it's Microsoft and the MCSE is going away so the "MCSE Recognition" factor (where HR people look for it because it's the most known MS Cert) will go away with it eventually.

You have to go through a lot to get the MCA - 6 weeks of training and exams, an assigned mentor (who is also an MCA), you have to go through a "qualification lab", you have spend hours in front of a review board presenting a project and prepare to be grilled on it, and it doesn't necessarily involve "Microsoft only" technology. In fact, it's not just "technology" you're being tested on, they look at project management skills, effective communication and leadership, product knowledge, I forget what all they evaluate but there are 7 areas. And you don't get an unlimited number of attempts at it either. I think it's three tries and you're out. Also, there is a recertification requirement, and you have to continue participate in the program by serving as a mentor to other candidates.

That's all from memory, I haven't been to the site lately but my director wanted me to look at the program for future reference.

jwlazar

I don't think too many are actually checking out the MCA links before making their opinions public.

I have a feeling someone here is getting a little under the table from M$ to jump to conclusions about it's skeptics.

I found nothing on the site to justify going out of my way to attain this. Just more mumbo-jumbo about "identifying qualified professionals and industry experts" who have the experience (or money) to spend to already re-inforce skills that any employer could guage without having to dole out $25k.

What does pursuing this cert accomplish or exhibit apart from what Microsoft's other offerings don't? Project Management? Wow! I could pay $25000 to attend an MBA that is universal across all fields to learn that.

I think I'll send my application to Carnegie Mellon or Berkeley for the prospect of getting into their grueling IT program rather than pay for this...

blargoe

Microsoft doesn't expect any Joe off the street to try to get this cert, and they probably wouldn't accept them into the program if they did try. It's almost entirely going to be big companies paying for their folks to get into the program. No wait... let's keep playing victim, that's much more fun.

Note: I don't endorse this program, or even Microsoft for that matter, just parroting facts and what I have come to understand from reading online, to counter the "hate everything Microsoft" tone this thread has taken.

sprkymrk

jwlazar wrote:

I don't think too many are actually checking out the MCA links before making their opinions public.

I have a feeling someone here is getting a little under the table from M$ to jump to conclusions about it's skeptics.

Why did you think I was talking about you?

Skeptics are fine, so are informed opinions. I was offering up the MCA as a move in the right direction as a reply to garv's original post. However, it seems that some folks want to keep the certs cheap and easy so they can continue to criticize MS. Or perhaps the 25K price tag (which includes 6 weeks of high level training and instruction) is just too shocking for people used to paying $125 for a cert.

jwlazar wrote:

If you have so much expertise on M$ products to even pass such a cert, why would you even pay *them* to promote knowledge on their product line?

That's a strange statement. So you agree that it takes a lot of expertise to get this cert, but then you state:

jwlazar wrote:

I found nothing on the site to justify going out of my way to attain this. Just more mumbo-jumbo about "identifying qualified professionals and industry experts" who have the experience (or money) to spend to already re-inforce skills that any employer could guage

And really, if you have so much expertise to obtain ANY cert, why would you then dole out the money for any of them if any employer could gauge that skill easily? Let me know if you think the CCIE is mumbo jumbo or is it okay since it's not MS?

garv221

sprkymrk wrote:

jwlazar wrote:

I found nothing on the site to justify going out of my way to attain this. Just more mumbo-jumbo about "identifying qualified professionals and industry experts" who have the experience (or money) to spend to already re-inforce skills that any employer could guage

And really, if you have so much expertise to obtain ANY cert, why would you then dole out the money for any of them if any employer could gauge that skill easily? Let me know if you think the CCIE is mumbo jumbo or is it okay since it's not MS?

With CCIE you will see a return on investment as it is well know that people who hold this cert lead the industry in pay. What more of MS Windows can one learn to justify the MCA's cost that cannot be learned from MCSE? Like I said before MS needs to fix MCSE then maybe they can discuss this MCA under different circumstances.

CCIE's are on a different plateau when it comes to the Cisco networking field. Their knowledge is above and beyond the CCNP, CCNA ect. MS Windows just does not have the difficulty depth to extend a 25K cover for an exam or have that prestige to make it worth it. Windows, DNS, AD..in the grand scheme of IT is pretty basic stuff, one can only go so far into it...They need a revamp..

elover_jm

Sprk.......

seems like MS is paying you to promote and justify the MCA cert here on techexams....

Can we negotiate you giving me a certain % to help you the promotion

sprkymrk

garv221 wrote:

What more of MS Windows can one learn to justify the MCA's cost that cannot be learned from MCSE?

garv221 wrote:

MS Windows just does not have the difficulty depth to extend a 25K cover for an exam or have that prestige to make it worth it. Windows, DNS, AD..in the grand scheme of IT is pretty basic stuff, one can only go so far into it...They need a revamp..

Have you ever had your typical MCSE try to set up an AD infrastructure (including Exchange) for hundreds of thousands of users across a continent or even world wide? Can the "average" MCSE join 2 large corporations, like HP and Compaq, together under one AD domain by clicking a few icons on a server? These situations exist and happen with frequent regularity. When you throw Lotus Notes and Unix DNS servers into even a small migration/upgrade you're not going to rely on a typical MCSE with 3-5 years experience to make it happen. There is so much to consider in these situations that cannot be learned by reading 7 Microsoft Press books. One can go MUCH farther into the nuts and bolts of Windows than 99% of MCSE's typically want or need to.

Ask Johan what he was doing with Exchange 5.5 in Europe that Microsoft claimed "couldn't be done", and that's the caliber of folks I see that would become MCA's.

As for the ROI on MCA vs. CCIE I won't argue there. Only time will tell if it takes off or not.

sprkymrk

elover_jm wrote:

Sprk.......

seems like MS is paying you to promote and justify the MCA cert here on techexams....

That's already been suggested. I'm not defending the 25K. I'm defending the fact that the MCA is the MS attempt at a certification that equals the CCIE in difficulty and then in proving someone with it has the highest level of competence in the field worldwide. I disagree that it can or should be compared to an MCSE level cert any more than a CCNA can compare to a CCIE. I also think it's funny that everyone applauds Cisco for their CCIE cert as "doing it the right way" (which I agree it is the right way) but then criticizes MS for this. I think people are thinking "Pay $25,000 for this cert, no way" rather than think how much a CCIE pays along the way to get their cert. High level CCIE training is costly, easily 2 grand a week or more. The MCA includes 6 weeks of training in that cost. Still expensive, yes, but more in perspective.

Kaminsky

The big difference between the two organisation's certs has always been that after the associate level, Cisco certs require on the job experience or you are going to have a very hard time getting through. This is well known. I don't mean to put the MS certs down, but we all know that a lot of people get them without ever going near a production server or a demanding user base which does let these certs down somewhat. I'm not saying this doesn't happen with Cisco certs. We have all heard the stories but I don't think it happens to the same extent as with the MS certs. The associate level certs scare off a lot of the wannabes. I honestly believe that someone working as a server admin with a sizable user base for a year or so wouldn't have that much issue with most of the current MCSE syllabus unfortunately.

The arrival of the MCA is having the effect of highlighting these problems with the rest of the MS cert line in that I personally think the MCSE just isn't fit for purpose anymore. 5-10 years ago, yes certainly. The $25k just gives the critics something to latch onto to pour on more scorn.

With the profession requiring brighter and more experienced people to keep up with the constant improvements in the industry, the MCSE needs to be replaced entirely. I don’t think just beefing it up would actually be workable. It would be nice if the MCSE was a lot harder with the current total syllabus being only worth say an MCSA or (associate level) and then to get the MCSE (professional level), a lot more content needed to be achieved including CCNA type knowledge (maybe not the routing) and beefier design and security knowledge. Things like the MCA would then be master level thus requiring the serious investment and great ROI.

If the MCA is a step on overhauling the whole MS cert range along with these office application specific and pc support specific certs, then great. I'm all for it. However, the whole MCSE needs to go if only to help drive constant improvement in our industry.


I think this is a great thread and is bringing up some great points so it would be nice if we could avoid the mud slinging and the who is in who’s pocket which to be honest, is pretty cheap and unwarranted.

sprkymrk

@Kaminsky
I appreciate your comments and agree with a lot of your observations.
Isn't MS retiring the MCSA/MCSE track and moving to MCTS? There is no such a thing as MCSE 2007 or MCSE Longhorn, etc. It will be interesting to see what develops on that front.

I take no offence at anyone slinging mud. It's hard to tell if it's good natured ribbing or a substitute for intelligent rebuttal. It's only a forum and we all have our opinions. For instance I know garv disagrees with me on this and that's fine. However, his opening post was a one of the best I've seen to start a discussion, it was well thought out and well written.

Now, I'd like to "unhijack" the thread and see if it can return to some of garv's ideas, like the third party cert authority.

garv221

sprkymrk wrote:

Now, I'd like to "unhijack" the thread and see if it can return to some of garv's ideas, like the third party cert authority.

Its not at all hijacked, you brought up a good example and point with the MCA. Like I have been saying all along and what Kaminsky mentioned, the MCA is on the right track but Microsoft's other certs devalue it.

I do believe there needs to be a third party involved, right now anyone can brain **** into the IT field. People can argue that certification is only one tool used to obtain a job but the problem is they are getting hired. I see commercials about obtaining certifications in a month. When under qualified people pose as professionals it hurts everyone and ultimately lowers our wages.

A third party could raise the bar on certs creating an environment where someone can have years experience but no company will hire him or consider him for the Network Engineer position without having a CCNP. Think about it, certifications are something we already honestly work towards. The cheaters and under qualified would just be put into their place at the bottom with no where to go but up with honest hard work. This type of mentality would greatly benefit IT.

Webmaster

Interesting topic.

Microsoft, Cisco, and similar do not get rich from the money you pay for their exams. The benefit for them, the purpose of the certs, is to produce qualified professionals implementing and managing their products. IT certification, especially through self-study is a relatively cheap way to become more educated and skilled, and get a job/promotion. Compare most certs to a typical semester at a college or university. After the administrative cost, tax, the mail, the pin, the cert and all the other little things, then the chunk the test center (pearson vue, prometric) takes, and last but not least exam development cost, there's really not much left you could refer to as 'profit'. Having a qualified MCSE implementing stable and secure Windows networks so people don't move to Linux, that's the real 'profit' they gain.

The only ones who benefit from **** are countries were our international copyright laws are not respected. Everyone else hurts.

According to the theory MS makes money on exams, they would rather have people fail twice before passing instead of reading a **** and pass the first time. Anyway, I agree they can do a lot more, but you can safely assume they don’t want their own certs to devaluate.


I think the fact MCA came after MCSE makes all the difference. Imagine the MCA always existed and MCSE was added later for those who simply don't need to go that far for their job. Just as with CCIE, **** wouldn't have been a real issue. Certification is just like life, it's what 'you' make of it. And despite the 'not-optimal' reputation of MCSE, you can make a whole lot of that MCA. I don't think the current reputation of MCSE has any real influence on the actual value of the MCA, I have no doubt it will become a success. Though comparing the CCIE to MCA is bit like comparing apples and oranges, if they have one thing in common it's that they are a master key to great careers. Not just great in terms of salary, it's all about the work environment.

sprkymrk wrote:

Ask Johan what he was doing with Exchange 5.5 in Europe that Microsoft claimed "couldn't be done",

I don't want to brag or anything, but it overlapped 3 other continents . About 7 years ago I worked at an contract/outsourcing company and I needed a new job function. It's not that 'I' needed it, but when you work for such a company you become a product they sell, so it needs a nice package and a name. Administrator didn't cut it, neither did engineer, too 'software engineer'-ish. 'Consultant' was too general, I was too techie for that. So we started looking at what I was doing, which was designing, expanding, optimizing large Exchange infrastructures (small country, large means dozens of servers, thousands of clients). And it's really not that different from creating a large Cisco network. Optimizing traffic flows (X.400), choosing the right equipment, 'scaling'. Anyway, eventually I somewhat jokingly suggested "Exchange Architect", I think my account manager actually liked it, but you should have seen the looks on the faces of pretty much everyone else in the room, so they settled for consultant. But when I read about Microsoft creating an Architect cert, I was obviously reminded of that situation. Later I realized it was perhaps even cocky to suggest such a name, and I understand why some people think it's 'too' for a Microsoft cert, but for those who followed Mark's link and read the page, you'll see the name "Tony Redmond". For me that makes all the difference in the world.

sprkymrk wrote:

and that's the caliber of folks I see that would become MCA's.

Well, if they would have had it back then, I would have gladly paid the $25,000. Right now, I wouldn't even be able to setup a modern Exchange environment without at least a week very intensive upgrade course. A lot gets lost in 6 years. I think I might just qualify in terms of experience though. But Tony Redmond happens to be one of my idols, especially back then. I always wanted to work in larger and larger environments when I was addicted to Exchange 5.5 but those jobs were, and are, hard to get. Besides the certs, skills and experience, you need a degree, contacts, and not to mention, the right tie knot (etc.). Anyway, at some point I read about Tony Redmond, and the Exchange infrastructures they had at Compaq. They were treating Exchange servers as if it were clients in a network, and they always had the latest stuff first. I seriously wanted to be Tony Redmond, or at least control such a large environment. I’m not saying 2 or 20 servers isn’t fun, but to me it looked like Tony’s grass was so green it glowed in the dark and hurt my eyes.

So, I guess my point is you can become Tony Redmond by passing your MCA.

Here’s what Tony Redmond says in a heading of the preface in the book "Microsoft Exchange Server for Windows 2000" says:

“MCSE exam candidates exit now”


It illustrates my point very well. There’s so much more beyond MCSE when it comes to Microsoft Windows or any of the server products running on it. If you studied well, you got the essentials covers. Allowing you to do things the right way, but besides the wrong and right way, there's also the optimal way which comes in many variances and with alternatives. “Best practices”. Those are things you learn from experience. And once you get that kind of experience, you probably have a pretty good job, and you can afford to do the MCA and take part in some of the world’s state-of-the-art environments. That’s something you have to want though, if not, the MCA is not for you.

Obviously it is expensive, I won’t argue with that. But I had dozens of coworkers who paid (or the company for them) $2500 or more per MOC (official MS courses) for their MCSE exams so it’s not that extreme. I bet most of the current MCAs had a sponsor financing at least a portion of the cost.

So, yeah, I like the MCA initiative, but I don’t think it contributes anything to the other MS certs nor does it solve the braindump problem. The MCA is overkill for most people and not even meant as a solution to the devaluation of their other certs.

Honestly I expected some more significant changed with the MCTS and MCPD, the next generation Microsoft certs. Maybe they’ll surprise us with the next MCSE, ‘if’ there’s going to be one...

I agree with pretty much everything in Garv’s first post. And most certainly with the conclusion something needs to change. Holes are being plugged but there’s still a long way to go and that requires some drastic changes. I don’t think any of the vendors would be interested in third-party involvement (admitting incompetence), so I think it’s practically not feasible. However, if it would be possible to achieve something like that, force it upon them, internationally, I'd definitely be for it. Despite the fact I'm a cert-fan and imo certification is not expensive, it's not like we are getting the best value for money. There are still lots of smaller as well as larger things they could do to improve the situation. Expand the question pool, refresh it more often, remove the sites they are suing from their own search engines, etc.etc. A third-party could ensure that at least the “Doh!”-actions are taken by all the vendors, which proves they are concerned and dedicated, which may have a good influence on the bad mentality of some people. But again, I don't think any of them would be interested in... well, there are a couple of organizations who, for example, 'authorize' CompTIA study material, which could apply to the exams as well.

www.procert.com/labs_quicklinks/ql_caqc.cfm

Check out the Quick links on the right. Testing process, rating system and fourteen points. You would imagine if someone needs to comply with all that to get the CompTIA Authorized Quality Curriculum stamp, CompTIA would produce some top-notch quality exams themselves...

I think one of the main problems is still the test format itself and not as much a particular vendor. Multiple choice, drag-and-drop, mix-and-match, it’s all not very suitable for testing the practical skills one should be able to expect from an MCSE (for example). What currently happens is that they send out surveys to large companies, asking for the common job tasks, what they expect from and MCSA etc. Then those job competencies are turned into an exam. That’s where it goes wrong. Whether it’s an advanced sim or real lab environment is just a detail. I certainly think the concept of sims is good. But if the concept isn’t applied in a decent manner it obviously doesn’t work. I’d very much like to see ‘sims’ based on Virtual PC. The set of questions would be similar to tasks you would receive on the job from upper management or the call desk for example. “User X in domain Y can’t logon...” or “configure server X for terminal service access and establish a remote desktop session from client Y” Basically, one large case study.

But I certainly would applaud a 4 hour Windows Core lab exam as a mandatory addition to the MCSE track as well. (4 hours so it doesn’t become too expensive ). That would certainly make a real difference. They wouldn’t even have to change the name MCSE as news like that would spread very fast throughout the industry. But even though certs aren’t what they used to be, as I mentioned earlier, it’s what you make of it. And a certification like the ‘good’ ol’ MCSE can still get you a long way, whether it’s for a new career, a career change, gaining knowledge, a promotion. Regardless of what others make of it.

garv221

Good post Johan. I do think vendors make money from certifications but not directly. The more people with their certifications are more likely to implement and keep their product alive in the environment. You are correct that vendors would not like their certs controlled by a third party entity even though it would be best for IT but that would eliminate all the benefit and control from them. We as technicians can control that, just as we elect officials into government office, techs can drop support for certifications and dwindle it down to nothing. It is crazy how media and massive amounts of people can get what they want.

sprkymrk

garv221 wrote:

We as technicians can control that, just as we elect officials into government office, techs can drop support for certifications and dwindle it down to nothing.

Techs can't control it if employers make the certs a requirement, as in the DoD.

Webmaster

Thanks Garv. I agree getting more people certified can indirectly increase their revenue. The MCSE certainly did well for Microsoft during the Great Novell vs Microsoft war. We actually used to call them MS soldiers. I was merely disputing the comments about them earning money on the exams from directly from us certees. Certification for them (well, at least for vendors like Microsoft) is about spreading knowledge (so they can of course earn money on their products), not about selling exam/certs. If there are 10 MCSEs for every CNE, Microsoft's OS becomes a more attractive choice just because there are more people who can implement and manage it.

We as technicians can control that, just as we elect officials into government office, techs can drop support for certifications and dwindle it down to nothing. It is crazy how media and massive amounts of people can get what they want.

As Mark replied, dropping it all together won't work in practice. There will always be people who wouldn't join and get the job instead. Though, it would make an impact if hundreds of MCSE would inform Microsoft they are no longer going to update their certs and get new ones as long as they don't come with more rigurous measures. It's a cliche but indeed 'you' (we) can make the difference. A couple of examples:

Write a message to MSN live and google.com that you want the obvious illegal sites removed from their search engines. Do this with hundreds or thousands of people even in a single week and I would eat my shoe and put it on youtube if it wouldn't have a noticable result. If this sounds like a small issue, consider the fact there are thousands of users every single day who search for practice exams and have to find a way through dozens of **** sites (from the same owners, same copied trash) to find a legimate practice exam provider. They put themselves in the top positions by using all sorts of unacceptable SEO tricks. It seems they are too often looking for an solution that will end all problems, while there are several smaller things they could do to make 'a' difference.

If your instructor hands out or recommends ****, stand up, litteraly, and say something about it. Let your trainers, coworkers, fellow forum members, etc, know it's simply unacceptable. We're not talking about using cheatsheets on a highschool exam (not that that is something I recommend, and imagine how absurd it would be if the teacher would hand out the answer up front) but about professional certifications that can change someone's live. Especially for those who have one, it's important to make sure that 'can' doesn't change into 'could'.

Webmaster

I wrote:

Honestly I expected some more significant changed with the MCTS and MCPD, the next generation Microsoft certs. Maybe they’ll surprise us with the next MCSE, ‘if’ there’s going to be one...

Microsoft wrote:

Credit Toward Certification
When you pass Exam 70-236: TS: Exchange Server 2007, Configuring, you complete the requirements for the following certification:

• Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist: TS: Exchange 2007, Configuring

www.microsoft.com/learning/exams/70-236.mspx

That exam would normally have applied to MCSA:Messaging or MCSE:Messaging.

I admit I haven't been reading up on any news regarding the new generation of Microsoft certs, but it does look like MCSA and MCSE will be retired entirely. The Vista beta exams also indicate this. I think it'll take until the announcement of the new Windows exams.

So the old 'is' going out, but in the context of this thread, the new is still the same as the old. I'm sure they refined their practice questions style a bit as they have done for years (MS does have the best multiple choice practice questions in terms of testing practical topics, from a writer's perspective...) but I don't see any changes or improvements concerning the real issues. This is very unfortunate imo. I do like the MCTS structure, which seems to be based on the idea of the MCSE:messaging and :security specializations, but 'this' is obviously the moment for MS to make some real changes...

garv221

Webmaster wrote:

I wrote:

Honestly I expected some more significant changed with the MCTS and MCPD, the next generation Microsoft certs. Maybe they’ll surprise us with the next MCSE, ‘if’ there’s going to be one...

Microsoft wrote:

Credit Toward Certification
When you pass Exam 70-236: TS: Exchange Server 2007, Configuring, you complete the requirements for the following certification:

• Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist: TS: Exchange 2007, Configuring

www.microsoft.com/learning/exams/70-236.mspx

That exam would normally have applied to MCSA:Messaging or MCSE:Messaging.

I admit I haven't been reading up on any news regarding the new generation of Microsoft certs, but it does look like MCSA and MCSE will be retired entirely. The Vista beta exams also indicate this. I think it'll take until the announcement of the new Windows exams.

So the old 'is' going out, but in the context of this thread, the new is still the same as the old. I'm sure they refined their practice questions style a bit as they have done for years (MS does have the best multiple choice practice questions in terms of testing practical topics, from a writer's perspective...) but I don't see any changes or improvements concerning the real issues. This is very unfortunate imo. I do like the MCTS structure, which seems to be based on the idea of the MCSE:messaging and :security specializations, but 'this' is obviously the moment for MS to make some real changes...

Your welcome and that is the right idea with Google and other search engines as they are an outlet to the web. I am glad to see MCSE go, kind of like beer huh? A few can be a good time but too much is never a good thing. So they are leaning to individual certs now? The MCA is not even an exam but a status for working in the field..My kind of thing...

sprkymrk wrote:

garv221 wrote:

We as technicians can control that, just as we elect officials into government office, techs can drop support for certifications and dwindle it down to nothing.

Techs can't control it if employers make the certs a requirement, as in the DoD.

Sure they can, I employ people. I am entrusted by my corporation to make educated, tough decisions in the IT field on their behalf because I simply know whats best for the greater being of the organization. That is everyones role who heads up an IT dept (or any dept for that matter) to inform the employer what is best for the company. In IT the buck stops and starts with dept heads and it will dwindle the chain. It is the little people who make the world spin. Not individuals, but individuals as wholes.

Webmaster

I have to admit I don't mind to see it go myself, but I wouldn't have mind an new type of MCSE track that includes a hands-on lab as the final exam either.

So they are leaning to individual certs now?

The haven't drawn a complete picture yet, but some exams are for the MCTS (new exams title starts with TS: from Technology Specialist) and some are for the Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP)(title starts with PRO:).

www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcitp/default.mspx

As you can see on that page, the TS certs are focus on a certain technology/product, hence the name. Many of them require only one exam, so in that sense the MCTS is a replacement for the MCP, but unlike the MCP, you can become a MCTS multiple times. Others, such as the MCTS for .NET require 2 exams.

As you can also see on that page, the MCITP certs have a more general title, basically a job role. They also require multiple exams. So I expect that list will be expanded with:
- IT Professional: System Administrator
- IT Professional: System Engineer
or similar, and etc.

and then it'll fit in the following:
www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/newgen/default.mspx

Webmaster

Looks like my assumptions were correct:
www.techexams.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22192

Longhorn Server certifications will be in the "new generation" structure of MCTS (3 exams) and MCITP (2 exams, respectively); no details yet on names/exam numbers/paths