What constitutes an IT Pro?
-
@scottalanmiller I disagree.
Many people would agree anyone who works in a field with experience is then a professional. And to be a "pro" at something requires 2000 hours of experience (recalling from memory).
So anyone who works at a job doing their primary tasks for 2000 is a Pro, and therefore a professional!
-
@DustinB3403 said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
@scottalanmiller I disagree.
Many people would agree anyone who works in a field with experience is then a professional. And to be a "pro" at something requires 2000 hours of experience (recalling from memory).
So anyone who works at a job doing their primary tasks for 2000 is a Pro, and therefore a professional!
They can agree, but they are just making things up. Lots of people do that, but it doesn't make them right, it just makes them uninformed and ignorant. There are clear English language (part 1) and legal definitions that I showed to make sure you couldn't make that mistake here.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
And to be a "pro" at something requires 2000 hours of experience (recalling from memory).
That's expert, unrelated to professional. Professional, one could argue, is contrary to expert because the needs are often conflicting. They are, at least, two completely different vectors, however. And the number is 10,000 hours. And it is not that 10K hours makes you an expert, it is that in a skilled area (so the things you are talking about don't apply anyway) that on average someone practicing that much will reach expert level. The hours themselves don't do it, and only certain activities apply and none of it is related to this discussion.
-
In many US labor documents, they have to list "professionals and teachers" because teachers are "almost" professionals but can't be qualified for it exactly because they can't direct their own work in quite the right way to qualify, but they want them to be treated as professionals otherwise so state it in that way.
The standard professionals are doctors, lawyers, nurses (of a certain level), professors, pharmacists, civil engineers, CPAs and similar. You basically have to be forced into both base university education, must have a government or similar certification for work, effectively work in a high level government directed union like structure and work by "rules" rather than by "results." Very different than IT.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
In many US labor documents, they have to list "professionals and teachers" because teachers are "almost" professionals but can't be qualified for it exactly because they can't direct their own work in quite the right way to qualify, but they want them to be treated as professionals otherwise so state it in that way.
The standard professionals are doctors, lawyers, nurses (of a certain level), professors, pharmacists, civil engineers, CPAs and similar. You basically have to be forced into both base university education, must have a government or similar certification for work, effectively work in a high level government directed union like structure and work by "rules" rather than by "results." Very different than IT.
Correct: IT is not a "professional" industry. But, that's not what's represented in the term "IT pro". It's someone whose profession is in IT, the latter definition of "professional". If you say "I am in IT and therefore a professional", that would be flat-out wrong. But if you say your profession is in IT, then you are an "IT pro".
-
@art_of_shred said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
@scottalanmiller said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
In many US labor documents, they have to list "professionals and teachers" because teachers are "almost" professionals but can't be qualified for it exactly because they can't direct their own work in quite the right way to qualify, but they want them to be treated as professionals otherwise so state it in that way.
The standard professionals are doctors, lawyers, nurses (of a certain level), professors, pharmacists, civil engineers, CPAs and similar. You basically have to be forced into both base university education, must have a government or similar certification for work, effectively work in a high level government directed union like structure and work by "rules" rather than by "results." Very different than IT.
Correct: IT is not a "professional" industry. But, that's not what's represented in the term "IT pro". It's someone whose profession is in IT, the latter definition of "professional". If you say "I am in IT and therefore a professional", that would be flat-out wrong. But if you say your profession is in IT, then you are an "IT pro".
That then explains the initial discussion... it is "anyone who makes money in the IT field in any manner", there can be no further qualifications. The best volunteer expert in the world can't be an IT Pro, but the most entry level, unskilled, untrained person can be. It makes the term literally worthless in the field, which was my feeling on it. We should drop it as it has no positive outcome.
