I read through the MCM thread here on SSC yesterday, following the story of people like Uwe who all but put their lives on hold for 12 to 18 months or more only to endure technical and administrative problems at testing centers, traveling all over the globe, sweating out the results and God knows what else to finally get that coveted MCM. I've got a lot of respect for those folks as I'm sure we all do.

And, just like all of us, my heart broke for them when MS jerked the rug out from under them, as well as those folks who were nearing the finish line.

Looking at Gail's link to 70-463, I thought, "Gee, I probably could take a whack at that and pass." Now keep in mind I hadn't even heard of data warehousing or SSIS prior to this year. I'm very good at testing. I know a lot of very capable people in their fields (my own father is own of them) who simply aren't that good at taking tests. There are people who test well, but haven't got a real-world clue. But it echoes Gail's point: How valuable is that exam, really?

Given the state of most "certifications" that in some cases are little more than "you can pass if you can spell it," reading what was involved in the MCM made me think now here's an exam worth more than the paper it's printed on. For the MCM, not only do you have to have the book knowledge, but you have to perform under pressure in a live-fire lab. Again, a hearty hats off to all those who passed.

In thinking about those "non-technical barriers to entry," I can understand MS wanting to make the MCM more accessible, but at some level maybe it needs to be higher standard. It's not a perfect analogy, but various elite military forces have very high barriers to entry, and on purpose. People at the elite level get the toughest assignments and they have demonstrated the requisite knowledge and drive to succeed when everyone else would throw up their hands. I would expect an MCM to handle situations with aplomb that would leave your average DBA quivering in a corner.

In a similar vein, some years ago I held a certification in a non-computer field. Just to sit for the exam you were required to be employed in certain fields (generally health-care related) for a minimum length of time and/or have certain education requirements. Once you got it, you had to attain so many CEUs per year to keep it (and if memory serves, active employment in the discipline was counted toward the CEUs). I don't think that's an unreasonable model to begin applying to many MS certs - if anyone trusts them enough to bother after this debacle. Yes, I'm aware that could lead to some chicken-and-egg problems getting the certification, but those kind of things exist already in the IT world and they're not insurmountable. And just maybe it will restore some real respect and confidence in the cerifications and those who achieve them.

One last time: For all those who've spent their time and treasure accomplishing the MCM or were in the process, our hearts go out to you. I don't deny MSL the right to change their certifications, but the way they did this was just plain stupid and disrespectful.