Re: Career questions: databases

From: Bruce C. Baker <>
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 12:21:58 -0500
Message-ID: <DoRhi.9$Zt6.5_at_newsfe19.lga>

"DA Morgan" <> wrote in message
> Neil wrote:
>> While agreeing with your point about resume fluff, in all fairness, the
>> person claimed he was "proficient" in those technologies, not "expert" in
>> them. At what point does one become "proficient"? That's a good question.
>> But I don't think one needs to be able to field live questions from an
>> audience of developers in order to call oneself "proficient."
>> Neil
> I appreciate that but to me proficiency has a higher standard than,
> perhaps, for you. Would you call a DBA that writes shell scripts to
> back up 10g database proficient? I wouldn't.
> To quote:
> pro·ficient·ly adv.
> Synonyms: proficient, adept, skilled, skillful, expert
> These adjectives mean having or showing knowledge, ability, or skill, as
> in a profession or field of study. Proficient implies an advanced degree
> of competence acquired through training:
> Note: "advanced degree of competence acquired through training"

In the course of this thread we seem to have established at least two levels of DBA ability, i.e., "expert" and proficient", with proficient < expert. I'm sure there are all sorts of colorful names for those practitioners at the low end of the scale, but let's just call then "incompetent" for now. So we have

incompetent < proficient < expert

What do we call DBAs who are somewhere between incompetent and proficient, and what would their qualifications be? In general, how many levels of DBA ability are there, and what does one have to know/be able to do to qualify for each of them? Received on Sun Jul 01 2007 - 19:21:58 CEST

Original text of this message