Requiring re-certification: right or wrong?

binarysoul

Imagine you got your university, college or high school diploma, but it said it would expire after three years and asked you to come back to classes to be re-tested again. You would be shocked wouldn't you? You would think that the diploma is a testimony that you've earned knowledge, expertise and skills that cannot 'fly' out of your mind in a couple of years.

But we don't get shocked when companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Oracle grant us with a temporary dipoma. In fact, we enthusiatically move on and get more of such temporary diplomas. I know now you're saying, well IT changes, so re-testing is necessary. You'r right, but for example, science changes too. There are new discoveries in science and even in social science everyday, but they don't require students to re-test.

We know the main reason is revenue generation for Microsoft, Cisco, Sun and many others, but is it morally and ethically right to mislead people that knowledge expires in a couple of years? When was the last time a company sued Microsoft because an MCSE admin caused major security breach? So, re-certificatin is not to ensure 'competency and responsibility', but to ensure 'revenues'. Is that morally right?

JDMurray

By "morally" you are talking about good versus evil. By "certification" you are talking about being granted an acknowledgment for having passed one or more non-academic exams. How can you possibly construe that by requiring the periodic renewal of a certification the vendor of that cert is being evil? And you comparison of certifications with college degrees is completely "apples and oranges." You might as well compare an automobile drivers license with the licenses required to pilot an aircraft.

dynamik

I think ethical would be a better choice of wording than moral.

Regardless, I understand what you're saying. However, I don't have a problem with it. Technology changes at a fairly rapid pace, so I don't think the requirement for recertification every few years is really unfounded. Many of the recertification requirements are actually quite lenient. If I'm a CCNA, all I have to do is pass a CCNP test within 3 years to keep my CCNA. The same goes if I'm a CCNP. I'll probably start branching out into CCSP or CCVP, so those will recertify my CCNP as well. It's really not anything I'm concerned.

cisco.com wrote:

CCNP certifications are valid for three years. To recertify, pass any 642 exam that is part of the professional level curriculum after 01/01/06, or pass a current CCIE written exam.

All I have to do is pass one professional level exam or expert written within 3 years. I would do this anyway, so recertification is really a non-issue.

Also, I don't think revenue is the reason for certification or recertification. There are myriad costs involved with creating and maintaining these testing programs. There was a post on here within the last month or two that detailed the exam creation process. It was extremely elaborate. When you add in the testing site charges (I know this is small), lawsuits against companies that offer brain ****, customer support personnel, all the little items they send you, programmers, web designers, servers, and bandwidth to provide access to all the certification information, etc. I really don't think they make a great deal of money, if any, off of certification. They make their money off of their products, and they sell their products because people are able to use them effectively. They wouldn't sell a whole lot of server software if no one could implement it properly.

I think it's also important to periodically test a person's ability. I think most of us would be a little bit uncomfortable if we had to retake an exam we had already passed without any preparation. I'm sure I've lost some knowledge from the exams I've passed within the last year due to lack of use. I really don't have a problem with checking in every once in awhile to make sure I still possess the skills I need. In fact, I would actually prefer to have to recertify, given the choice.

Plantwiz

I think the JD and Dynamik have covered it.

A thing cannot be moral or immoral....morality deals with behavior. An exam doesn't 'behave'.

***

You compare a university degree to IT certifications?? From what my experience has been....When one has a university degree AND works in that field, they are always training and testing. Teachers at least in our state continue to take education classes to stay current. CPA's attend seminars and such. Sales people I've know (those who are successful) attend training seminars. And to renew my MCP (not the MS type but the nursery professional type ). I am required to attend at least 1 trade show and 4 hours of seminars....or take an additional college class.

So, I think if you look, you'll see that all industries require their professionals stay active within their discipline. Not really a big deal. If it's the career path you've chosen....I'd think you'd want to network with the people in your field as well as hear first-hand some of the new advances taking place.

Thoughts?

BeaverC32

If you don't like it, don't get certified. Nobody is holding a gun to your head making you get certified (or if your employer is, they are likely paying for it). I personally have no problem in getting recertified every so often...ensures the information you have learned remains fresh throughout the years.

Also, comparing a college degree that requires 120+ credit hours, tens of thousands of dollars, etc to a $200 certification exam is ridiculous.

sprkymrk

Yeah, like BeaverC32 said.

When a CCNA or MCSE costs $75,000 and takes 4 years to get, then I'll be upset that they require renewal every 3 years.

ladiesman217

binarysoul wrote:

Imagine you got your university, college or high school diploma, but it said it would expire after three years and asked you to come back to classes to be re-tested again. You would be shocked wouldn't you? You would think that the diploma is a testimony that you've earned knowledge, expertise and skills that cannot 'fly' out of your mind in a couple of years.

But we don't get shocked when companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Oracle grant us with a temporary dipoma. In fact, we enthusiatically move on and get more of such temporary diplomas. I know now you're saying, well IT changes, so re-testing is necessary. You'r right, but for example, science changes too. There are new discoveries in science and even in social science everyday, but they don't require students to re-test.

We know the main reason is revenue generation for Microsoft, Cisco, Sun and many others, but is it morally and ethically right to mislead people that knowledge expires in a couple of years? When was the last time a company sued Microsoft because an MCSE admin caused major security breach? So, re-certificatin is not to ensure 'competency and responsibility', but to ensure 'revenues'. Is that morally right?

i oppose that certifications in general are aimed only to ensure revenues. IMO its a two part function. the companies need to ensure that IT professionals holding their certs are good enough to perform, thats maybe the reason why the exams are so hard.

Science is actually a different field and theres no vendor in that area.

binarysoul

There have been assumptions made about what I said and ultimately my statements being judged.

What I mean by 'morally right or wrong' is that is it ethically right for Microsoft or Cisco (as examples; not trying to single them out) to mislead people, especially employers that skills and knowlege of Microsoft and Cisco actually "EXPIRE" in three years? They don't re-invent the wheels to require re-certification; passage of time doesn't obsolete knowledge.

You agree with me that most HR personnel are non-technical and once they see that your MCSE on Windows 2003 expired yesterday, they may believe that "since IT changes" your skills must be obsolete now. Isn't misleading others unethical, especially in a business context?

Nobody can tell me that there is no revenue factor involved when companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, Oracle and many other decide as to when they should require re-certification. Nobody minds if they earn revenue, but to a larger extent I see these companies earning partially unethically by unnecessarily requiring re-certification.

mwgood

binarysoul wrote:

What I mean by 'morally right or wrong' is that is it ethically right for Microsoft or Cisco (as examples; not trying to single them out) to mislead people, especially employers that skills and knowlege of Microsoft and Cisco actually "EXPIRE" in three years?

Simply - a vendor expiring a certification does not entail that skills and knowledge expire - or even "misleading" employers to the effect that skills and knowledge expire. What expires is the validity of the certification - which is only one potential indicator of skills and knowledge.

RussS

Personally I am over certification for now as I am too busy doing my job and learning how to actually use new technologies in a manner that really works in the real world.

However - MS Certs don't require re-certification as per-see. They do expire however as the technology is superseeded. A MCSE in NT4 is not really relevant currently as the 2003 OS is far removed from what it was originally based on. If I was a youngster and wanting to climb the corporate ladder I would probably continue the quest for certs as a way to improve salary etc, but at my age I am just happy doing what I do and trying to do it to the best of my ability.

royal

RussS wrote:

However - MS Certs don't require re-certification as per-see

While that's still the case for most of Microsoft's certificates, Microsoft's new MCITP: Server Administrator and MCITP: Enterprise Administrator now require a 3 year re-certification process or they expire.

And to the OP, I don't think there's anything wrong with re-certification. The exams are well below $1,000 to re-certify while a degree takes 4 years and costs well over $50,000 to obtain depending on the degree.

dynamik

sprkymrk wrote:

When a CCNA or MCSE costs $75,000 and takes 4 years to get, then I'll be upset that they require renewal every 3 years.

RussS wrote:

a degree takes 4 years and costs well over $50,000 to obtain depending on the degree.

At $305.77 per credit, my degree will only cost $36692.40 (most credits were cheaper since the cost per credit increases each year). I guess I got really screwed here. Caring about recertification isn't even on my radar anymore.

GT-Rob

^ depends what country you are in. Canadian government pays for about 75% of tuition here



I think recertification is requirement in something like IT. The whole industry is still a baby considered to others, and it changes fast than any others I can think of. Yes a degree is more involved than a particular certification, but it holds the same problem when it comes to 'age'.


for example, I was recently interviewing a girl for a repair tech at my work. She had gone through for a 3 year diploma at college and finished 5 years ago, and she had been working retail ever since. Long story short, she could not answer a the most basic computer questions I gave her, including pointing out the connection ports on the back of a PC (she got the power cord plug right...). I am not saying school didn't teach her anything, but 5 years afterwards, things change, and if you don't use it, you lose it IMO. Recertification is just a way of showing you haven't lost it.

networker050184

I am not saying school didn't teach her anything, but 5 years afterwards, things change, and if you don't use it, you lose it IMO. Recertification is just a way of showing you haven't lost it.

That is exactley how I feel. You may cram information from a book into your head and then forget about it or never use it after that. This is especially true for people who get certifications with out experience. I have forgotten so much stuff that I have learned simply because I havent used it in years. So I am all for recertification. It keeps you on your toes and up to date on new technologies. And like dynamik stated the recertification processes is quite lenient in most cases.

Pash

I think re-certification is necessary in our field. This keeps us at a professional level in various vendor techs and helps to refresh us every so often. Let's face it we have a lot to remember. We are fortunate to work in an industry where standards (Blu ray, HD-DVD, HELP!!!) move on at light speed and we constantly get to "play" with new stuff. Imagine being stuck in an industry where you are still trying to prove/dismis a dead german/austrian scientist's theories for your every day job.

nel

There's some very good points been made.

Personally speaking i believe the main reason of not having to "recertify" an degree is because of the costs . they know people would not go for having to redo there degree every few year and for it to cost an arm and a leg! i for one would not. i believe the prices they charge for a degree is obsurd anyway. dont get me wrong i truley believe doing my degree has been one of the best things i could of done (at this moment in time) but im at the beginning of my career and have done this to hopefully move up the ladder and i work full time and do a degree PT so im able to keep debt to a minimum.

As for certs vs degree's a believe a good combination of both is the best way to go but i believe certs have a greater edge when you start to move to specialised roles.

From my experiance my degree was great and i LOVED doing it (was a combo of the ccna and mcsa) and was designed for people in the work place but now i have moved location and to a more "academic course" and i now hate doing it because i just cant stand how the academics think the content in the course is more than good enough to get you a high level job in the real world but i disagree.i believe its a good start to be able to adapt yourself to different learning and working situations but i dont think it prepares you for the real world as much as they think so. i find this really anoying!

the world is always moving no matter which profession you work in so if its not having to recertify every 3 yr then they will always find something else. i just think the key to learning is enjoyment. ive found that out first hand with my new degree because i am not enjoying it at all now! just see this post if you dont believe me: http://techexams.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29699

i enjoy learning and what we do in stuff im interested in but if it was like my degree situation then i would probably be looking for a different career!

BeaverC32

There have been assumptions made about what I said and ultimately my statements being judged.

What do you expect in a forum environment?

mislead people, especially employers that skills and knowlege of Microsoft and Cisco actually "EXPIRE" in three years?

How are they misleading people? You need to elaborate. I knew well before I passed my CCNA that it would expire in 3 years time unless I either recertified or went on to a professional-level exam. Recertification keeps your knowledge current, and helps retain the validity of the certification.

passage of time doesn't obsolete knowledge.

Doesn't it? You remember everything you have ever learned and never lose that knowledge? Also, passage of time DOES obsolete technology, which is really what we are talking about here.

they see that your MCSE on Windows 2003 expired yesterday

MCSE doesn't expire; it will remain on your transcript indefinitely. Until Server 2003 technology becomes obsolete, you have nothing to worry about. When it does become obsolete, it makes sense that you would want to certify in the newer technology.

Nobody minds if they earn revenue, but to a larger extent I see these companies earning partially unethically by unnecessarily requiring re-certification.

Again, if you have a problem with their certification policy, don't take the exam.


Refer to Plantwiz's response for clarification on "morals" and "ethics".

keatron

Truth of the matter is, most science related professions have this same type of requirement. For example if you're a licensed engineer (mechanical, electrical, civil, etc), you have to CEU's to keep your license. Even high school teachers have to do some form of Continuing ed, or they lose their respective state teaching certification. The fact of the matter is, certification does bring about some levels of validation and metrics (not perfect, but it's a start). As far as the vendor specific certification bodies you mention like Cisco, and Microsoft, I think it's their perrogative to decide when they've changed their product lines and functionality enough to require an updating or recertification of their products. Obviously there's also a financial benefit for the vendors, but that's just life, and that's free enterprise.

Keatron.

mcmaster

for many degrees, you dont renew for isntance. Math. math is math. 20 years from now, same math. English, 20 years same english and slang isn't taught in schools. The IT industry being as fast past and evolving as it is, its necessary to recertify to prove to the industry you know what your doing. If you in a job and you don't need to know the latest stuff? its choice you don't have too. And if you need to renew for your job, most likely than not, you job will pay for your time and training. I don't think its a matter of moral yes or no. Its just what the IT industry depends. A high paced market needs high paced players.

binarysoul

I don't think I'm againt continuous learning and trying to keep up-to-date with emerging technologies. In fact, IT can be considered the most dynamic field of all and keeping with the current is the name of the game.

We must be aware that 'brainwashing' is a fact of life and at times we just accept things as they're. Most have been brainwashed (thanks to tricky marketing and unproven surveys and statistics) that knowlege in IT can become obsolete, so you must update your skills. Broadly speaking this is true, but why would Cisco, for example, require you to re-certify your CCNA? You're now saying, "well, there are new areas to be includes and old areas to be excluded". Exactly! And I couldn't disagree.

But are we 2 or 3 to be babysitted just because few things changed? Imagine going to your boss and saying, "well, although you paid for my CCNA, you have to enrole me in a training program again, so I could learn the "new" CCNA and re-certify". Your boss would expect you to learn the new stuff on your own. Remember job ads require you to "Be a quick learne".

To cut to the chase, I'm not against updating your skills, but against being tested twice on the same material.

Kasor

Never stop learning and knowledge is something that cannot be measure. Anyway, for high level IT certification which required recert every few years because they want to ensure the certifed IT guy maintain a standard.

However, Cisco is out of the line because nobody can catch up and by the time we did. We forgot other thing that we learned and used before.