I disagree it's cheating though. Cheating is clearly defined by the exam condition, which are stupid (one time test rather than result evaluation but heh, it s

I disagree it's cheating though. Cheating is clearly defined by the exam condition, which are stupid (one time test rather than result evaluation but heh, it s a compromise). We had this debate between dev in my company because the execs want to see everyone certified for the cloud provider they spent millions choosing without asking us, fine. So myself I did it the hard way, spent 20 hours studying for this things, preparing for the exam, building little things to make sure I got it, to a point I feel really a lot less noob on the thing and actually start buying into it. I passed with flying color and it took me a quarter of the alloted time at the exam, fine. But I have colleagues who just asked me what bank was the closest to what I saw at the exam, tried and only studied where they failed, some barely passed, some barely failed, and I insist each time it s better to have a holistic theoretical understanding rather than just a quick practice run but are they worst colleagues ? Some have kids, some are my managers, some are so humiliated to have to be revalidated as competent, they just cant enjoy it. They dont cheat, they do the absolute minimum to get a grade and move on. And I challenge you to tell you never did that in your entire studying life. I remember a class of compilation theory when I was 19 that I studied the 5 hours before, and forgot 5 hours later to get a 45% grade that still passed my year and fine. Did I cheat? Hell no, but I was lazy and did the bare tolerable minimum. But, should we certify people in IT like that, I think your manager and your team and your clients already know what you're worth, so I agree it s pointless.