Building Interest in DBA

lolzantz

n00b
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
16
Hi everyone,

I graduated with a Bachelors in Computer Engineering and currently been doing IT work for 2 1/2 years now. I provide application/desktop support for a biotech company. Now as the days go by I keep getting this feeling that I need to specialize in something.

Becoming an Oracle DBA sounds extremely interesting and enticing to me. The problem is I haven't taken a programming class or data structures class in a few years now. So I'm a bit rusty. But I will do what it takes to learn Oracle and become a DBA!! I know some of you are thinking that this is a bit ambitious. But if set my mind to it I know I can do it.

My question to the community is where do you think is a good place to start? Certs? Classes? Books?

Thanks for any help!
 
You can't start with certifications -- they're just tests, and if you don't know anything you'll simply fail.

Some people like to learn in different ways than others. If you like books, then start with books. If you want to sign up for some classes, take the classes. You might try doing a project of your own on to get started. You can download Oracle for free; get it set up and working. I think that's an obvious first step.
 
You can't start with certifications -- they're just tests, and if you don't know anything you'll simply fail.

I don't think the OP meant that he wanted to take the certification tests cold-turkey. ;)

He likely meant that he would study for the material on a particular certification test and then take that test. i.e., use the Oracle certifications as a goal-setting system for himself.

I think this is a reasonable approach - especially if you are not the type of person to easily motivate yourself to design/create/implement a project of your own at this point.
 
Thanks for your replies.

My concern with the certifications is if they still hold value and justify.
 
Some employers pay attention to certs, some don't. I think they're garbage: they just show you passed a test, and they don't even tell me if you cheated or not. They can be useful, as calebb points out, for a framework to learn and study.
 
the great thing about tests is that it shows you what the certification companies thinks is necessary to be a well rounded individual in a specific field.

The real world is another story. I'd highly recommend getting involved in some communities and start looking at building yourself a pet project that you can develop in oracle. Oracle is one of those platforms that is usually in enterprise enviroments and comes alot from on the job training.

GL with everything though.
 
Certs are really just a money making scheme. They sell you on class time/ bootcamps, materials, and then sell you on the test itself.

However my employer pays for mine, so I take advantage.

If I was doing this on my own, I would read a few books. Maybe setup a test bench type of machine to play with and run examples. Then I would progress to the certs. Myself, I would end there, but if it is something you like, grad school with focus in that particular area would be a good progression.
 
Even when certs are paid for you, what benefit do you get? Are you just validating the knowledge you got elsewhere?

What's the point of grad school? Aren't you just spending those years studying when you could have spent them making money and furthering your experience?
 
while nothing can beat on the job training, grad school is still viewed as a very good asset. It not only shows that you have learned the things needed to persue the degree, but it also proves you have the capability, self motivation, time management skills, and intelligence to undertake such a task as higher level schooling needs. Grad school takes a long time, and covers high level course work. An employer sees this and can safely assume you will be able to handle learning the new things that may be necessary for the job or task, plus the knowledge you bring from earning that degree.

That and grad school is a big networking tool.

Certs on the other hand, as I said, are just a money making scheme. Classes are only a few days long at most, the test is only a few hours at most, and the cert just validates you passed the test. Small networking arena, with little time to be exposed to the material.
 
But the fact still remains, Certs are a good thing to get. If nothing else, they prove to an employer that you are devoted to the job and willing to take extra steps to learn new things, or stay on top of SOPs.
 
But the fact still remains, Certs are a good thing to get.
Huh? How was that fact established?

If nothing else, they prove to an employer that you are devoted to the job and willing to take extra steps to learn new things, or stay on top of SOPs.
Except that they prove no such thing. Since certification exams are just tests, people can cheat on them, so they just show that the candidate can pay the testing fee and show up for the test. Tell me, how does an employer verify the claim that a candidate did really earn the cert? It's up to the employer to do this verification, which isn't as easy as you might think; and it turns out the employer probably isn't familiar with the curricula for the certification or the test because they're so weakly standardized and certainly not accredited.

Further, like any other test, they can be incorrectly graded, and incorrectly written. The standard operating procedures you're referencing are really a minimal baseline. Every situation is different, and because someone has memorized a few steps or learned some formulaic method for making a decision or evaluation doesn't mean they're any better a candidate for a particular position that someone who has not got a certification. The scenarios I've seen in the training material I've examined is very minimal and completely unrealistic. It stresses the difference between IT and engineering.

while nothing can beat on the job training, grad school is still viewed as a very good asset.
Not by the companies I've worked at. At my current job, when I screen an applicant who has a graduate degree, the first thing I ask them is why they chose that course. Why spend a ton of money to study more when the return on that investment is debatable and unlikely?

It not only shows that you have learned the things needed to persue the degree, but it also proves you have the capability, self motivation, time management skills, and intelligence to undertake such a task as higher level schooling needs.
It proves no such thing. Even if it did, it's proving something that isn't really important to an employer. While I'm interested in hiring smart and flexible people, I'm not interested in hiring someone who's main skill is learning. Decision-making, delivery, and appropriate effort are really far more important skills than any which you claim a post-graduate degree somehow "proves".

That and grad school is a big networking tool.
There are much better networking opportunities which are completely free and require a smaller commitment. Again, the ROI isn't there.

Grad school takes a long time, and covers high level course work. An employer sees this and can safely assume you will be able to handle learning the new things that may be necessary for the job or task, plus the knowledge you bring from earning that degree.
They really can't make that assumption. Once you've got some experience hiring people, I think you'll agree. It doesn't matter how long someone has been working, or what they claim to have done, or what they claim for education -- you have to screen them. There's no way any claim on a resume, particularly a low-level certification, short-cuts any screening process.

Do I really want to hire someone who's poor at making life-affecting decisions? Will they really make good decisions for me and my company? There are valid reasons to go, but in the end graduate work is not nearly as beneficial or important to a broad range of employers as you believe.

There are some employers where a deep specialty is valuable. If someone is sure that they want to be a database developer, then doing post-grad work in the field is a great idea. Microsoft can hire them to work on SQL Server, or Oracle can hire them to work on Oracle, and so on, for example. But they'll generally end up being pigeon-holed into that role, with little general experience outside of those areas and lacking the breadth that makes them valuable in a large set of other roles and positions.
 
(btw i am oracle 10g dba certified)

do the cert. you will earn more money, it will pay you 10x over for your time and money.

the same thing goes for any education. foreign languages courses, caligraphy courses, medical school. i don't care - they all pay.
 
i don't care - they all pay.
You don't care about what? The facts?

There are employers who will bump employees who have degrees or certifications. What you have to ask yourself is if you want to work for a place where those credentials matter more than actual merit.
 
Mike you and I are pretty much on the same page. I do not think we're arguing, just presenting two different views

Huh? How was that fact established?
Industry has valuized employees with certs recieve higher pay then those without certs in the same type of position doing the same type of work. That can be seen as a good thing for the individual with the cert.

Except that they prove no such thing. Since certification exams are just tests, people can cheat on them, so they just show that the candidate can pay the testing fee and show up for the test. Tell me, how does an employer verify the claim that a candidate did really earn the cert? It's up to the employer to do this verification, which isn't as easy as you might think; and it turns out the employer probably isn't familiar with the curricula for the certification or the test because they're so weakly standardized and certainly not accredited.

Further, like any other test, they can be incorrectly graded, and incorrectly written. The standard operating procedures you're referencing are really a minimal baseline. Every situation is different, and because someone has memorized a few steps or learned some formulaic method for making a decision or evaluation doesn't mean they're any better a candidate for a particular position that someone who has not got a certification. The scenarios I've seen in the training material I've examined is very minimal and completely unrealistic. It stresses the difference between IT and engineering.

Yes this is true. However, the individual did take the time, steps, and paid the money to undertake the task of obtaining the Cert. Whether they cheated, test was misgraded... whatever happened all the employer sees is that they received the certification, in which case it would be a safe assumption that the employee does care about their career path.

Not by the companies I've worked at. At my current job, when I screen an applicant who has a graduate degree, the first thing I ask them is why they chose that course. Why spend a ton of money to study more when the return on that investment is debatable and unlikely?
Do you also as why they chose their undergrad degree? What about their high school course? How far do you drill down? A Grad degree proves what all other degrees prove.. an ability to learn. The person did the work the professors assigned, to the satisfactory of those professors, which earned them a passing grade to which the school gave them a diploma. An employer should be able to rationalize that the individual will be assigned work by the employer, the individual with do the work, to the satisfaction of the employer. Of course the individual will still need OJT, but that will be minimized since the individual is coming with a broad high level of knowledge related to that field.

It proves no such thing. Even if it did, it's proving something that isn't really important to an employer. While I'm interested in hiring smart and flexible people, I'm not interested in hiring someone who's main skill is learning. Decision-making, delivery, and appropriate effort are really far more important skills than any which you claim a post-graduate degree somehow "proves".
The skills you look for are put into practice during ones persuit of a undergrad/ post grad degree. While yes, maybe, at a grassroots level, they are still being practiced.

There are much better networking opportunities which are completely free and require a smaller commitment. Again, the ROI isn't there.
Yes, but its one of those 'who you know' or 'its a small world' type of things. The highering manager is an alum of your grad school, you have things to talk about. This can swing the weight your way if there is a toss up between two individuals. This goes on all the time.

They really can't make that assumption. Once you've got some experience hiring people, I think you'll agree. It doesn't matter how long someone has been working, or what they claim to have done, or what they claim for education -- you have to screen them. There's no way any claim on a resume, particularly a low-level certification, short-cuts any screening process.

Do I really want to hire someone who's poor at making life-affecting decisions? Will they really make good decisions for me and my company? There are valid reasons to go, but in the end graduate work is not nearly as beneficial or important to a broad range of employers as you believe.

There are some employers where a deep specialty is valuable. If someone is sure that they want to be a database developer, then doing post-grad work in the field is a great idea. Microsoft can hire them to work on SQL Server, or Oracle can hire them to work on Oracle, and so on, for example. But they'll generally end up being pigeon-holed into that role, with little general experience outside of those areas and lacking the breadth that makes them valuable in a large set of other roles and positions.
By no means am I saying there is no screening process. Or that an individual with a grad degree or cert will never get screened out. I am saying that there are certain things that can be assumed based on what levels of education an individual presents. Whether that is a good fit for that company is a completely different question. My firm does 5-member team interviews for each individual we higher. After the interviewee leaves, the 5 members write a report and presents it to the highering manager, who reads it and hands it over to the recruiter in charge. So while the interviewee was a fit for the position, we double check to make sure they are a fit for the team.

I do like the point you made about getting pigeon-holed. That is something you have to be careful about when engaged in higher education. The deeper into a concentration you get, the less likely you will be able to do anything but that concentration. This is neither good nor bad, but should be mentioned.
 
Mike you and I are pretty much on the same page. I do not think we're arguing, just presenting two different views
Then, at best, we're misunderstanding eachother. As far as I can tell, you're saying that certifications are valuable; I'm saying they're almost entirely useless for getting a job. Maybe you aren't saying they're valuable, or maybe you don't understand that I think they're useless, witholding a couple of exceptions.

While paying employees more once they get a certification happens at various employers, I completely disagree with the practice. It's an advantage for the person with the cert, but it's not always an advantage for the company or their customers. As a result, doing it all the time when it's not always an advantage is rewarding the wrong thing.

I don't think it's a safe assumption, since there are non-neglibile chances that their actions don't demosntrate care about their path. If someone wants to show they care about their career, they work hard.

I sometimes, but don't always, ask about a candidate's undergraduate work. We don't ask about high school because it's almost always completely irrelevant. I'll ask if that work is particularly interesting or controversial, or if it is relevant to the work they'd be doing once they get hired. Otherwise, I move on to the rest of their resume. For entry-level positions, I might be more tempted to ask a bit about school work to see if I can lead it into a more interesting conversation. Otherwise, I'm eager to get into a real question where the candidate can demonstrate, to me, their intended competency.

By no means am I saying there is no screening process. Or that an individual with a grad degree or cert will never get screened out. I am saying that there are certain things that can be assumed based on what levels of education an individual presents.
Like what? You can't assume they'll do the work, or that they'll even show up the next day. You can't assume they're at all competent. If you could, then all you'd need to get a job is a degree. And that's obviously not true. Since you acknowledge that some people need to get screened, what assumptions are then safe to make? These days, given a resume claiming graduation from a particular program, I don't even believe that the graduation claim is true!

Let's try it the other way around: I think that certs are useless except in two cases.

One is where the employer demands it, and even then only sometimes. Given a cert as a requirement, things might go easier for the candidate if they possess the cert. On the other hand, the employer should be perfectly willing to hire people who don't have the cert, given other experience or . And if the employer isn't willing to think the criteria through, I think it's a symptom that suggests the employer might not be a great place to work because they don't think other things through and rely to heavily on policy-based decision making.

For the employee, this means a cert could help, but they still have plenty of other criteria to consider. For the employer, it doesn't help much at all; they still have to screen the employee, they may or may not be getting what the cert implies, and they might have other issues to consider. Is this, in the end, really different than hiring someone without a cert, then? I contend that it's not. But I guess there are a few cases where someone really wants the job, despite the negative signals the employer is sending with the requirement -- and in that window of cases, the cert is requisite.

Another case is where an individual is pursuing a cert for themselves. Strictly: just to learn, and not to get a job or increase their salary. Certification study materials can also form a good framework for approaching a new subject, and can be helpful to people who enjoy working in that mode. On the other hand, that's not really about the certification and it's more about the book and courseware. I guess some folks like taking tests to validate and iterate, but ...

If that's what people do, then that seems right: choose the right things to learn, learn them. That can make you more employable, but they don't deserve any money until they've actually practiced them, and demonstrated in situ competence with the skills in question.
 
Another case is where an individual is pursuing a cert for themselves. Strictly: just to learn, and not to get a job or increase their salary. Certification study materials can also form a good framework for approaching a new subject, and can be helpful to people who enjoy working in that mode. On the other hand, that's not really about the certification and it's more about the book and courseware. I guess some folks like taking tests to validate and iterate, but ...


I would argue this is the only really good case for getting a cert. (I've never personally seen a position that required a certification / experience wouldn't substitute). Some people just don't have the right personality to go out and find themselves a project to work on in their spare time - e.g., design and build an address book application so that you get some hands-on experience with the product/language you want to learn. For these people, studying for a certification can be a somewhat organized way to learn something new with a little more depth than just reading a book.

That said, some of the most disastrous interviews I've conducted have been with candidates who looked good on paper, had all the right certs (Oracle 11i or SQL Development/Implementation certs)... 10+ years at a fortune 500 company... but in person, they could not describe how to "JOIN" two tables together - which made the next 10 interview topics on join types and join algorithms completely useless. (just like the candidate). (although... when I am unfortunate enough to be conducting one of these doomed interviews, it is fairly entertaining to dig deep into the rabbit hole and find out what exactly the candidate does know...)


Now, graduate degrees on the other hand... I definitely disagree with you there, Mike. Lets say you get a CS degree (2 or 4 year) and then head out and get a job. How many years will you be on the job before you are the lead on a large-scale project (3-12 month or more)? How valuable is that experience of taking the point on a project? When you are in charge, you get to see first-hand what makes sense "on paper" and what works in the "real world." You get the opportunity to scratch your head as you work out all those tedious details and and actually present a working project at the end. You get to rip your hair out in frustration as you come to the painful realization that there are gaps in your knowledge and abilities - and you have to go get help from your mentors/superiors/consultants and figure out how to turn that help into a finished product.
Now... a graduate student (with a thesis degree)? They've already been through that. They've worked out some novel piece of research from start to finish - including all the painful details - and presented a completely finished product to their advisers.
Now look back on the employees you've hired or co-workers you've worked with and consider those with graduate degrees and those without.... surely this difference has been apparent?
Do you believe that companies like Google and Microsoft are foolish for offering higher salaries to those with more advanced degrees?
 
man there is alot of bitterness to certifications and discrediting them.

In most cases a certification gets you spotted on some HR persons radar. "ooo hey look this guy has experience AND a certification *giddy face*" and can get you a phone call for an initial interview.

Corporate world works different than smaller private worlds where technical managers do the initial interviewing process. My initial interview was with HR to see if I could answer some basic questions and also so they could see if I fit into their corporate "profile".

The bottom line is that certifications can't HURT. Each person makes of it what they will.
 
In most cases a certification gets you spotted on some HR persons radar. "ooo hey look this guy has experience AND a certification *giddy face*" and can get you a phone call for an initial interview.
No, it doesn't.

The bottom line is that certifications can't HURT.
Wasting time doesn't hurt? Then you're not successful enough to be busy. Wasting money doesn't hurt? Then you're more successful than me!
 
Back
Top