So it seems that for Bill, “voting” = begging the team at our last meeting, “Let me say it, me, me, me!”
(as if Bill would ever need to be asked to say something controversial :-))
But I guess it’s good that he said it the way he did, because we’ve had a lot of comments in response, and they truly span the spectrum from emphatically positive to harshly negative.
We appreciate everyone who takes the time to give us feedback, and I want to quote and address several of the points you guys raise:
Aaron C. says:
Now if we can just get the HR people to ask for MCTS or MCITP. They seem to be stuck in the past as well. I still list MCSE 2000 and MCSE 2003 on my resume because I have not seen any job listings asking for the new Windows Server 2008 certs yet.
Yep, you’ve got our number here. We have a lot of work to do before hiring managers have MCITP at the top of their minds the way they do with MCSE, and that’s something we’re going to work hard on this year.
When we introduced our new generation of certifications a few years back, we focused most of our marketing (okay, maybe all of our marketing) on differentiating the generations rather than the certifications. We probably should have shifted at least some of our focus to individual certifications by now.
I think we also missed an opportunity to position MCITP:EA as “the new MCSE,” mostly because we wanted to really set apart the new generation of certs without causing confusion or creating the impression that the only thing we did was change the name of our credentials.
But really, if you examine the requirements for MCITP:EA, it’s pretty darn close to what we require for MCSE, and at least with our Learning Solutions Partners, we’ve been gradually positioning it as essentially “MCSE for Windows Server 2008.” (There: I’ve said it publicly now.)
I offered to have our product marketing managers who are focusing on hiring managers join us here for a guest-blog, and Michael Dragone thought that was a good idea… so I’ll see how quickly I can make that happen (takes a few days just to get people added to Technet Blogs as authors, so bear with me, please)
Another reader, becn, said:
Yes, MCSE is dead. But I dont really care about those initials. What I really really REALLY miss is the nice, clean, simple graduation mcp --> mcsa --> mcse. Now we have a complete hodge-podge of TS s and ITP s. The current explosion of certificates is a complete mess and such a disaster I ve stopped bothering to follow them or update.
Yes, MCSE is dead. But I dont really care about those initials. What I really really REALLY miss is the nice, clean, simple graduation mcp --> mcsa --> mcse.
Now we have a complete hodge-podge of TS s and ITP s. The current explosion of certificates is a complete mess and such a disaster I ve stopped bothering to follow them or update.
I take partial issue with you, becn: the simple progression is actually there—just replace MCP-->MCSA-->MCSE with MCTS-->MCITP:SA-->MCITP:EA, and you’ve got pretty much the same path.
I think what’s confusing folks—and this is what I’ll accept responsibility for on behalf of my organization—is that we haven’t marketed the key certifications above and beyond the entire family. Sure there are a zillion flavors of MCTS out there, but it was the same thing before with MCP. And yes, there may be more credentials folded into MCITP (SA, EA, DBD, DBA, BID) than with the clean-and-simple MCSE… unless you factor in the family of “plusses” and “colons” that we tacked on to MCSA and MCSE over the years.
So in short—I don’t think our current certification strategy is any more or less complicated than what we used to have—we just haven’t done our job well enough in abstracting the key certifications so that it appears simple.
(Side note: Julian, forward your feedback to the MCM team, thanks!)
Some of our harshest feedback came from RobE, who wrote:
I m amazed that some here are praising this decision. The MCSE was and still is a very strong brand and to replace it with these bland obscure terms is a very bad move in my opinion. The benefits of certification have become far weaker as time has progressed and this is demonstrated in real terms such as salaries offered for vacancies requiring certification as well as the popularity of the certifications. These changes only serve to weaken the value further. Being able to say “I have an MCSE” was a nice clear term that had gained recognition both in IT and with those who worked with IT staff. Now we have “I am an MCITPro EA”, not exactly catchy is it? There’s also the “administrator thing”, we already had an MCSA and that was the mid range qualification and now the higher level is also an “Administrator”. Not good for anyone who had an MCSE, worked on implementations and likes the separation from admin roles. This leaves only the new MCM cert which given the costs alone is not a practical proposition just about everyone. I accept the MCSE is a dying cert thanks to you and your colleagues but that doesn’t mean I have to like it or that Microsoft products and certifications will be my preferred choice in future.
I m amazed that some here are praising this decision.
The MCSE was and still is a very strong brand and to replace it with these bland obscure terms is a very bad move in my opinion. The benefits of certification have become far weaker as time has progressed and this is demonstrated in real terms such as salaries offered for vacancies requiring certification as well as the popularity of the certifications. These changes only serve to weaken the value further.
Being able to say “I have an MCSE” was a nice clear term that had gained recognition both in IT and with those who worked with IT staff. Now we have “I am an MCITPro EA”, not exactly catchy is it? There’s also the “administrator thing”, we already had an MCSA and that was the mid range qualification and now the higher level is also an “Administrator”. Not good for anyone who had an MCSE, worked on implementations and likes the separation from admin roles. This leaves only the new MCM cert which given the costs alone is not a practical proposition just about everyone.
I accept the MCSE is a dying cert thanks to you and your colleagues but that doesn’t mean I have to like it or that Microsoft products and certifications will be my preferred choice in future.
Quite a few good points raised here, so let me try to address them:
I have to admit, MCITP doesn’t roll off the tongue like MCSE does, but I do think it’s pretty intuitive when you see it on paper (or screen), and I think that’s what we were going for.
As for the “administrator” thing, it’s a long story, but let’s just say that there are a lot of (non-systems) engineers out there who are very (and legally) protective of their title. We had to change it to something else or risk getting our MCSEs caught in the middle. “Administrator” really seemed like the right job title, and we decided to differentiate the scope of the role (server vs. enterprise) instead.
As far as benefits go, I think we agree that the primary one is the recognition given a certification by an employer… and from what I’m hearing, the current economic decline has made certification more valuable than it’s been in a long, long time. As for more tangible benefits…. more info to come.
My final thoughts (for now, anyway) on the whole “dying cert” thing:
I understand what RobE and Bill and others mean, but I gotta say: it sure doesn’t feel like MCSE is dying to me. A funny thing happens to some certifications after a while—they get kind of abstracted from a particular product or platform and become associated more to a type of person, or to get even more abstract: a particular quality or trait.
In my mind, MCSE = expert technologist. No particular product springs immediately to mind, or even a specific job role. I just have this vague-yet-strong mental association between the MCSE acronym and some of the smartest technical individuals I’ve encountered in my career. I can’t think of any other certification of ours that has that effect on me, other than MCT. (Perhaps MCSD does too, but I’m not a developer, so I’m not as attuned to it.)
A more professional marketer than I am would probably describe what I just wrote as the evolution of a product name into a brand, and I suspect that’s why we’re all (me included) so emotionally attached to MCSE and not to MCITP. MCITP is a name (or acronym), whereas MCSE is a brand (rather accidentally so, but nonetheless), and people form emotional connections to brands, not product names.
So for me, and I suspect for many of you, MCSE will live on far, far beyond the products on which it was based. I can honestly picture calling myself an MCSE 10 years from now—because I like the self-image I think of when I say that.
The question now is: can we bottle lightning twice? I hope so. We’ll certainly try.
Thanks for all the great feedback—keep it coming!
Posted by Krosen
Comments
Friday, January 30, 2009 9:04 PM by Michael D. Alligood
Whether or not the acronym rolls off ones tongue easily enough shouldn t be the focus. Nor should it be a reason to retain the certification. Let s face it, the MCSE has never fully recovered from the "paper" era. Although the MCSE is widely known, there was a time when it wasn t. And it s popularity is not all positive. I believe Microsoft made a good judgement in parting ways with the MCSE. It was a broad certification that required more than the average "administrator" performed on a daily basis, ergo MCSA.
It is important to stress the meaning of both the MCTS and MCITP, and the purpose of their creation. Once people understand why, they can accept - like it or not. I love the new generation certifications. They are clear and decisive in their meaning. The MCSE was not. I don t think the engineer status was accurate from the very beginning. At least now one can say I am an MCTS in Vista Configuration or I am an MCITP Enterprise Administrator. It is specific. To the point.
Friday, January 30, 2009 10:12 PM by becn
no - really - it is a mess.
The desktop support person is an ITP. The enterprise admin is an ITP. They are two extremes with nothing to differentiate them except a cavet. A desktop support person here is going around claiming "ITP(enterprise)". He s a little peeved at how basic the 620 exam was tho after doing the xp one a while ago. Words like "lobotomized" and "comptia A+" are being muttered.
You position the SA as being in the progression to an EA. Yet the EA requires knowledge of the desktop but the SA doesn t. When in reality someone going through the progression and doing SA is more likely to be involved in the desktop deployment and policy implementation than EA.
The ITP s are a poorly thought out mess with nothing to differentiate expertise.
Saturday, January 31, 2009 11:04 AM by Michael D. Alligood
Ben, look at it this way:
You are in a room full of 5 people named Ben. You all are guys, similar features, etc. How does one differ on Ben from the next?
Last names.
When properly used, the certifications speak for themselves. MCITP: Enterprise Support Technician. MCITP: Server Administrator. MCTS: Vista Configuration.
Saturday, January 31, 2009 7:01 PM by Tariq
I can understand all the good reasons that MCSE was replaced with the next generation.
And i can also understand the frusturation ppl feel,cos basically an entry level worker who does desktop technical support would be an MCITP (MCITP: Enterprise Support Technician)and a guy who is really smart and knows the inside out Windows Server 2008 and has years of experience would also be an MCITP (MCITP: Enterprise Administrator).
They both have the same title, MCITP.
What i think needs to be done is that when you market MCITP to the HR guys , you really STRESS THAT "MCITP" ISN T THE IMPORT THING, BUT THE FIELD IN WHICH THEY ARE MCITP IS THE IMPORTANT THING.
Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:56 PM by MikeB
I ve never heard ANYONE from Microsoft say that the MCSE is dead. In fact, that is quite inaccurate and an insult to all those that have worked hard for this certification. Certifications DO NOT expire. Though the MCITP is relevant to today s technology, the MCSE is NOT dead. Also, to mention that it is dead, in the same breath as "If you re working on your 2003 MCSE right now, you should finish it" seems to be part of an ill concieved message.
You don t have to bring down the MCSE to improve the value/visibility of the MCITP (and MCTS by the way). Leverage the positive aspects of the MCSE to improve the brand recognition of the MCITP.
Monday, February 02, 2009 12:04 AM by Krosen
Mike, I think Bill s comment was intended to be provocative rather than insulting.
Certainly, those of us with MCSE certifications will always be able to claim such, and as far as the market goes, a certification is only dead when companies stop valuing it, and I think we re still a ways off from that happening with MCSE.
Rather, the context for Bill s article was that since we re not updating MCSE for Windows Server 2008 and beyond, anyone who is waiting and hoping that we will would be better served by embracing MCITP and moving forward with us.
Sorry if we rubbed you the wrong way--that was of course not our intent!
Ken
Monday, February 02, 2009 9:40 AM by Robin
I think the agencies and hiring managers are totally clueless when it comes to this kind of thing.
Quite how one would go about rectifying this, I don t know.
Monday, February 02, 2009 11:13 AM by Benjamin S
Ken Wrote: "But really, if you examine the requirements for MCITP:EA, it’s pretty darn close to what we require for MCSE, and at least with our Learning Solutions Partners, we’ve been gradually positioning it as essentially “MCSE for Windows Server 2008.” (There: I’ve said it publicly now.)"
THANK YOU for finally saying it! Even at Tech-Ed last year "IT Pros" as well as Microsoft staff were very confused about the upgrade path from MCSE. I was looking at a very large poster showing off the new certification suites MCTS and MCITP near the testing center. Passers by and Microsoft staff could not answer the question about where to go from MCSE 2003.
Evangelizing the MCITP: EA as the upgrade will go a long way to solidify the usefulness of the cert in the minds of both employers as well as professionals looking to upgrade to prove their worth in this current economy.
Monday, February 02, 2009 11:18 AM by Pete Jones
I think most of the confusion and disappointment is because it still hasn t been explained what the TS/ITP differences are.
My understanding is that the TS means you are certified on a product. A specific package (in some cases for one version (SQL 2005)) which you know how to use.
ITP is a job role certification, that uses one or more TS products.
Initially I was confused by the TS/ITP exams when they were introduced, but really it makes a lot of sense.
An old MCSE 2003 could have up to 3 clients, and one of about a hundred electives. One MCSE certification which could mean knowledge in wildly different areas.
Now, if you are TS:Server 2008, you know enough about Server 2008.
If only the exams were dump-proof.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:42 PM by Born to Learn
Catching up on news while unsuccessfully fighting jet lag in Singapore: Foote Partners released its latest
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:43 PM by Wayne Anderson
I find it interesting that after months and motnhs trying to say that MCSE != MCITPEA and MCSA != MCITPSA, we are now all trying to argue the opposite.
MCP -> MCSA -> MCSE = MCTS->MCITPSA->MCITPEA
One thing that you guys seem to miss, HR doesnt like colon certs. And asking for an MCTS or MCITP by themselves means nothing.
You could ask for an MCITP for a database job and get people applying with EA credentails. The job role is completely different.
Thats why peopled liked MCSA and MCSE because it was a clear cert, no confusion behind it, simple and to the point.
Go back and look at the MCSE Security. Can you think of any instance where someone looked for the colon specialty? I bet you can count them on the fingers of one hand.
When you have to build an org chart 11 pages wide to show how two credentials progress and all of the available permutations of each, do you think the message really is likely to get accross as you intended?