Microsoft has taken a step that I’ve long hoped for: they’ve renamed the former “Exchange Ranger” program to better reflect its serious nature, and they’ve opened it to people outside the company (as long as they’re associated with MS gold-certified partners). The entrance prerequisites are very stiff, there’s a $25,000 tuition charge, and the training is extremely demanding: six days a week for five weeks, with extensive hands-on and lab-based testing each week. The curriculum looks really tantalizing. However, I don’t think I’d like being away from my family for that length of time– a six-week immersion is a bit much.
Interestingly, as far as I can tell none of Microsoft’s competitors have such a highly structured or rigorous program for their messaging architects. The closest equivalent I can think of is Cisco’s series of programs, and even then they don’t take six weeks.
Paul's Down-Home Page 
It looks like everyone is talking about this program today. Despite all the things that make the program look like too much, I have to say that I think this program is valuable. I have been involved a bit with the folks who run it and they have put together one of the best programs I have seen in a long time. You can’t get this kind of training from your own training department or a CPLS. The high cost and time commitment are just side affects of the program and the end result (and no, I’m not being paid to comment 🙂
Oh, I totally agree, Josh– I think it’s a terrific program. I don’t even mind the $25K fee; I think that it’s fair for Microsoft to charge what it costs them. I’m sure that they’re not making a profit given the number of man-hours dedicated to the training and testing (not to mention the equipment). If I could persuade my family to tolerate my extended absence, I’d sign up for it in a heartbeat. I too have worked with several Ranger/MCA folks and they have been excellent advertisements for the quality of the training.
Nah, IBM doesn’t need to offer 30 days of intensive training on Domino — the product’s not that complicated. 🙂
don’t you mean “……not that sophisticated?”