An Orcas Question…

Published 02 March 07 01:28 PM

So far, I've told you that we're planning new Technology Specialist certifications around the 3 main technologies in the .NET 3.0 stack. Actually, because both the complete technology solutions and the exams will be released in the Orcas timeframe, these new certifications will roll up under the .NET 3.5 banner (I know – the whole new versioning strategy – yea – I get it…). Anyways, because we are going to be releasing in the Orcas timeframe, there are several additional technologies that will be available. Some of these technologies include language enhancements such as extension methods, lambda expressions, anonymous types, object initializers, etc… Therefore, my question to you is as follows. What are your thoughts around doing a .NET 3.5 foundation exam as a prerequisite exam to all of the other .NET 3.5 TS exams – much like how 70-536 was a prerequisite to the .NET 2.0 TS exams? There are a few options as I see them.

  • Create a TS-level exam which would cover the items mentioned above in addition to basic .NET FCL content (basically, the 536 content that actually *was* foundational – not GDI+ stuff, etc…). Make this exam a requirement for all .NET 3.5 TS certifications. The positive aspects to this approach, as I see them, are that a) we can focus the foundational content a bit better than we did in 70-536 and b) we can cover the new general features of the .NET Framework 3.5. The main problem with this approach is that it would require existing certification holders (folks who have already taken 70-536) to take another foundation exam. Now, let me say that I don't think that re-validating existing skills is necessarily a bad thing. However, I think it's problematic from a financial perspective – I would hate for existing certification holders to come away with the idea that such an exam was just another way to extract money from them.
  • Do not create a new foundation exam around .NET 3.5 and make 70-536 as a prerequisite to all of the .NET 3.5 TS certifications. Since a majority of the new language features in .NET 3.5 were added in support of Linq, move this content into an ADO.NET certification path. The positive aspects of this approach are that a) we can leverage an existing exam and b) existing certification holders need only take the 3.5 specific exams (as they will already have passed 70-536). The problem with this approach is that there is potentially some confusion around version numbers (requiring .NET 2.0 foundation as a part of the .NET 3.5 certification).
  • Do not create a new foundation exam around .NET 3.5 and do not require a prerequisite exam for the .NET 3.5 TS certifications. Since a majority of the new language features in .NET 3.5 were added in support of Linq, move this content into an ADO.NET certification path. The positive aspects of this approach are a) there is no bleed over of version number (see above) and b) there is only 1 exam required in order to achieve certification in .NET 3.5. The main problem (and this is big in my mind) is that new entrants are relatively unproven in terms of general .NET Framework skills.

Please keep in mind that the above in no way represents any formal plan. These are only my thoughts on the matter and I want to get them out there as soon as I can so that you can give me yours. It's always a relatively delicate balancing act to accommodate the needs of new entrants with the needs of existing certificate holders – and to complicate the matter slightly, I would really like to do that here without creating upgrade exams.

I look forward to your feedback.

by hdierking
Filed under: ,

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

# Alfred Myers said on March 2, 2007 6:39 PM:

Requiring a 2.0 pre-req for a 3.5 exam will not confuse any more than what was already done with the technologies themselves. That was confusing!! But we already got used to it. It is my opinion that you should map the certifications to each wave of the existing technologies so I would put WPF, WCF, WF, and WCS under the .Net 3.0 label and Linq, ADO.NET 3(?) and new language features under a .Net 3.5 label.

Both 3.0 and 3.5 would have 2.0 as a pre-req but would not depend on each other as happens with the technologies themselves.

If having 3.0 and 3.5 labels is really a problem, maybe it’ll be a good idea to use a 3.x label instead.

# Bruce Johnson said on March 3, 2007 1:34 AM:

I agree with Alfred. The version numbers appear to be mostly marketing driven, so it won't confuse people who take the tests. Or use the tests to evaluate talent. And I think it does make more sense to tie the tests to the technology waves. From the perspective of someone wanting to know if a candidate has the necessary skill set, that's the level of granularity I would expect they'd be looking for.

# Jimmy - MCPD said on March 8, 2007 1:21 PM:

Just a few things I thought of:

1) You either have to make a prereq exam for the 3.x TS exams (at least for new MCPs) or else take away the prereq for the 2.0 TS exams.

2) Requiring someone who has already taken all of the 2.0 exams (i.e. Me) to take another prereq exam for 3.x would seem like too much. I could be wrong because I don't 3.5, but I don't think the fundamentals have changed so much that someone who knew 2.0 would be lost in 3.5. If that is in fact the case, why make them test again?

In my opinion, an ADO.NET 3.x exam would make a lot of sense. There's already a lot to test with in ADO.NET 2.0 so making it a seperate exam makes sense. And given that ADO.NET is the main thing that's changing in 3.x, I don't see how anyone certified in 2.0 could complain about being tested on it.

# Iain Wade said on March 20, 2007 9:11 PM:

I agree, leveraging the existing prereq exam sets up a more direct certification roadmap for additions to the framework.

Those who have already gone out and done 70-536 (me too I admit) can then focus on the learning and getting certified in the varied additionals of 3.x

To go back to the start and get re-tested on all the existing foundation elements with a little extra 3.x stuff thrown in is not as direct or as beneficial to the test taker.

I know I'd definitely get more out spending my time on an exam focused 100% on the new things than 70% on what I already have been tested on and 30% on the new stuff.

# Muhammad Faheem Khan said on March 24, 2007 3:14 AM:

I think, there should be two way path to .Net 3.x certifications one focusing on new entrants to .Net 3.x technology and other focusing on the those who already have had .Net 2.0 certifications such as 70-536, 70-528, 70-526 (as I have done so), will require only to focus on new EXTENSIONS to .Net 2.0. And I agree to the point that ADO.Net should be tested as separate exam.

# Frank said on August 6, 2007 5:33 PM:

Whoever wants to have a go at .net 3.5 will need a solid foundation of .net 2.0 anyway. So everybody should have a 70-536 in the pocket. Aditionally it seems to me that there is more than enough new cool stuff in the extentions that were introduced in 3.0 to justify 1 extra certificate. To start with building a strong foundation is very important to fully understand what you're doing. This certificate would be well suited as a prerequisite for the 3 main technologies being introduced.

I don't agree with the 3.0 3.5 3.x comments... let's just call it 3.5, it allready includes all the 3.0 stuff and will become popular when developers switch to the new Visual Studio in 2008. .net is coupled to VS, and taking the most out of the .net framework usually involves installing a new version of VS (hey, everybody's thinking it... i'm just saying it). .net 3.5 is just a more complete .net 3.0 in case you haven't noticed (full Linq support just didn't make it in time for 3.0).

# Sebastian said on September 18, 2007 8:25 PM:

I would go with the ".NET 3.5 Workflow Developer" or something like this: ".NET 3.5 XXXXXX Extension Developer". For example I don't need windows presentation foundations and I don't want to learn them to exam skills. This way one exam would cover vey deeply one technology. If we put all of them in one exam then exam will be huge and only some basics about those technologies would be covered.

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

About hdierking

I am currently the Editor-in-Chief for MSDN Magazine. I joined Microsoft in 2006 as a product planner with the certification team at Microsoft Learning. Prior to that, I spent my career as a developer and later as an architect. My main technology passions include pretty much anything on language theory, agile development, and service-oriented architecture.
Page view tracker