How would you feel if the UK Gov brought in mandatory certs/quals for the IT Industry

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.

This is very much dependant on role I think
for instance, you dont need to be a Ceng to actually do engineering, but it will be required for certain positions

I think it would make sense in certain areas, but no more so than clients demanding you be MCSE or something before operating on there site
I have a few who I couldn't do installs for because I wasn't an ASE, so we sent our oddjob bloke down whilst I did the design and architecture.

Making something like that couldn't hurt at the upper echelons, but if it was blanket it could hamper the little guy trying to get his foot in the door, who the hell needs mandatory quals to answer the phone and change backup tapes?

 

If IT is ever to be taken seriously as a profession the I think that there need to be standards that are met. Having certs / quals that map to those standards is a good idea IMO.

 

what the guys said! Maybe job roles should have certain cert/qualification requirements then we wouldnt need to be getting MCSE for helpdesk. When you ready to move up the ladder you get your experience and your new cert (you got the experience cause you had the certs to start off the job) and away you go!

now back to the real world.......

 

To Phoenix's point, I think there needs to be a better understanding of roles in IT. Not everyone in Accounting needs a certification / designation. A bookkeeper and AP/AR folks are a few examples that don't require any designation. On the other hand a Controller probably does.

Same goes for IT. A helpdesk / support role (i.e. opening tickets and running though scripts) probably doesn't need a certification, but an administrator, technician, engineer, etc... should probably require a cert respective to the technology they're responsible for.

Saying that, I believe the 'required' certifications should be vendor neutral. Instead of Cisco or MS specific gear/software using proprietary commands and technology a neutral understanding of topics would probably be better (fair).

 

I don’t think they should because then everyone will get them and people like us who already have them will not stand out as much from the pile of CVs if everyone has the certs.

 

Um, you bet. At my last employer I would regularly have to clean up the grammar in items sent to me from my boss before posting them to his work area on the Sharepoint portal server. Said boss had a Masters in English and a Ph.D in law. I doubt I ever saw a piece of writing come from him that couldn't have been topped by a grade nine student. In any case, it was your truly -- the high school dropout -- who had to clean up after the Ph.D.

Somehow, I don't think legislating certifications will work out any better for technicians than it has for businesses who specify that certain positions MUST be accompanied by a degree.

 

They're not bringing on mandatory certs for the entire IT security field... they're bringing on mandatory certs for civilians who work for the government.

 

As much as it would benefit me financially... I vote no. Certainly wouldn't make braindumping less prevalent... in fact, if it were required to get certifications to get hired, it'd likely get WORSE.

 

It would make cheating worse. But what gets me is that not many employers in the UK well small businesses know about IT certs (we are well behind the US in that regard) so employers need to be made aware what cert relates to a beginner and what cert relates to an advanced IT Tech.

 

if you look at it from a purely cert perspective sure
but if it was mandatory to get your skills assessed as part of a formal assessment of your capabilities to gain a recognized status then I don't see that being the case

 

But that's not what's being discussed... no formal assessment is mandated other than the certifications themselves... which can be dumped.

 

true, but my comments were geared more toward the concept in general rather than the specifics of the article

 

How would that apply to me? Would I have to take an English writing test once every three years?

 

I can see that it is a good idea. However, we could get back to boot camps and "paper" certs very quickly.

Maybe if it was implemented with a system of CPD (Continuing Professional Development) whereby a certain amount of study/experience annually had to be logged and signed off it might work better.

 

I feel certs with some educational (BTEC/HNC/Degree which takes 1-5 years) would filter it down a lot.

Agreed certs can be brain dumped etc but you can't cheat your way through college... and its a long process... most chavs drop out after a few months.

Harsh yes, but it keeps the decent folks in IT. I've worked with too many idiots now to care. Everyone should have some quals/certs before getting an IT job - or at least some proper technical questions in the interview where they need to demonstrate there skills etc.

 

Back to???
When did we get away from this practice? There are many paper-certs running around (some employed) creating havoc for qualified folks.

 

There you guys go again with the "paper cert" boolshiat. I guess you haven't been following the recent news:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39439624,00.htm
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38139/113/
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/university-home-work,5765.html

 

I think for low level IT the answer is no but for specialist roles like security then there is a good case for standardising the industry.

 

How do those links invalidate our assertion that "paper certs" are out there in force? You're saying only that there are also "paper degrees" out there. And there are. So what's your point?