This may not happen if LINQ is pushed real hard.

Ehh, if someone is writing production SQL it won't hurt to know everything on the database developer tests. It is up to companies to require good code and hire people with the knowledge. I don't think most rely on certs anymore. That may be why MS is coming out with MCA and MCM training\lab\test based certs.

http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/master/default.mspx

I think that such an educational endeavour is necessary, especially for those involved in small projects or working for small companies. Often enough, small software shops do not hire a database professional. The developers have to design the database and write C# / VB code and TSQL code and even be "part time DBAs". However the trainers should insist that working with relational data requires a different "frame of mind" (---> "thinking in sets"). Besides TSQL, maybe an introduction to database design and even data modeling would be OK?

Indeed many companies do not trust certification (at least MS certifications...). There are people who are able to learn how to use a MS product and to pass a MS exam with almost no working experience - one of my colleagues used to call them "fake MCPs"...:)

Hi, Am I being a bit thick but isnt there already a developer exam

http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcitp/dbdev/default.mspx

or are you suggesting a more scaled down, basic sql exam??  If so its a great idea.

Im an MCDBA and found those exams a lot harder than the MCTS/MCITP exams.  I suspect the developer exams are also a bit easier.  Maybe I just know a bit more than I did before, hard to tell.

Actually James, I think this is all good.  It shows that SQL Server is growing up as a product.  Oracle has always had its sub-streams of personnel, very distinct and SQL Server has had very blurred edges.

As the product gets more mature and established the need for a DBA, a Developer/Architect and Power Users are becoming more standard to increase quality and consistency.

Also because of the BI growth you get more personnel using SQL as a querying tool, getting data from the data warehouses.

I just hope Microsoft realise this growth and cut back on the 2 year release cycle,  companies cannot upgrade or patch databases without major testing as their systems are critical.  They could alienate their user base with too many methods/differences between versions.

James said:

"I'm sold on LINQ - it has great functionality. However, LINQ to SQL is, for the most part,ad-hoc SQL. I would encourage developers to avoid it if they don't understand SQL itself."

I'd bet no one at MS would agree with you. For those that don't understand sql, LINQ 'is' the intended answer. There's plenty of discussion of LINQ functionality but very little discussion of

what LINQ (to sql)/entity framework is. LINQ is discussed as if it were a neutral technology, a neutral perspective. That's nonsense. It is, among other things, a reaction against sql. It's a rejection of sql and implicity or explicitly, depending how you look at it, of everything relational. That no one in the MS loop wants to take responsibity for such a volatile position does not make it any less so. Show me a MS pm who's an sql evangelist,vis a vis application development, and I'll show you someone who's going to have a short stay. While sql server is in, sql is out. There will be causalities in this war. But apparently MS feels they will be acceptable:)