However, having taken CompTIA's Linux+ and Server+ exams in the past few weeks, I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the way that CompTIA is headed. I commented last month that Linux+ seemed like a small subset of the material examined in the LPI Level 1 certification. However, the Server+ exam, which I just sat, bothered me even more. Like Kevin Kohut, who took the beta exam and reviewed it here on CertCities.com, I only just passed the exam despite my years of experience in this area. Why? Because many questions on this exam aren't a test of your technical ability, but rather whether you can recall what CompTIA feels are the best industry practices. In some cases the correct responses were a matter of common sense, but there were others where I obviously would do things differently than the SMEs who prepared the exam.

But what really bothered me was the lack of technical depth to the exam, and thus the certification. The same could be said of Linux+ and also i-Net+ (from my reading of the exam objectives). Without this in-depth testing, I don't understand what these certifications offer candidates or, more importantly, potential employers. Yes, these certifications are able to demonstrate that the candidate has dabbled in the area and has an elementary level of knowledge, but I can tell the same by asking a potential candidate a couple of questions, so as a hirer, what then does this give me?

And there's other problems, including an inability to adequately measure the theoretical knowledge of the candidate (yes, experience is king, but a good theoretical background is also important). Even worse, the exam objectives of many of these programs have a significant amount of overlap with each other. For example, this means asking networking and hardware questions in a Linux+ exam, which leaves less room in the exam for content on Linux.

I had been hoping -- and maybe my expectations were too high -- that CompTIA would give us the next generation of certification by expanding the limited view of technology that each vendor holds and testing real skills that employers need from their staff. But at the moment, I am struggling to see value in many of these new certification programs they are offering. These new programs are aiming themselves too low to be of any use. And let's face it – these exams aren't cheap. At $190 a pop, they're more expensive than your typical vendor exam, so anyone thinking of taking them would want to really ensure that they'll be getting something of value in return.

A few months ago I congratulated Novell for including CompTIA exams such as the Server+ and IT Project+ in their updated certification programs. Now that I've had a closer view of the Server+ exam, I'm not so sure how well this will work in practice. Similarly, the new Microsoft MCSA certification includes options for the A+ together with either Network+ or Server+ to satisfy the elective requirements. I'm still a fan of the A+ program: It will ensure that the MCSA that chooses this path can demonstrate good hardware knowledge. The Network+ exam covers similar territory to the old Network Essentials exams in the MCSE path, so this exam makes sense as part of a larger program. However, I'm sure those that take the Server+ option will wonder why they bothered.

What do you think? Are you happy with these CompTIA certifications as is, or would you like to see them change somehow? What are your plans to take a CompTIA certification? Was I just in a bad mood when I took the Server+ exam? Let me know by posting your comments below.