My apologies for having lit this particular fire. :) I have to ask you good folks something. I admit to not being nearly as omniscient as I'd like so I have to ask others for some of my education. I really don't understand the route this conversation has gone down and I'm hoping that I'm not the only one in this boat. Can someone explain to me how the idea of providing some level of competence using someone else's tests is so bad that the conversation quickly switches from "how can we cheaply get name recognition" to "let's open a college".
My objective going into this conversation wasn't to help launch the next MIT of System Administration but more a way of LOPSA getting more name recognition by aligning ourselves with *someone* doing the testing. The whole objective was/is to provide, to our members and their employers, an anchor that helps assure (not guarantee) them that the bearer of the 59 cent certificate of completion really has gone through a set of tests that meet some *real world* guidelines and you can be reasonably sure that given a problem to solve, they aren't treating every problem like a nail (i.e. only have a hammer). The response to this direct question has been of the nature of "LOPSA doesn't have the clout." I agree. However, we still don't have the clout to start developing text books, courses, etc. to certify our skills. What would the cost be (in bucks, cycles, reputation, etc.) for LOPSA to say to a provider of standardized testing, (LearningTree, CompTIA, LPI, HDI, etc.) "We want to help you make more money. We'll help you adjust the tests to reflect more real-world choices in exchange for us putting our stamp of approval on the test and for letting our members get a discount (not 10%) on taking these tests." The end objective being that if a resume comes across someone's desk *OR* a freelancer applies for a job the purchaser of those skills can be *reasonably* assured that the guy/gal who has taken the test is going to be of a particular quality. No, it's not 100% assurance of skills, no it's not 100% assurance of consistency but it is a good strong indicator that whomever the SA is that has taken the "Storage Engineering" test (as a fer-instance) knows more than one way to solve a specific problem. Yea, they might always treat the world like a nail but they have seen (and pariticpated in) a comparasin of disk layout pros and cons. I don't think either solution is better than the other, I just believe that one stands a better chance of getting out of the gate than the other. If asked for a comparation to something in the "real-world", I'd suggest that a review of the ASE program be looked at. http://tinyurl.com/dle2r8 No, it's NOT the same but it will help show what I'm talking about. Ok, I'm off my soapbox. Thanks for the chance to rant. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
