Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««7891011

It's not you; it's us Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Saturday, September 7, 2013 3:35 PM


SSCrazy Eights

SSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy EightsSSCrazy Eights

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:00 AM
Points: 8,551, Visits: 9,043
ccd3000 (9/5/2013)
I think non-profits are probably better suited to tackle this like it's a literature exam (heuristics and human intervention oriented) better than a for-profit company which tend to approach it like it's a math test (easy to program and therefore cheaper to administrate).

I think you've go maths confused with arithmetic. With basic level arithmetic tests, what is wanted is rote learning - don't want someone to have to count on their fingers to add 2 and 3; somewhat higher level arithmetic tests need some technique to answer the questions in a reasonable time, but could still be marked by computer. Maths tests couldn't be marked by computer; a maths question is something like "provide an outline for a formal proof of the independence of the generalised continuum hypothesis in ZFC set theory" or "how would dropping the excluded middle axiom modify the model-theoretic semantics of the infinitary logics discussed by Helling in his thesis" or "discuss possible ways in which Church's Thesis might fail to be true" - questions whose meaning will be unknown to most people without a moderate knowledge of mathematics and 'probably can't be answered from rote learning, although more modern questions would be better, as Church's Thesis has been around for about 75 years and Cohen's proof dates from December 1963. I don't know if anything has been published on the other question yet, although as Helling's results date from 1966 it's possible that someone with an intuitionist bent will have looked at it so maybe it doesn't require the ability to do some original thinking, and original thinking is something which any decent maths test would have to cover.


Tom
Post #1492560
Posted Monday, September 9, 2013 2:12 AM


Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:35 AM
Points: 325, Visits: 3,190
Steven.Howes (9/6/2013)
8 out of 10? really? That's insane. I can't believe that many people would try to cheat and screw their employers by taking a job that they can't do. I couldn't imagine taking a job as a welder or plumber, I can't do it, why would I want that stress no matter how well it pays. That being said, I'm a well paid, happy IT Employee. If I was working at tim hortons or mcdonalds I might have a different opinion and might do anything to get out...


If you know nowt, you don't know what you don't know.
It may well be that people are lulled into believing that because they've passed the exam, they can do the job (in which case, they're clearly not cynical enough to survive in any IT role IMO - let alone DBA). It would seem that it works on some employers if those stats are close to correct. And there's a lot of hearsay to that effect.


I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
Post #1492685
Posted Monday, September 9, 2013 8:06 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:52 PM
Points: 30, Visits: 261
L' Eomot Inversé (9/7/2013)
ccd3000 (9/5/2013)
I think non-profits are probably better suited to tackle this like it's a literature exam (heuristics and human intervention oriented) better than a for-profit company which tend to approach it like it's a math test (easy to program and therefore cheaper to administrate).

I think you've go maths confused with arithmetic. With basic level arithmetic tests, what is wanted is rote learning - don't want someone to have to count on their fingers to add 2 and 3; somewhat higher level arithmetic tests need some technique to answer the questions in a reasonable time, but could still be marked by computer. Maths tests couldn't be marked by computer; a maths question is something like "provide an outline for a formal proof of the independence of the generalised continuum hypothesis in ZFC set theory" or "how would dropping the excluded middle axiom modify the model-theoretic semantics of the infinitary logics discussed by Helling in his thesis" or "discuss possible ways in which Church's Thesis might fail to be true" - questions whose meaning will be unknown to most people without a moderate knowledge of mathematics and 'probably can't be answered from rote learning, although more modern questions would be better, as Church's Thesis has been around for about 75 years and Cohen's proof dates from December 1963. I don't know if anything has been published on the other question yet, although as Helling's results date from 1966 it's possible that someone with an intuitionist bent will have looked at it so maybe it doesn't require the ability to do some original thinking, and original thinking is something which any decent maths test would have to cover.


No, my general point is that math tests are easier to code. I'm certainly not saying all of them but thanks for adding some clarity to it.

Post #1492798
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:15 PM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 11, 2014 4:23 PM
Points: 471, Visits: 1,308
It saddens me to see someone whom I respect so much (Gail is like a mentor to us all) be so blown off by a company that owes her more than they will ever know (and apparently will ever care to know), but as much as I hate to see it - this does not surprise me in the least.

I have never been a very big supporter of any certification in our industry since Novell's CNE/CNI programs back in the 1990's. I obtained both of those certifications by working my butt off and studying like a mad man, and applying that discipline in the field, but when NetWare 4.x came out - they began to change their certification and education models to resemble the Microsoft Education and Training manuals. Most of us from back around '00 remember how brain dump sites were cropping up by the dozens every other week, and even with Microsoft's disclaimer of a lifetime ban from their certification program if caught didn't stop anyone who had the ethics of a snake oil salesmen from using them.

I'll tell you what I do value though - I value Gail, and others like her. I value the SQL conferences that come up (from SQL Saturday's to SQL Rally's to the SQL Summit), and I will continue to invest my monies into those events (now that I have dried behind the ears a bit, and have half an idea of how to be a pretty decent DBA). I was fortunate to attend SQL Rally down in Orlando FL back in 2010 with my mentor Jason Strate, and I can tell you that in the 4 days I attended the various sessions there - I had more materials (both new and not new...further explained) to take back to my workplace, than from any stinkin' Microsoft Certification course I have ever attended (study materials or otherwise...and yes - I still read BOL often, as well as nearly anything else I need from Google searches and other quick web searches when needing quick information).

I hope Microsoft finally learns their lesson and makes some accommodations to those who have always done for them, but that's just the way of the world and corporate businesses worldwide today. They care about you so long as their bottom line and coffers are full, but beyond that - you are just another number to them.

I love this community, and I always have (from the moment I found it). Don't let Microsoft (or anyone for that matter) ruin that for any of you.

Peace
Post #1550448
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««7891011

Permissions Expand / Collapse