e-petition

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Fair point, but isn't that the case with many things in life?

When I buy a tin of beans, I have to make a choice between several brands.
Regulation helps out a bit - I know there won't actually be poison in them (except when there is by accident and they all get recalled).
I've also got some stats to help me - I can see the ingredients and nutritional information.

But does any of that help me decide which I prefer - no, I have to buy them and eat them.

OK, it's not a great analogy under the circumstances (somenone will no doubt point out that a tin of beans costs pennies - compared to the thousands for a training course).

But my point really is that stats on their own can become meaningless. It doesn't necessarily mean that you'll enjoy the training or get on with the instructor.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

A tin of beans cost pennies...



I think StuPeas has made a good point.

Stats shouldn't be the only factor someone considers when making a decision. But some good data might be useful.

I just want to check something out with you all. I have just re-read the whole thread. Am I right in thinking that the only reason some people believe that Certificate Pass Rate is not a good indicator of a good company is the issue around Brain Dumps? Was there anything else?

 

You have inadvertently proved my point. The information IS available on the can of beans. We are not talking about whether the training is ENJOYABLE, we are talking about whether it is FIT FOR PURPOSE. If I choose a can of beans and then decide that I don't like them, then thats just my tough luck. All the information regarding the beans was on the tin and so the manufacturers cant be held responsible for the fact that you didn't enjoy them. Its the same with TP's, all we want is information that can tell us whether the material/tutors are FIT FOR PURPOSE, Enjoyment is not on the agenda here.

 

I don't actually think it is. In all the cases I can possibly think of, the average reasonable person makes a decision on the evidence. If a company (and remember that a company is a LEGAL entity) presents information that is Inaccurate, then how can the individual be held responsible? The company has taken you money by deception.

Its not the same as asking somebody on the street for advice and then finding that advice to be wrong. The person on the street is under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to provide you with the correct information, and if you decide to take that information then you have to, ultimately, take responsibility for your decision.

 

I think it is because it is too easy to manipulate statistics.

For example, say this proposal went through and all TPs had to reveal stats on the pass rates of their students.

We need to establish if this means how many students who sit an exam pass, or how many students who start a 'course' (i.e. A+, N+, MCSE, CCNA) actually get to the end of it.

If a TP is 'dodgy', in the former case all they have to do is stop all but the best students actually doing exams. They'll find a way. So all of a sudden - 90% pass rate, which looks better that a 'legit' provider.

In the latter scenario, they need to invent a get out clause. For example, Mary didn't finish her course but we're not going to count her because she was ill, or didn't fill out the right form. So before you know it, only the people that finish, finish.

That's the main thing that concerns me. It also means that TPs who do things properly end up looking bad in comparision to those who don't and you actually make the situation worse...

 

I couldn't agree with you more but these are details that can be overcome with some good input from people like yourself!!

Mechanisms designed to overcome these problems (hefty penalties, spot checks, etc) can then exist in parallel to the pass rate stats.

Again, alone, I concede that pass rate stats could be manipulated. I'm sure even the honest TP would argue against using them in Isolation, and I'm sure that If the proposed publishing of these figures were put in place, then the honest TP's would, themselves, push for a system that covered all the bases (probably by trying to implement some of the suggestions already forwarded in this thread). The publishing of the stats, for me, should be considered a "starting point" on the road to getting rid of dodgy TP's.

We must also remember that using Braindumps is Illegal (I'm not sue about this though), and that if a TP is using them to increase its stats, then this is a matter for the law and should probably be considered in isolation, and not be used as an argument for not using stats (If they are wiling to break the law, then no amount of regulation will change their behavior)

I believe that the considerations here should assume we are talking about "honest" business (you cannot legislate for criminals because, by definition, they will not follow the rules).

Stu

 

'Tis true, and that's where the difficulties lie.

I think we need to assume that MOST TPs are above board.
That's not to say that they might do something that you aren't happy with at some point - but essentially they are not in the game of screwing you over on purpose.

That leaves a small minority who spoil it for everyone else. These are the ones you want to target and they are going to prove hard crack, as lying and covering up facts come as second nature to them.

 

OK - Let's look at that:

Numbers starting any course on offer (A+?). Easy to manipulate, but what would be the point? Probably safe to believe...

Numbers completing the course? A course is completed if the certificate exam(s) are taken at the end. From there, it's a question of Pass or Fail. No exam(s) taken = course incomplete.

Because it's an A+, and the TP has told you what certificates you can go for at the end of it, we can get the number of people who should be going for the exams quite easily. The TP will want to enter everyone - only enter the brightest, and their 'Failed to Complete Course' figure goes up. Enter everyone without bothering to actually teach, and the 'Failed' number goes up. They will need to do their job to keep the figures good.

Finding the numbers who passed the certificate exams? Someone, somewhere has a record of that..

The objection that TPs can set their own standards doesn't hold water. What we all want are the recognised qualifications the industry uses... Offer a course with an unknown qualification and no-one will want to know.

That leaves the final hurdle. How do you spot the company who has used 'cheat' techniques?

Sorry - I was a bit slow...

 

I think that says it all realy, Brilliantly thought out!!

 

Hopefully, BosonMichael might come in to add some observations from a different perspective...

(There isn't a smiley for 'genuine'. If there was, I would use it)

 

As you say, we don't live in a perfect world, so that'd be unrealistic.

Policing TPs would be difficult. Some TPs don't "officially" provide braindumps. Some TPs don't know that their instructors are providing them to push up their own class's pass rates! Thus, some TPs can't even police themselves... you think government can do so? Posting an informant in every classroom session for every instructor... not very feasible, wouldn't you agree?

No, braindumps will not get you knowledge. But that's not to say that a person who uses braindumps CAN'T get employment. An employer who doesn't know how to interview well might still inadvertently hire a "braindump certified" person simply because of the certification. Only later will the employer find out that the newly hired tech isn't worth his salt. That's unfortunate, but it happens.

Also, some students don't go to a TP to "find work"... they go to a TP to "find better work"... they've got a job, but they want a better one. Some go to a TP just to increase their knowledge. Some go to a TP to fulfill a current employer's requirements. In those cases, how would you track those statistics? You couldn't - experiences vary. I realize that you are focused on TPs that take people off the streets and "turn them into techs"... but that's not the only reason TPs are used.

But let's say that you wanted to post employment rates, regardless of whether they had jobs before the TP or not. Only problem with doing that is, past a certain point, it's the candidate's experience level, not a training class or certification, that will make the most difference in a candidate's employement status. And, most importantly, it won't help distinguish good TPs from bad ones.

I realize that you are trying to throw out suggestions that you think might have never been given before. But these are questions that the training industry itself has had for years. Your suggestions are quite noble. But if they were feasible, or if they could indicate whether a TP was a good one or a bad one, it'd have been done already.

If you're dead set on creating a "governing body" of sorts, do so... then allow students to complain to that governing body. They could perform investigations and shut down bad training centers. This happens now, supposedly, with schools being "accredited" (which, unfortunately, means about as much as a hill of beans, IMO), except that a school can't be shut down; it can only lose it's accreditation (whoopie... ).

In the US, complaints made to the Better Business Bureau (BBB) are taken quite seriously, and training centers have been investigated and shut down due to bad practices. Perhaps you need something like that over there?

 

I agree, completely. Regardless of whether I buy a can of beans or a new HDTV, I weigh the risks based on the cost, do my research if any is required, and make an informed decision.

 

But publishing stats will HELP the dodgy TPs because they're going to have the artificially manipulated better stats.

Braindumps are illegal in that they are, at best, guilty of publishing copyrighted information, and potentially, guilty of leaking trade secrets (at least, that is what Microsoft has alleged in the past).

 

A larger number of students will give the impression that "Hey, if they have that many students, it's GOT to be a good TP!"

1) Not all TPs teach to a certification exam. Some just teach technology.
2) Many TPs don't require that you take the certification exam to pass their course. That's why there are a BUNCH of people who have taken classes, but never get around to taking the certification exam.
3) Some TPs have no easy way to collect pass/fail statistics on certification exams, especially if they don't run an authorized test center.

Again, some people take courses to learn the technology, not to take the exams. Plus, as I mentioned previously, some TPs don't require the cert exam to pass the course.

Sure they do. But many (or most, if not ALL) of the certification vendors won't release that confidential information. You can't even release your Microsoft transcript to a third party without specifically authorizing permission.

But they all do. Some use authorized training materials... some use unofficial-but-mainstream training materials... some use their own home-cooked training materials. We certainly don't want all training companies to use the same training materials, do we? I want to CHOOSE the TP with the materials that work best for me. That's why some people buy MSPress and some people buy Sybex.

If we could do that, this discussion wouldn't have likely existed in the first place.

 

Thanks for continuing to take an interest in the thread, BosonMichael...

I need a bit of time to get this ordered in my mind...

 

IT certification's very important to me. And although I don't use classroom-based TPs, I *do* want to protect the legit TPs while burying the shady ones.

 

A quick comment, because I can't resist it...

I guess the way the skills are tested at the lower end of the route doesn't really help a great deal, but it's difficult to conceive of something more effective that wouldn't be really difficult to manage. For example, when you learn to drive in the UK (arguably, the level of skills required to drive well are quite high and reasonably technical) you do a multiple-choice question element and a practical session. It's quite difficult to bluff your way through. If you can't drive to a reasonable level, you get found out...

To do something similar in IT, you would need to seriously re-jig certification to include some practical elements (or virtualised practical elements) and use some creativity to step way beyond the multiple-choice question. Not sure how Microsoft would view this, or anyone else - it sounds expensive...

 

I don't want to offend you, but you keep picking up on a SINGLE point from peoples threads and focusing your response on that. If you take what I said in the same detail that I would take anyone else's post, then you would see that I am not disagreeing with you.

What I said is that the dodgy activity is for the LAW to deal with and should not be used as justification NOT to implement a system that Is used to monitor the "honest" TP's.

The "tin of beans" example works here too!! The regulations presume that most makers of the beans are being honest in the ingredients that they put on the label. But if a dodgy manufacturer comes along and purposely supplies the wrong details, then of course, He may gain an advantage because of this. That doesn't mean that the regulations regarding the listing of the ingredient is flawed!!! It means that the manufacturer who deceives his customers is committing a criminal offense and should be dealt with accordingly!!

This is why I say that some form of monitoring could be used, along with the stats, to asses the legality of the training methods used (as i said above).

The form of statistics used is a matter that has already been discussed (a focus group could figure out what will and will not work), but we have to treat the question of what exact statistical methods to use from the perspective that we are dealing with generally "honest" providers who's training methods vary.

 

Microsoft commented about this in their recent Webcast on certification. They have considered it, but it would, in fact, be prohibitively expensive.

 

When you say "The publishing of the stats, for me, should be considered a "starting point" on the road to getting rid of dodgy TP's.", what am I supposed to say other than, "The publishing of the stats will produce the OPPOSITE effect than getting rid of dodgy TPs"?

I agree. But what do publishing stats have to do with the law dealing with dodgy TPs?