Touching the Nerve: Readers Speak Out about MCSE
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.
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.
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!
