There and Back Again : Certifications

My Last Certification Post... (aka - Introducing Gerry)

hdierking — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:05:13 GMT

Well, that might be a little overly-dramatic, but all you folks that have been following this blog for certification news should definitely pay attention. As you may or may not know (if you didn't know, um...surprise?), I left Microsoft Learning this past summer to take the Editor-in-Chief job at MSDN Magazine. I also said that I would point you to my replacement's blog when I actually had a replacement.

Well, I now have a replacement, so it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you Gerry O'Brien. Please check out his blog for lots of certification goodness (and since he's also a developer at heart, I'm sure he'll also provide lots of other random geeky goodness).

So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Adieu

hdierking — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:03:09 GMT

This past year has been an amazing ride for the developer certification program. In the year prior, we launched the new generation certification program. This year, we have seen how the program impacts you and the community at large in very practical terms. As we have observed some of the positive and negative effects of the program, we have added clarification where needed, and revised the program components where needed. Additionally, we have continued innovating with regard to our bag of tools - everything from new question types to community based question development. All in all, I am pleased with the progress we have made in improving the value of Microsoft developer certifications.

That said, it is time for me to move on to a new role. I'll still be at Microsoft, but will be leaving Microsoft Learning on Friday, July 13. I'm not completely disappearing into the cloud – I'm joining the MSDN Magazine team as Editor-in-Chief – so I will probably have a chance to meet even more of you at various events. It has been a pleasure to work with so many of you over this past year, and I look forward to seeing what you all will make of the certification program as it continues to evolve. In the end, all of you, as the face of Microsoft certification, determine the "value proposition" to employers, and subsequently to future generations of developers. I wish you all the best.

I will continue to post technology-related topics on this blog - and will post a link to my successor's blog just as soon as he/she is announced.

Multiple Choice Questions Are Like....Drugs?

hdierking — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:22:58 GMT

I was really excited about offering up the community based development concept for public debate and scrutiny - and I am still very glad to have done it. I did however, get quite a kick out of this comment on Trika's blog.

Now, firstly, I want to mention that I have been in a few conversations with the folks over at CertGuard and they are great people who are trying boost the value of certification for all of us. Some of the concerns raised I agree with and have taken into consideration - others I don't - and the pilot will hopefully provide additional clarity. However, the commenter above did bring up one thing that I have heard many times since I joined the organization. That is, if you want to get rid of brain dumps, change the format of the exams.

Typically, when people make comments like this, they are referring to performance-based (PBT), or emulation-based testing. By that, I'm describing a test format whereby in order to pass the exam, you actually open a tool like Visual Studio and perform the task assigned.

Fundamentally, I have a significant problem believing that changing the way in which we ask questions is some kind of silver bullet to the cheating problem. Here are a couple of thoughts.

PBT questions are still graded by a computer, which means that the objectives are deterministic. Therefore, why is it so hard to see brain dumps on these types of questions?
Because PBT questions are graded by a computer, both the expected results and constraints must be entered into the scoring program. For example, let's say that I expect the candidate to write an addition function that returns 5 when I pass it 2 and 3. What is to say that you as the savvy candidate don't simply hard code 5 as the return value? Now granted - this is a huge oversimplification - but the burden is on the PBT question author to think of all the things that a candidate shouldn't do as well as the things he/she should do in completing the question requirements. This could potentially unlock a whole new type of cheating (the type that you see in the gaming world).
The cost (initially, at least) of developing PBT questions is high. Therefore, the number of questions may be fewer. Even if a brain-dumped PBT question is more complex, if there are fewer of them, how much more difficult have we really made it to cheat?
Standardized tests like the SAT, LSAT, and GRE (in the US) have relatively low(er) problems with cheating - and they are all multiple choice tests.

In my opinion, the way to curb cheating takes on a couple of forms. Firstly, you can go after the people that are cheating and helping others to cheat. We are pursuing that route as evidenced with TestKing settlement. Secondly, you can create question types that are harder to steal - PBT takes a step in that direction. Thirdly, you can significantly increase the amount of information required both to steal and to memorize in order to obtain a "paper" cert (perhaps even do adaptive testing) - community-based development takes a step in that direction.

Now, don't think that by this, I mean to say that we shouldn't do PBT. To the contrary, we absolutely should (and probably should have a long time ago) have this tool in our toolbox. My point is that it is just that - a tool - albeit a really bright, shiny one. We need to approach the problem of cheating from multiple dimensions - and both PBT and community-based development are a couple of those dimensions.

Community Based Development - Pilot

hdierking — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 01:06:12 GMT

I have fallen way behind in my blogging over the last week. I have a couple posts yet to write about the pros and cons of community based development (and our processes in general), but I would like to write a quick post to answer a question that Deepak raised in an earlier post. The question was:

"Based on the feedback you have received on your post(s), when do you think your ideas will get excecuted."

The answer is: NOW. Today, we launched a limited pilot for community based development around exam 70-504 - TS: Workflow Foundation. While in the long term I hope to see the "community" extend to anyone who is interested in participating, the pilot is by invitation only. The reason for the limited pilot is simply so that we can more effectively measure the response and contribution. Also, I do want to point out that we are using the community based effort to complement our traditional process. The purpose of the pilot is really to measure response and contribution - we're not betting the farm just yet <g>! Therefore, we will still have our "SME-built" item pool to which community items may be added in the final pool.

We still have a few open slots for the pilot - so - if you are an really good at WF and think that you could contribute a question or two (or more, of course, should you feel inclined), please contact me via this blog and let me know.

Follow Up to Follow Up on Community Based Certifications

hdierking — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:06:56 GMT

I'm responding to a response on my post about what it would look like to do community based question development. The major take away for me on reading the following response is that I probably should take you through (at a high level) what our process actually looks like today. I'll do this in a follow up post. For now, my comments are in red.

I'm responding here so that I can get our readers involved in this conversation as well. I will be providing a link to this post on Howard Dierking's Blog as well.
I have read all the comments on Howard Blog, as well as comments on Trika's Blog and Deepak Kapoor's Blog
My Thoughts
Of all the points made about this subject, I have to agree with Deepak the most. The first of Deepak's statements that I'd like to elaborate on is:
quote:

Originally posted on Deepak Kapoor's Blog
"...creation of exam content by community must be moderated and channeled through strict review procedures. This is to ensure that candidates who will appear for exams will get the right value for money. Implementing a rigorous quality assurance process will require budgets, and this takes us back to the main issue here."

A point that I would like to add is the fact that involving a community would require years of preparation that would also cost alot of money that the current budget, obviously, doesn't have.

No disagreement that there would be cost involved. However, as I’ve said, I envision the cost being more related to the cost of infrastructure – and this type of cost is something that can be amortized across all exams. Additionally, I’m confused as to why it would take years to involve a community – especially if the community already existed (such as the MVP community).

Questions have to be answered:
1. Who will head-up the community involvement? (You can't just let a community loose on the creation of an exam with nobody to corroborate the information) :Budget+

I don’t think that we ever envisioned an unmanaged, un-moderated community development effort – Again, the cost is for infrastructure and can be scaled and amortized.

2. Once the information has been collected, who will weed out the numerous duplicate/redundant/worthless/pointless questions and make sure that only the relevant questions make it into the pool? :Budget+

Part automated workflow utilizing the community – part Microsoft internal content development managers. The first part falls under infrastructure costs – the second falls under Microsoft headcount costs (which are assumed as irrelevant for this discussion).

3. Who is going to keep people from bickering about those numerous duplicate/redundant/worthless/pointless questions and make sure that people focus on what is relevant and not what they BELIEVE other's should know? (SMEs KNOW what others should know) :Budget+

Firstly, a question should never be seen by the entire community. The entire pool would still go through QA review by a SME panel as I’m envisioning the process working now. However, I think that it’s a pretty bold assertion to suggest that SMEs know what others should know. I have witnessed SMEs do exactly what is suggested that they are above (bicker about what they believe people should know). The question is not whether or not the bickering is good (in my opinion, it is very good), but whether or not it should be just between 5-7 people. Additionally, we see complaints related to relevancy on SME designed and SME written exams – so I’m not sure that the SME designation quite gets a person to the level of “know[ing] what others should know).

4. Once a fraction of those questions have been processed into the pool, who will determine the Answers are worded so as to not create serious confusion amongst the candidates? :Budget+

Microsoft internal content development managers – the same way it happens today irrespective of SMEs.

5. Now the Questions and Answers have been collected, weeded, and sorted, who will approve them? :Budget+

Microsoft content development managers, myself, the product group, and a panel of QA SMEs – the same way it happens today.

Pain Point #1: The more hands that are in the pot, the harder it becomes to control the product. If you have a community of people writing questions, you're going to have a harder time regulating that community. :Budget+

This statement by itself doesn’t have any direct causal relationship to an increase in budget. Can you elaborate?

Pain Point #2: It would cost more money in the long run to recall those (now displaced/disgruntled) SMEs and pay them more money to repair a problem that they had under control in the first place. :Budget+

You’re making a pretty big assumption here about how things work today. I can’t really go into a lot of those details, so I’ll ask you to elaborate on a few points and maybe I can respond to more detailed statements. Firstly, why would it cost more to invite a SME to participate in something for which they make money? Secondly, what would need repairing exactly? Thirdly, how are you able to assert that the problem is under control today – and would continue to be going forward (under the current model)?

As it stands now (you say) there are 5-7 SMEs that are writing exams in specific areas where they are the experts. From what I understand, those Experts are involved in many different aspects of creating an exam. To replace them with a community of people that don't have the knowledge that the SMEs have, you're asking for trouble.

This is a faulty assumption (I say). We *very rarely* (though we have had to in 1 exam I’ve owned) utilize an expert in multiple phases of exam development. We typically bring in completely different SMEs for different phases. Again, also keep in mind that I’m not suggesting a complete “hand off” to the community. I’m suggesting community based question development. To take this statement and assume I am talking about the entire exam development process is to hold some invalid assumption about that process.

It takes professionals to Plan Examinations. What you're asking for would be similar to asking College Students what they would like to see on next week's exam. It is simply something that cannot be done.

Firstly, the initial planning of the exams is a collaborative effort between me and the product group. Secondly, while I did suggest that Wiki be used for the creation of the objective domain (functional outline), I’m not married to the idea. This could still be done via a SME panel and published to the community to use in writing the questions. However, I’m still not convinced that it couldn’t be done in a broader sense. It would simply need to be closely moderated.

Back to Howard's Points
Community-based question development.

quote:

Originally Posted on Howard Dierking's Blog
1. Authors must be subject matter experts across the entire domain - this comes at a premium.
2. Authors must write a lot of questions each - this can lead to author burnout.
3. Authors must potentially write questions on topics that they are not all that passionate about.
4. The total number of items is all we get for an exam. If somebody comes out with a dump, the exam is exposed without much recourse (other than starting the whole process over again). Additionally, any questions that we kill (for whatever reason) are simply lost - there's no new questions to fill the spot - the result is simply a smaller question pool.

My responses
1. (a)Good. That proves to the Candidates that the Exams will be worthy of taking, versus someone figuring that a community of misfits pulled the questions out of their....
(b)In addition, this 'premium' ultimately comes at a lower cost that the potential losses that may acrue because of the overall lack of relevant knowledge of a community based system.

Take exam 70-536. Is a person who is not capable of authoring a good question on multithreading or GDI+ capable of writing a good question on the collection classes in the BCL?

2. Highly Doubtful. Possible, yes, but doubtful. Writer's block would be a more feasible reach for an answer than Burnout. What do you think the burnout rate of 1000s of community members would be?

I was a question author before joining Microsoft. It is not even close to highly doubtful – in fact, it’s highly common.

3. Passionate or not, they get paid to write those questions because they know the answers before the questions are asked.

Also, this statement assumes a lot – when you see how difficult it is to write a good question as an author, you see that unless you have passion around that area, you tend to write questions that are more knowledge-based and less task based.

4. Ok, I do not agree with their methods on "Sealing" an exam once it has been released and I do believe that questions should be replaced once they are removed (If not for security purposes, at least to keep the candidates honest), but I still do not agree that a community of under-qualified IT Professionals should be writing the exams. If more people want the ability to write the exams, then more people need to work on their qualifications of becoming Microsoft Certified Trainers.
Besides, there is already a community that does this. It's called the MCT Community.
According to Microsoft

quote:

Originally published on http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mct/default.mspx
Microsoft Certified Trainers (MCTs) are the premier technical and instructional experts in Microsoft products, technologies, and solutions. To ensure a superior learning experience for our customers, MCTs are the only individuals that Microsoft authorizes to deliver training that is based on Official Microsoft Learning Products or Microsoft Dynamics Learning Products for the MCT program.
The MCT community spans more than 140 countries and includes classroom and e-learning instructors, learning consultants, authors, conference presenters, user group leaders, and more. All are united by passion and talent for helping Microsoft customers and partners realize their full learning potential.
MCTs meet high initial and on-going certification requirements and enjoy access to many benefits. These include free access to the complete library of Official Microsoft Learning products; substantial discounts on exams, books, and Microsoft products; members-only newsgroups and online community resources; and invitations to exclusive events and programs.

Yea – I’ve read the marketing materials too.

If anyone thinks they can do the job of an MCT, they need to EARN the rights to be an MCT.

Training is absolutely not certification. In fact, as a part of our accreditation, one of the rules is that those who develop certifications cannot be involved in creating training materials.

Read the MCT Program Guide AND the MCT Program Agreement. Then, follow the 4 basic steps to becoming and MCT
On top of all the 'question writing' that you're proposing, how do you propose that Microsoft handle this community? You are aware that Microsoft currently audits the MCT Community throughout the year to make sure they are in compliance with program requirements, correct? Talk about throwing a wrench in those gears.

The MCT audit process does not ensure that MCTs are up to speed on the latest technologies. MCTs out there, feel free to dispute this statement, but I talked to Ken Rosen about it today just to make sure that I wasn’t running on faulty assumptions. As such, I don’t see how this would throw a wrench in any MCT program gears.

Summary
MCTs (SMEs/Experts) = $$
Community = $$$
This community you're proposing would not be worth the time, the money, or the effort that you're proposing from Microsoft.

Community Based Development - Let's Talk

hdierking — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:28:25 GMT

One thing that's been a major point of frustration for me over the last year is a conversation that goes something like this.

[Me] - "We should totally do exams around XYZ and ABC"
[Management] - "We only have budget for N developer exams this year. See if the product group has money."
[Product Group] - "We totally want to help in every way possible, but we don't have any budget either."

So what happens in cases like this? It's pretty simple really - an exam does not get built. I want to fix this problem by turning the way in which we develop exams completely upside down and I want your thoughts.

First, one piece of background information. It is REALLY expensive to create an exam. The reason behind the expense has to do with the fact that for every part of the process we bring in individuals who are subject matter experts across the entire exam content domain - and these sorts of individuals don't come cheap. My contention is that for question development, anybody is capable of writing a good question for a specific objective, and we should stop limiting ourselves to only the folks who are experts across all the objectives.

So what do I want to do? Here are the high-level thoughts...

Objective domain development via Wiki. As you probably know, the functional outline to which we write exam questions is called the objective domain. I would like to get more eyes (and hands) on this document than those of the 5-7 folks that we currently fly to Redmond since the purpose of the document is to outline the relevant skills required to support an assertion of competency in a technology. In my mind, editing and validation by more people equals greater relevancy for the exam/certification.
Community-based question development. Currently, we hire 5-7 individuals and require them to write up to 30 questions each depending on the size of the item pool. There are a few really bad potential ramifications here.

Authors must be subject matter experts across the entire domain - this comes at a premium.
Authors must write a lot of questions each - this can lead to author burnout.
Authors must potentially write questions on topics that they are not all that passionate about.
The total number of items is all we get for an exam. If somebody comes out with a dump, the exam is exposed without much recourse (other than starting the whole process over again). Additionally, any questions that we kill (for whatever reason) are simply lost - there's no new questions to fill the spot - the result is simply a smaller question pool.

I want to create an infrastructure whereby anybody who is passionate about an objective is able to submit a question. Additionally, if the question is accepted into the pool, I want the author given credit on the Microsoft publication notes (prep guide, etc...). There are a TON of detail to work out here, but again, these are the high level notes.

So is this just another scheme to cut costs internally? Sure - there's a cost component. However, there are also a lot of other components that I think outweigh the simple element of cost.

More coverage of technology. Under the current development model, we simply don't have the ability to scale. Community based development pretty significantly changes the rules of the game and allows us much greater flexibility.
Better coverage. I'm going to stick my neck out a bit here and suggest that 50 people writing 1 question each will yield a better question pool than 1 person writing 50 questions.
Continuous re-seeding. One of the biggest problems in terms of cheating is that the brain dump people know that once the question pool is built, those are the only questions that they need to steal. Under a community-driven model, new questions are continuously accepted into the question pool, even after the exam has been released. In my mind, this really changes the game from "Microsoft vs. the brain dump people" to "Community vs. the brain dump people".

In the end, it's a matter of tradeoffs. If we continue along our current model, then we're going to assume that our costs are essentially fixed. This really only gives us 2 areas where we can make tradeoffs: coverage and quality. Practically, we will not sacrifice quality. Therefore, the only axis left is coverage. The mindset behind community based development in terms of cost is not to reduce MSL's total cost of doing business - it's to reduce the cost of developing an exam so that we can build more exams. It's an effort to do more with what we have - to do what we do better.

So what do I want from you? Your thoughts, obviously!

Are you, the community of certified Microsoft developers, engaged enough to participate in this kind of initiative?
What are your initial reactions/thoughts to the entire idea?
Where do envision the biggest pain points to be in executing this kind of vision?
What am I missing - what might I not have considered?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Microsoft Dumps on Brain Dumps

hdierking — Thu, 10 May 2007 23:07:56 GMT

In case you weren't aware, one of the biggest threats to the validity of our certifications is the proliferation of brain dumps, or stolen exam questions and answers. It continues to amaze me how fast these things can hit the market - sometimes before an exam even goes live. In the end, widespread use of this cheating technique has created a host of "paper certified professionals" and has ultimately come at a cost to both the certification program and you as a certification holder.

With that rather sad intro, I am happy to announce that Microsoft has reached a legal settlement with Testking, probably the leading provider of these brain dumps. As a part of the settlement, Testking is to immediately cease illegal use of Microsoft Certification exam content. The terms of the settlement define "illegal use" to include marketing, selling, distributing, publishing, reproducing, disseminating, offering or otherwise knowingly transferring Microsoft Exam content.

To learn more about this and other efforts to protect the integrity of our certifications, sign up for a Live Meeting on May 23. More information here.

WM6 Exam - Any Takers?

hdierking — Thu, 10 May 2007 22:14:23 GMT

It seems like it was just yesterday when the forums were on fire with all of the craziness that was the Windows Mobile 5 Exam beta. And yet just as that fire was extinguished, we were asked a new question by the Windows Mobile product group - when can we release a TS certification for Windows Mobile 6?

Now, for the moment, let's forget the question of when we could release a new exam/certification. More fundamentally, I'm curious as to whether or not there is any value in doing so for the developer audience. If you look at the feature delta between 5 and 6, it seems as though most of the new functionality falls into more of the IT PRO/Infrastructure audience domain. In terms of developer-related additions, I see a lot of improvements, but not a lot of new, testable features. Am I missing something here?

In sum, I'll ask you - do you believe that WM5 and WM6 are different enough to warrant the creation of a WM6 exam and certification?

SharePoint Exams are Live

hdierking — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:18:02 GMT

In case you had not seen the announcement anywhere else, I wanted to let you know that the 2 SharePoint exams are now available. You can find the prep guides here.

We still need to change the "Exam News" section on the prep guides to reflect that the exams have been released – so don't let that stop you from registering.

Good Luck!

Orcas Certifications Follow-Up – Implications for MCPD

hdierking — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:43:58 GMT

I wanted to take a quick second to do 2 things.

Update you on our plans for a set of Orcas Technology Specialist exams and certifications
Explain the role that these new TS certifications will play in the MCPD certifications

So firstly, here's the updated plan for the Orcas/.NET 3.5 timeframe. The names here may be different than the final names, but you should be able to get the general idea. Also, I've highlighted the new exams.

Certification	Exams
MCTS: WPF	TS: WPF + 70-536
MCTS: WCF	TS: WCF + 70-536
MCTS: WF	TS: WF + 70-536
MCTS: ASP.NET 3.5	TS: ASP.NET 3.5 + 70-536
MCTS: ADO.NET 3.5	TS: ADO.NET 3.5 + 70-536

Next, I've received several questions asking what will be the impact of this new content on the MCPD certification. In order to best explain this, let's recap how the MCPD certification works. First, your MCPD is valid for 3 years, starting when you receive the certification. That means that even if we change the MCPD requirements a week after you obtain your certification, you do not have to fulfill the new requirements for 3 years (not to say, of course, that you shouldn't anyways).

Now, let's look at what are the requirements for the MCPD credential. It is a combination of 2 things: TS certifications + exams. One thing I want to make clear up front – Personally, I really don't like upgrade exams. Fortunately, the new gen program is really designed in such a way to support my ambitions of not having upgrade exams. Sometime this coming year (not trying to be ambiguous here – I just don't know when yet), we will release the MCPD renewal requirements. As an example, let's look at the MCPD: Web Developer. In an Orcas world, this certification might look as follows.

MCPD: Web Developer = TS: ASP.NET 3.5 + TS: ADO.NET 3.5 + EXAM: 70-547 (or new exam if we determine that Orcas technologies create new design decision trees)

After the change, new entrants simply need to obtain all of the requirements. For those of you who already hold an MCPD credential and need to renew it, you simply need to fulfill the requirements that you do not have. For example, in the example above, if we do not revise 70-547, you simply need to obtain TS certifications in ASP.NET 3.5 and ADO.NET 3.5.

This strategy ensures that we are able to keep up with the segments of the technology landscape that are changing without forcing you to reassess your knowledge on those areas that have not changed. Additionally, in many cases (ASP.NET) it will be fairly obvious to you which new technologies will become requirements in future MCPD changes. Because the TS certifications follow a release schedule that more closely aligns with those technologies, you can achieve many of the aforementioned MCPD requirements before we even make the program changes.

Hopefully, this strategy is one that makes sense to you and is one that you can agree with. As always, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

SQL Server BI Exams are Live!

hdierking — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:11:33 GMT

Just saw the message that both the Technology Specialist and Professional exams covering the SQL Server BI tools are now live! You can register for these exams with either Prometric or VUE. Also, you can find the preparation guides for them here.

Good Luck!

A Quick Note For Those Still Waiting on 540 Beta Results…

hdierking — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:23:39 GMT

After a great deal of probing and pushing, I have been told that the problem holding up the release of all beta results on 540 has been resolved and I have been promised that you will have your results by early next week. If this time comes and you still do not have your results, please notify me ASAP so that I can take care of the matter.

An Orcas Question…

hdierking — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 00:28:21 GMT

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.

Stop the Presses – TFS Exam!

hdierking — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:43:59 GMT

Saw some nice coverage the other day regarding the Team Foundation Server exam (70-510) – currently in beta. The beta for this exam has received overwhelmingly strong interest and I'm very excited to see how it does when it goes live. Team System is a big part of Microsoft's long term developer story and it's good to see that there's so much interest even at this early stage of its development.

Mobility Developer Exam Goes Live!

hdierking — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:33:48 GMT

The long-awaited mobility developer exam (70-540) was released today! Check out the preparation guide for a list of the topics covered and links to resources to help you prepare. When you feel ready, you can register for the exam at either Pearson VUE or Prometric.

Good Luck!