What constitutes an IT Pro?
-
-
@DustinB3403 said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
Yup, and the major definition is part 1, not part 2. That was my point. And if you use part 2, then you lump IT in with ALL work, like garbage men or janitors. And in one case you can call yourself "a professional" and in the other you cannot. Just because you flip burgers at McD's does not mean that you can say that you are a "professional."
-
US Legal Definition of Professional:
-
@scottalanmiller the definition is based on by all descriptions of it, as something done to earn income. In a general summary.
The only thing that allows variance is the 1b which describes a professional as a learned profession. Like a personal accountant, or lawyer.
But in any case it boils down to, what you're paid to do for work.
-
Because IT does not yet have a specially organized body of knowledge, IT isn't eligible for professional status. In many ways, it's higher than a professional status because it requires a degree of knowledge that cannot yet be codified.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
@scottalanmiller the definition is based on by all descriptions of it, as something done to earn income. In a general summary.
The only thing that allows variance is the 1b which describes a professional as a learned profession. Like a personal accountant, or lawyer.
But in any case it boils down to, what you're paid to do for work.
That's neither what the primarily (part 1) definition says, not how the word is most commonly used and not how it is used legally in the US. Professional can be used in the silly way of "I'm a professional burger flipper" but a burger flipper cannot say "I'm a professional." That would be outright lying.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
Because IT does not yet have a specially organized body of knowledge, IT isn't eligible for professional status. In many ways, it's higher than a professional status because it requires a degree of knowledge that cannot yet be codified.
Wrong. IT is codified as being intellectual and varied in character.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
@scottalanmiller said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
Because IT does not yet have a specially organized body of knowledge, IT isn't eligible for professional status. In many ways, it's higher than a professional status because it requires a degree of knowledge that cannot yet be codified.
Wrong. IT is codified as being intellectual and varied in character.
That is not what the term codified means at all. IT is not codified, plain and simple. There is no standard corpus of knowledge. None whatsoever.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
@DustinB3403 said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
@scottalanmiller the definition is based on by all descriptions of it, as something done to earn income. In a general summary.
The only thing that allows variance is the 1b which describes a professional as a learned profession. Like a personal accountant, or lawyer.
But in any case it boils down to, what you're paid to do for work.
That's neither what the primarily (part 1) definition says, not how the word is most commonly used and not how it is used legally in the US. Professional can be used in the silly way of "I'm a professional burger flipper" but a burger flipper cannot say "I'm a professional." That would be outright lying.
But the basic definition of professional is "what you get paid to do as your primary work". So if 60% of the time you're flipping burgers, you are a professional burger flipper.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
@scottalanmiller said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
@DustinB3403 said in What constitutes an IT Pro?:
@scottalanmiller the definition is based on by all descriptions of it, as something done to earn income. In a general summary.
The only thing that allows variance is the 1b which describes a professional as a learned profession. Like a personal accountant, or lawyer.
But in any case it boils down to, what you're paid to do for work.
That's neither what the primarily (part 1) definition says, not how the word is most commonly used and not how it is used legally in the US. Professional can be used in the silly way of "I'm a professional burger flipper" but a burger flipper cannot say "I'm a professional." That would be outright lying.
But the basic definition of professional is "what you get paid to do as your primary work". So if 60% of the time you're flipping burgers, you are a professional burger flipper.
Correct, I already agreed to that. But under no terms can you also claim to be "a professional." Burger flippers, like IT, do not meet the list of necessary qualifications to be "a professional."
-
We've covered this, there is a meaningful use of the term "professional" like doctor or lawyer, and a silly, pointless one meaning "anytime you get paid." There is no purpose to talking about or discussing the latter here. Your point is made that that is a valid English use of the word, but that discussion is over and we are talking about the real job description here.
-
@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.
