AutoCAD Certification

[tc3dcad60731]

Maybe this is not the best place to list this but who knows. I read the opening "welcome" post and feel that this is geared towards embracing the new release and getting a movement going on this topic.

I read an article this past weekend in the new edition of AUGIWorld that was written by David Harrington. In the article he was talking about certification for AutoCAD. I have to say that I agree with him whole heartedly in his effort to get something started here. My ideas are 3 levels of certification just like he outlined in Basic, Advanced, & Master. The problem that I have is that I believe it should deviate slightly as follows.

1. Basic - Certification in the newest version of the program that everyone must take to be current and/or stay current. this should be a set fee but discounted or free for those that are "Master Certified". This test should prove that you know how to draw, print, create layers, modify, and other basic functions using the current version.

2. Advanced - Certification that carries over from each current release but if you want "advanced status" with the current version then retake the test for the current version. This shows that you can create a ctb file, templates, maybe set-up sheet manager templates, and other items that are more advanced. (Open for discussion)

3. Master - Certification that can only be achieved by taking the two lower tests first but does not have to be upgraded with each new version released. This test shows that you use and have used the program for years. That you know how to customize it to do what you need using lisp, vba, etc. We can set up dbconnect databases, drawing standards, and just about anything else that a cad manager does or a programmer. This is a certification that goes with you forever regardless of what version you tested on. It can even be stamped "AutoCAD Master Certification - Programmer" OR "CAD Manager". You will have to recertify as basic level at least every other release and these recertifications should be free or a minimal charge.



What does everyone else think??

[robert.1.hall72202]

Certification sounds like a decent idea, however, there are going to be really good designers that never get certified. I would not want to deny them jobs. Im guessing the biggest group would fall under advanced?

[jaberwok]

A good basic idea but bear in mind that there are some parts of the software that just don't get used in some areas of industry.
I have never used SSM and I don't expect to. It's not worth it if a "project" consists of no more than (say) 3 or 4 sheets.
I know many companies that have no desire to link acad to excel or any other dbase.

Could I choose maybe R14 to qualify? Or maybe v2.5?

Just my £0.02 worth.

[jaberwok]

BTW, I've voted "agree with revisions". I'd really like to vote "agree with reservations".

[Wanderer]

A good basic idea but bear in mind that there are some parts of the software that just don't get used in some areas of industry.
I have never used SSM and I don't expect to. It's not worth it if a "project" consists of no more than (say) 3 or 4 sheets.
I know many companies that have no desire to link acad to excel or any other dbase.

Could I choose maybe R14 to qualify? Or maybe v2.5?

Just my £0.02 worth.
yes, that is my thought about testing... I'd love to be certified, and am an a-1 drafter... in my field... LOL. but, I utilize completely different tools within acad than many... one might think that there should be a single basic acad certification... then more advanced certifications for certain things (either by discipline, or certain aspects of the program like customization??? I don't know)

this is where it could get complicated...

[robert.1.hall72202]

I already have an AutoCad certification that I received via attending a Vocational School
(long time ago). Any type of AutoCad course with over 500 hours of training should qualify as a certification. I had to demonstrate the ability to complete a class project in order to complete the course work.

[michael.12445]

I agree that inexperienced AutoCAD users can cause havoc and do some serious damage to CAD files. I disagree, however, that the answer to this lies 100% with training and certification. I think at least part of the problem lies with AutoCAD itself. There are far too many glitches and gotchas that just should not be there in an application this mature.

For example:

- Whenever one of our principals (or some project managers) wants a printout, he has to ask a "CAD operator" to make the print for him, because printing in AutoCAD is still such a black art. IMHO, this is ridiculous. While it's at least partially due to intellectual laziness on the part of the principal, I don't see why at least the basic functionality, maybe without all the subtleties of line weights, etc., can't be made as simple as printing from MS Word or Adobe Acrobat, both of which the principals do use to print documents.

- It takes extraordinary effort on the part of users to draw accurately on the right layers. There is no intelligence built in to OSNAPs, so it's very easy to get entities lined up to the endpoints of hatch patterns, etc., and there is no way to get AutoCAD to "prefer" snapping to points that would result in orthogonal geometry when ORTHO is on, etc. There is also no way to prevent users from creating any arbitrary layers they please, instead of having to pick layers from a predefined list.

- It also takes extraordinary effort to share drawings with other offices. You can't just send the DWG file itself - you have to go through some process like ETRANSMIT. While that command has been vastly improved since its introduction in 2002, I never could understand why tiny files like .shx shape files, linetypes, and hatch patterns couldn't just be embedded in the DWG file.

- The user interface needs to be redesigned so that it is simpler and the commands operate consistently. I'm not talking about prettier icons on the buttons, but issues like the fact that "Previous" is a valid option for selecting objects in some cases but not others. For example, I see no logical reason why you shouldn't be able to use "Previous" with the STRETCH command, but you can't. Additionally, if you use HATCH, for example, but you UNDO it if it doesn't give the intended results, you lose all the settings and have to go through picking the pattern, scale, angle, etc., all over again. The same is true if you enter the PLOT dialogs and then notice or remember you forgot to edit some small but critical information on the drawing - once you cancel the PLOT dialog, all settings are lost. There ought to be a way to UNDO or CANCEL these commands, yet save the settings.

- The DWG format allows for the creation of "foreign" objects by third party applications that result in weird "proxies" with sometimes unpredictable and unexpected behavior, which in extreme cases can cause AutoCAD to choke. There ought to be a way to open DWG files in "pure mode," in which all objects created by missing applications are ignored.

Again, I don't disagree that the very nature of vector information is probably inherently complex enough that some sort of training, experience, and, if necessary, certification will always be needed, but I do think AutoCAD itself could go a long way towards lowering the steep learning curve that currently confronts the novice. This being the "Skunk Works" forum, I thought this might be a good place to float these ideas.

Michael Evans
Togawa & Smith, Inc.

[rclayton]

I have mixed feelings about Software Certification in general. As a Network Administrator and OS Guru of sorts I have been using and integrating Microsoft products like Small Business Server, Exchange Server, SQL Server, and all versions of OS's and Office products for more than 20 years and have never held a Microsoft Certification. I feel I am very good at what I do with an extensive knowledge of the products. However everytime I try to take certification based on my knowledge alone, I usually fall just short of a passing grade.

With regard to Autodesk/AutoCAD Certification specifically, I worked for a local reseller for almost 10 years as a support technician and Sr Instructor and have Autodesk Technical and Training certifications in every version from R9 to R2000 as well as Land Desktop, Mechanical Desktop, and the first 2 releases of Inventor. Subsequently I also have a certification in Solidworks ( I know that is a 4-letter word to the Mech Techs) as a support tech and trainer. While these certifications were necessary for the dealership to maintain authorization to sell and train in the products I do not consider myself more than a competant operator in any given product.

Certification is a good way to show a prospective employer that one is knowledgable in a given piece of software, but by no means says anything about proficiency. I would take an operator with 5 years of experience over someone with 10 certifications and no practical experience any day. As the IT/CAD Manager for my company I do review resume's for competency in particular software packages, but I place little importance on certification.

Just my two cents worth .... Hope it helps!

[JASONM30395]

I say we go back to the mentorship programs. You do 1 or 2 years in school and then get placed with a mentor for 3-5 years of actuall experience before you can actually get "hired" by anyone

[Ron Oldenbeuving]

I say we go back to the mentorship programs. You do 1 or 2 years in school and then get placed with a mentor for 3-5 years of actuall experience before you can actually get "hired" by anyone
My career route was a bit different to most of you. I started life as a lowly apprentice (you know, sweep the floor, make the coffee, clean out the old rancid coolant tanks, etc), worked my way thru 10 years as a toolmaker, then 8 years on CNC machining centres (where I learnt to model on CAM systems) and now I am a tool designer. Unfortunately, in this trade, the only way to learn to design properly is to make mold & press tools, jigs & fixtures and special purpose machines in the first place.
Hence, my reluctance at using a mentoring system. Tis far easier to turn a Toolmaker in to a tool designer, than try to teach some poor fresh faced college CAD student even the fundamentals of good tool design. However, some formal recognition of my CAD skills would suit me fine, particularily as I already have the recognition of 20 years on the shop floor for the body of my trade.

my $0.0275 worth (allowed for currency exchange)

[jaberwok]

Certification is a good way to show a prospective employer that one is knowledgable in a given piece of software, but by no means says anything about proficiency. I would take an operator with 5 years of experience over someone with 10 certifications and no practical experience any day.

Same here.
I have taught acad for 7 years in a formal situation (and many more years informally).
I sometimes get to see other teachers teach - and, more importantly, to hear student's opinions of teachers. Most of the the teachers are just that - they learned just enough about acad to teach the syllabus. That doesn't mean that they are good at using acad; most could never hold down a job even as a cad operator. So, what chance do their students have unless they are also getting real experience outside the classroom?

[peter]

Skunk Werks?

Is it because we smell?:smile:

Well back to the topic at hand...

Hey group,

Here is my thoughts. If I were to hire someone I usually look at someone who has understanding of the subject to be detailed, like in my situation I do engineering for steel decking and its detailing. When I hire someone I find someone with something like a associates int Civil Engineering Technology degree. I have looked at ITT tech for candidates but they focus on the CAD side so much that their candidates don't have the mathmatics experience in things like steel design and reinforced concrete design that gives a deck detailer the basic understanding of the systems that is so critical to detailing.

I don't believe in dumb detailers, (although I know they exist) who just run software and draw pictures. I believe that detailers should be designers who understand what they are drawing.

In my experience I hire smart degreed technicians who have had a little AutoCAD and then I teach them what I need them to know about drafting. Much of our detailing is running in house custom software to the point that we need to train them anyway.

Certification sounds like something that the Autodesk Training Centers and Colleges could use to gage the caliber of their graduates. In that sense the certification would be good, but would I hire a certified draftsman over a degreed technician, no.

2 cents

Peter Jamtgaard P.E.