Yet another question about 2003 vs 2008 Microsoft certs

lumbercis

skrpune wrote: »

BWOOP BWOOP BWOOP! If I saw that on a resume, it'd set off sirens and immediately land it in the trash pile.

It's a big big big no-no to lie on your resume, and misrepresenting your qualifications falls into the lie category. You don't want your first introduction to the company to start you off on the wrong foot. And if someone with tech knowledge looks at your resume, they'll either assume you're lying about what certs you have (not good) or that you have no clue what those certs/letters mean (not good either). Lose-lose situation in my book.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you have to assume that the people looking at your resume know what they are looking at or they don't. If you assume they do, and they don't recognize MCITP, then you lose. If you assume they don't, and try to fix the situation by putting something they do understand, then someone thinks you might be lying and you lose again.

So basically why not tell the OP that he is screwed either way he goes and to just get the cert he likes the best? Personally, I would just get the MCITP and not worry about it. If the company I am applying to doesn't know what an MCITP is, then I'm not sure I want to work for them anyway.

Hyper-Me

skrpune wrote: »

BWOOP BWOOP BWOOP! If I saw that on a resume, it'd set off sirens and immediately land it in the trash pile.

It's a big big big no-no to lie on your resume, and misrepresenting your qualifications falls into the lie category. You don't want your first introduction to the company to start you off on the wrong foot. And if someone with tech knowledge looks at your resume, they'll either assume you're lying about what certs you have (not good) or that you have no clue what those certs/letters mean (not good either). Lose-lose situation in my book.

How is it lying when MS expressly states that the MCITP path is the direct successor of the MCSE path?

I wouldnt put MCSE 2008, but something like "MCITP: EA ("MCSE" for 200" wouldnt be a huge deal, i dont think.

trmiv

I've decided on the MCITP. I'm now in the process of getting the screen fixed on my Core 2 Duo laptop (stuck on an old Pentium since the screen broke), and throwing 4 gigs of ram in it so I have something that can handle a decent number of VM's for the labs. Then I'm going to get the MS Press books for the MCITP: SA and either CBT Nuggets or Testout videos. I'm going to start with the books and then when I get the rest of my money together get the videos.

Paul Boz

I can run 8-10 MS servers on a similar notebook setup, you're all set

skrpune

lumbercis wrote: »

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you have to assume that the people looking at your resume know what they are looking at or they don't. If you assume they do, and they don't recognize MCITP, then you lose. If you assume they don't, and try to fix the situation by putting something they do understand, then someone thinks you might be lying and you lose again.

So basically why not tell the OP that he is screwed either way he goes and to just get the cert he likes the best? Personally, I would just get the MCITP and not worry about it. If the company I am applying to doesn't know what an MCITP is, then I'm not sure I want to work for them anyway.

No, you can't have it both ways, and no matter what the situation, it's a huge no no to not be truthful on your resume. Also, quite often, it's not techies that look at your resume first, so dismissing a company because their HR person isn't up on the latest MS certs seems a bit much to me.

I really don't think the OP isn't screwed no matter what, and that's not what I way trying to say. I was merely commenting on the importance of being honest on your resume.

skrpune

Hyper-Me wrote: »

How is it lying when MS expressly states that the MCITP path is the direct successor of the MCSE path?

I wouldnt put MCSE 2008, but something like "MCITP: EA ("MCSE" for 200" wouldnt be a huge deal, i dont think.

Saying it in conversation is one thing, but putting it on your resume is another thing entirely. There is no such thing as an MCSE for 2008, so people will at best assume you're a bit confused about certs and at worst think you're lying about what you have. If you choose to bend the truth on your resume, so be it, but I'd strongly recommend not doing this.

RobertKaucher

I have put "The new version of the MCSE for Server 2008" on my resume as an explanation. I have never had any issues with it. But notice that I state it is the new version, I do not say that it is the MCSE for server 2008.

No, this is not lying. If the Enterprise Admin were not the direct successor to the MCSE there would be no upgrade exam for it from the MCSE. If you look at the new MCITP Desktop Administrator test you see a perfect example. Many people wrongly think it is a successor tot he MCDST, but it is not and there is no upgrade exam for it.

I would not say "MCSE for Server 2008," though, as this does look like it might cause confusion. I would sugest a full explanation. "New version of the MCSE for server 2008." This makes it clear you are not saying you are MCSE 2008, which (as noted) does not exist.

skrpune

RobertKaucher wrote: »

I have put "The new version of the MCSE for Server 2008" on my resume as an explanation. I have never had any issues with it. But notice that I state it is the new version, I do not say that it is the MCSE for server 2008.

No, this is not lying. If the Enterprise Admin were not the direct successor to the MCSE there would be no upgrade exam for it from the MCSE. If you look at the new MCITP Desktop Administrator test you see a perfect example. Many people wrongly think it is a successor tot he MCDST, but it is not and there is no upgrade exam for it.

I would not say "MCSE for Server 2008," though, as this does look like it might cause confusion. I would sugest a full explanation. "New version of the MCSE for server 2008." This makes it clear you are not saying you are MCSE 2008, which (as noted) does not exist.

I'd say that this is much more palatable than implying that it IS the MCSE for 2008.

And hopefully someday I'll have both the MCSE and MCITP:EA so I won't have to have this debate with myself about how to list the certs!

Psoasman

skrpune wrote: »

Saying it in conversation is one thing, but putting it on your resume is another thing entirely. There is no such thing as an MCSE for 2008, so people will at best assume you're a bit confused about certs and at worst think you're lying about what you have. If you choose to bend the truth on your resume, so be it, but I'd strongly recommend not doing this.

+1 Good for you being honest
I think the perfect place to briely explain about the difference would be on your cover letter. Example: In the body of your letter you could say something like: " I am earned my Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer: Security Certification ( MCSE) and I am currently working on upgrading to Microsofts new version of the MCSE, which is the Microsoft Certified Information Technology Professional.
It may be a bit of a mouthful, but you explain the differences and may help educate the HR person who is spending about 10 seconds per resume

Starke

Microsoft said the MCITP is not the replacement for the MCSE. They are different certifications, I'm not sure where you guys are getting this misinformation from. If I was a hiring manager and I saw MCSE 2008 I would laugh and not hire you. After the new year I personally plan on taking MCSE out of my signature.

RobertKaucher

Starke wrote: »

Microsoft said the MCITP is not the replacement for the MCSE. They are different certifications, I'm not sure where you guys are getting this misinformation from. If I was a hiring manager and I saw MCSE 2008 I would laugh and not hire you. After the new year I personally plan on taking MCSE out of my signature.

No, you are very correct. You cannot say MCSE 2008. Like I said it does not exist.

Q. Does MCSA equate to MCITP: Server Administrator and does MCSE equate to MCITP: Enterprise Administrator?
A.
No, not exactly. The MCITP on Windows Server 2008 certification requires a new skill set—in some cases, a more robust one—that differs from the skill set needed for MCSA and MCSE certifications.
MCITP: Server Administrator certification covers more operations-related job skills than the MCSA certification.
MCITP: Enterprise Administrator maps to an actual job role profile, whereas the MCSE certification does not. The latter combines technology and job skills.

Q. Are the MCTS and MCITP certifications replacing the MCSA and MCSE credentials?
A.
No. The MCSA and MCSE certifications are not being replaced. There is no change to the Microsoft Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003 tracks and certifications. The MCTS and MCITP certifications are for Windows Server 2008.

What I am suggesting is an explanation of the significance of the MCITP EA. The fact that it is not a replacement for the MCSA/MCSE does not mean it is not a successor to it. It covers a new skill set, maps to a more distinct job role, but the fact is it follows the lineage of the MCSE which is why there is an upgrade exam for it.

Starke

It is not your job to explain to the employer in your resume. Again I think that's a bad idea. This will only make the acceptance process for MCITP even slower.

RobertKaucher wrote: »

No, you are very correct. You cannot say MCSE 2008. Like I said it does not exist.


What I am suggesting is an explanation of the significance of the MCITP EA. The fact that it is not a replacement for the MCSA/MCSE does not mean it is not a successor to it. It covers a new skill set, maps to a more distinct job role, but the fact is it follows the lineage of the MCSE which is why there is an upgrade exam for it.

Hyper-Me

Starke wrote: »

It is not your job to explain to the employer in your resume. Again I think that's a bad idea. This will only make the acceptance process for MCITP even slower.

How would explaining that make the acceptance even slower?

I've actually seen a couple job postings that said "MCSE 2003/2008 preferred"

In that case, how would you even think about getting that job if you didnt explain that the "MCSE 2008" is really the MCITP: EA ??

RobertKaucher

Starke wrote: »

It is not your job to explain to the employer in your resume. Again I think that's a bad idea. This will only make the acceptance process for MCITP even slower.

I will rewrite my resume tonight so that any explanations of my job roles, work history, and any other qualifications are absent. I'm sure it will be a very short and susinct list.

From reference.com

ré⋅su⋅mé  /ˈrɛzʊˌmeɪ, ˌrɛzʊˈmeɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rez-oo-mey, rez-oo-mey] Show IPA
–noun 1. a summing up; summary.
2. a brief written account of personal, educational, and professional qualifications and experience, as that prepared by an applicant for a job.

Main Entry: explain
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: make clear; give a reason for
Synonyms: account for, analyze, annotate, break down, bring out, clarify, clear up, construe, decipher, define, demonstrate, describe, diagram, disclose, elucidate, excuse, explicate, expound, get across, go into detail, illustrate, interpret, justify, make plain, manifest, paraphrase, point out, put across, put in plain English, rationalize, read, refine, render, resolve, reveal, set right, solve, spell out, teach, tell, throw light upon, translate, unfold, unravel, untangle

dynamik

I'm glad everyone found something to argue about now that he decided on the MCSE vs. MCITP

RobertKaucher

dynamik wrote: »

I'm glad everyone found something to argue about now that he decided on the MCSE vs. MCITP

If I cannot let my inner @$$ out on the Interwebs, where can I be free?

My wife says I am an MCD!CK.

My point was just to demonstrate that resumes are full of explanations and that is the purpose of a resume so long as they are appropriately brief. We explain our work history to show why it is relevant to the job at hand, we explain gaps in employment, we explain why training we took is relevant, etc.
If an individual reviewing resumes sees
MCITP: Enterprise Administrator (New version of the MCSE for server 200
and believes that the candidate does not understand the credential or is lying, rather than the obvious fact that it was intended to help non-technical HR staff understand the meaning of the credential, then that individual is being overly authoritarian and dogmatic. It is an attitude that states that anything outside of the individual’s narrow interpretation or reality is wrong and not simply irrelevant but actually detrimental.
I have worked as a hiring manager in several of my positions and I once knew a guy that when he got paper resumes checked held them up to the light. If the water mark on the paper they were printed on was not in the same direction as the resume was printed, he simply pitched them in the garbage without even looking at them. It’s the same sort of thing. A minor detail is promoted to deal breaker.
There are very few hard and fast rules in resume writing. One person might believe that a more appropriate place for this might be in the cover letter, another individual might argue that it a good idea to place that in the resume so that when it is being viewed by a non-technical HR employee (where there is no cover letter) it is still seen. To say “It is not your job to explain to an employer in a resume” is simply trying to force reality into a narrow and dogmatic opinion.
It is just my opinion about this conversation. I am not saying Starke is a dogmatic or unreasonable person or even narrow minded. The guy I mentioned who had the watermark fetish was a very amiable, open-minded guy who I am still friends with today.

morpheous7411

Yet another query about the MCSE vs MCITP: EA debate. My boss is willing to pay for a bootcamp for either MCSE 2003 or MCITP: EA with Global Knowledge and they both cost the same. The environment here at work is all Windows 2003 and that is what we have been using for a while. Even though we are not upgrading to 2008 this year, by the way things are going, they might start the upgrade towards the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011.

Moreover, the available dates for MCITP: EA boot camps are October 2009, November 2009 and January 2010. Whereas the MCSE 2003 boot camp will be offered in February 2010.

I was leaning towards going with MCSE 2003 first and upgrading it to MCITP: EA sometime next year. However, seeing that the MCSE class is going to be in February 2010, it got me into thinking if it would worth it do the MCSE 2003 boot camp around February next year. What do you guys/gals think about this?

Would it be wise to do the MCITP:EA now, even though we do not have any Windows 2008 environment of yet ? Everything we run from domain controller to Exchange servers are in the 2003 version.

Thanks a bunch folks !

RobertKaucher

The foundation that you gain in the MCSE will cary on to the MCITP 2008 and beyond. With a reasonable amount of study you will be able to upgrade to the MCITP EA. I say go for MCSE.

AlexMR

Windows Server 2008 is gaining way too much popularity. Even for me that im training in totally favorable conditions (unemployed, able to study 24/7), it takes several months of studying to get the MSCE. For most people the journey takes more than a year. I dont know at what rate Windows 2008 is replacing 2003, but what people have said about the scalability of the knowledge acquired in the MSCE studies applies to the MCITP:SA/EA studies: lots of the things that you'll learn are applicable in 2003 enviroments. On top of that, the self paced books from MS press seem to always mention what is new and what doesnt work in 2003 and what does.

Being Technology Professionals I dont see much of a point making decisions about embarking on studies that will take more than a year to complete based on current market conditions. The most important question here is what the market conditions will be by the time I am done with this certification? I asked myself that question and after talking to a couple SysAdmins and listening how crazy they are with the new stuff(and pushing hard trying to get their managers/employers to upgrade from 2003) I decided that I was going to start with 2008.

The best reason i can see to start in 2003 is that your employer asks for it. Otherwise i still havent seen a really good reason to start learning a technology that as great as it is, its successor is gaining more and more acceptance and market share.

"Upgrading is not that hard" is not a good reason neither IMHO. Time is the most valuable resource and stating that is not having a sense of urgency, which is vital if you want to accomplish things and keep the pace in this incredibly fast-moving field.

RobertKaucher

Alex, for the questioner's case I don't think having the MCSE would do any harm since he works in a Server 2003 environment. With Morpheous' experience it should not take him more than 6 months for the MCSE. I believe that with MCSE and MCITP plus the experience of taking his company through a migration to server 2008 Morpheous would have a very good looking resume. Just my opinion.