CXO

TechRepublic members sound off about new requirements for Microsoft Certified Trainers

When Jennifer Recktenwald reported on Microsoft's new requirements for MCT certification, TechRepublic members had plenty to say about it.


In “New requirements mean more work for MCTs,” Jennifer Recktenwald reported that beginning January 2001, all MCTs must earn either a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) or Microsoft Certified Solution Developer (MCSD) credential in addition to passing their required MCT exams.

We received a lot of e-mail from TechRepublic members about those changes. Here are some of the highlights:

It’s about time
Here’s what TechRepublic member Greg B. had to say: “It is about time. Of course, any teacher should know their subject(s) before they even try to teach, and a teacher that has a general knowledge of many subjects can only become a better teacher. I am A+ certified, and only after I became certified did I begin to teach on A+ certification. How could it be any other way? These new requirements will give the instructor a greater knowledge and instill more confidence in the students. I am currently studying for my MCSE and then plan to move on to MCT. That is the only path that makes sense to me.”

It’s a slap in the face
Rohan M., a “non-certified MCSE trainer,” had a different opinion: “The new MCT requirements are a slap in the face for present MCT and such aspiring non-MCT trainers who have been successfully training students for MCSE and other certifications for years, but refuse to hand over their hard-earned money to Microsoft in exchange for MCSE Certification.

It is a known fact that many MCTs and non-MCTs without MCSE status are greatly superior to many MSCE MCTs. However, I certainly understand the resulting enhancements that are attained when an MCT achieves MCSE status and the inherent benefits that it provides to both MCT and MCSE students.

“But I think what is most important here is the ability to demonstrate the necessary skills required to consistently and effectively produce candidates that don’t just achieve high percentage passes, but that also require minimum ‘experience-time’ before they become effective and productive on the job.

“For present MCT and non-MCT trainers, what Microsoft is telling them is that they are not (or no longer) competent enough to continue training candidates for MCSE certification. That's a bit cold in my opinion. Despite the 8+ months preparation period provided. I think that alternate certification methods that filter ineffective trainers (MCSEs/MCTs/non-MCSEs/MCTs) but identify those that are effective trainers should be explored by Microsoft. They certainly have the money to do it if they are interested in doing so!”

Rita K. agreed: “Concerning the new MCT requirements, it is typical MS overkill. It is like requiring all of the engineering instructors at a college to be engineers. Additionally, and meaning no offense to the pure techies, some of the worst trainers I have ever seen have been those so immersed in techno-babble that no trainee could understand them. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you can explain it—and vice versa. But I'm okay with that. I personally don't want to be a system engineer or a system developer. I'm a trainer—that is what I do, and I do it very well!”

Bea B., technical trainer, offered these thoughts: “As a training professional who works with (but not in) an IT department, having to take on the additional expense and time to add an MCSE or MCSD is ridiculous. From my experience, being a programmer does not mean you can train a class full of new users. I will not be seeking an MCT designation in 2001 if this requirement is added.”

It’s a mixed blessing
Joan M. wrote: “I recently left a professional IT career to become a teacher. Although I am an MCP, certified in NT 4.0, SQL 6.5, and almost TCP/IP (missed it by one!), I teach MS Access, Word, Excel, etc. I do not see why an MCSE would be required to teach these classes.

“On the other hand, I cannot tell you how frustrated I have been when I have paid $2,000 for a Microsoft NT or TCP/IP class, etc., only to find that the instructor doesn't have a clue. I mean, I can read the book myself. I am paying for the teacher's personal experiences and knowledge. In this case, I think it is wise for Microsoft to set a minimal level of competence—and the MCSE ensures this.”
To share your opinion about the new certification requirements, please post a comment below or drop us a note.
It’s overkill
Peter E. wrote: “All MCSEs are not good instructors, and all good MCTs would not make good MCSEs, Network Administrators, etc. It seems like Microsoft is taking the high exam, course work, and income approach to awarding the MCT designation, making it an add-on to the MCSE. The end result is that the quality of the current programs being taught by MCTs is probably going to decline because of a reduced number of MCTs. Although the two areas do overlap, the requirement for the full-blown MCSE designation sure seems like overkill of the worst kind!”

In “New requirements mean more work for MCTs,” Jennifer Recktenwald reported that beginning January 2001, all MCTs must earn either a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) or Microsoft Certified Solution Developer (MCSD) credential in addition to passing their required MCT exams.

We received a lot of e-mail from TechRepublic members about those changes. Here are some of the highlights:

It’s about time
Here’s what TechRepublic member Greg B. had to say: “It is about time. Of course, any teacher should know their subject(s) before they even try to teach, and a teacher that has a general knowledge of many subjects can only become a better teacher. I am A+ certified, and only after I became certified did I begin to teach on A+ certification. How could it be any other way? These new requirements will give the instructor a greater knowledge and instill more confidence in the students. I am currently studying for my MCSE and then plan to move on to MCT. That is the only path that makes sense to me.”

It’s a slap in the face
Rohan M., a “non-certified MCSE trainer,” had a different opinion: “The new MCT requirements are a slap in the face for present MCT and such aspiring non-MCT trainers who have been successfully training students for MCSE and other certifications for years, but refuse to hand over their hard-earned money to Microsoft in exchange for MCSE Certification.

It is a known fact that many MCTs and non-MCTs without MCSE status are greatly superior to many MSCE MCTs. However, I certainly understand the resulting enhancements that are attained when an MCT achieves MCSE status and the inherent benefits that it provides to both MCT and MCSE students.

“But I think what is most important here is the ability to demonstrate the necessary skills required to consistently and effectively produce candidates that don’t just achieve high percentage passes, but that also require minimum ‘experience-time’ before they become effective and productive on the job.

“For present MCT and non-MCT trainers, what Microsoft is telling them is that they are not (or no longer) competent enough to continue training candidates for MCSE certification. That's a bit cold in my opinion. Despite the 8+ months preparation period provided. I think that alternate certification methods that filter ineffective trainers (MCSEs/MCTs/non-MCSEs/MCTs) but identify those that are effective trainers should be explored by Microsoft. They certainly have the money to do it if they are interested in doing so!”

Rita K. agreed: “Concerning the new MCT requirements, it is typical MS overkill. It is like requiring all of the engineering instructors at a college to be engineers. Additionally, and meaning no offense to the pure techies, some of the worst trainers I have ever seen have been those so immersed in techno-babble that no trainee could understand them. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you can explain it—and vice versa. But I'm okay with that. I personally don't want to be a system engineer or a system developer. I'm a trainer—that is what I do, and I do it very well!”

Bea B., technical trainer, offered these thoughts: “As a training professional who works with (but not in) an IT department, having to take on the additional expense and time to add an MCSE or MCSD is ridiculous. From my experience, being a programmer does not mean you can train a class full of new users. I will not be seeking an MCT designation in 2001 if this requirement is added.”

It’s a mixed blessing
Joan M. wrote: “I recently left a professional IT career to become a teacher. Although I am an MCP, certified in NT 4.0, SQL 6.5, and almost TCP/IP (missed it by one!), I teach MS Access, Word, Excel, etc. I do not see why an MCSE would be required to teach these classes.

“On the other hand, I cannot tell you how frustrated I have been when I have paid $2,000 for a Microsoft NT or TCP/IP class, etc., only to find that the instructor doesn't have a clue. I mean, I can read the book myself. I am paying for the teacher's personal experiences and knowledge. In this case, I think it is wise for Microsoft to set a minimal level of competence—and the MCSE ensures this.”
To share your opinion about the new certification requirements, please post a comment below or drop us a note.
It’s overkill
Peter E. wrote: “All MCSEs are not good instructors, and all good MCTs would not make good MCSEs, Network Administrators, etc. It seems like Microsoft is taking the high exam, course work, and income approach to awarding the MCT designation, making it an add-on to the MCSE. The end result is that the quality of the current programs being taught by MCTs is probably going to decline because of a reduced number of MCTs. Although the two areas do overlap, the requirement for the full-blown MCSE designation sure seems like overkill of the worst kind!”

Editor's Picks

Free Newsletters, In your Inbox