• Certification programs help system administrators stand out from their peers while expanding and validating their skills. 
• Certification training and testing help IT professionals earn professional credibility and more power to direct and control their career paths. 
• Numerous certifications are available, but several are exceptionally valued and respected. 
• This article is for system administrators and IT professionals who want to expand their knowledge and professional credibility through certification programs.

System administrators are the glue holding together business operations, ensuring smooth-running IT infrastructures. The role requires in-demand career skills that range from server and client configuration and maintenance to access controls, network services and application resource requirements. SysAdmins may even work with more user-facing products, like directory and name services, network addressing, database services, web and desktop applications, and email. They’re often the company “tech expert” – sometimes at several organizations simultaneously. 

System administrator certifications help IT professionals navigate their career paths, expand their knowledge and demonstrate their expertise to managers and employers. SysAdmin certs may even help you secure managerial and executive level jobs and higher pay.

The Biden administration’s cornerstone artificial intelligence policy documents, released in the past year, are inherently contradictory and provide confusing guidance for tech companies working to develop innovative products and the necessary safeguards around them, leading AI experts have warned.

Speaking with FedScoop, five AI policy experts said adhering to both the White House’s Blueprint for an AI ‘Bill of Rights’ and the AI Risk Management Framework (RMF), published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, presents an obstacle for companies working to develop responsible AI products.

However, the White House and civil rights groups have pushed back on claims that the two voluntary AI safety frameworks send conflicting messages and have highlighted that they are a productive “starting point” in the absence of congressional action on AI. 

The two policy documents form the foundation of the Biden administration’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence. But for many months, there has been an active debate among AI experts regarding how helpful — or in some cases hindering — the Biden administration’s dual approach to AI policymaking has been.

The White House’s Blueprint for an AI ‘Bill of Rights’ was published last October. It takes a rights-based approach to AI, focusing on broad fundamental human rights as a starting point for the regulation of the technology. That was followed by the risk-based AI RMF in January, which set out to determine the scale and scope of risks related to concrete use cases and recognized threats to instill trustworthiness into the technology.

Speaking with FedScoop, Daniel Castro, a technology policy scholar and vice president at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), noted that there are “big, major philosophical differences in the approach taken by the two Biden AI policy documents,” which are creating “different [and] at times adverse” outcomes for the industry.

“A lot of companies that want to move forward with AI guidelines and frameworks want to be doing the right thing but they really need more clarity. They will not invest in AI safety if it’s confusing or going to be a wasted effort or if instead of the NIST AI framework they’re pushed towards the AI blueprint,” Castro said.

Castro’s thoughts were echoed by Adam Thierer of the libertarian nonprofit R Street Institute who said that despite a sincere attempt to emphasize democratic values within AI tools, there are “serious issues” with the Biden administration’s handling of AI policy driven by tensions between the two key AI frameworks.

“The Biden administration is trying to see how far it can get away with using their bully pulpit and jawboning tactics to get companies and agencies to follow their AI policies, particularly with the blueprint,” Thierer, senior fellow on the Technology and Innovation team at R Street, told FedScoop.

Two industry sources who spoke with FedScoop but wished to remain anonymous said they felt pushed toward the White House’s AI blueprint over the NIST AI framework in certain instances during meetings regarding AI policymaking with the White House’s Office of Science and Technology (OSTP).

Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, and House Oversight Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., have been highly critical of the White House blueprint as it compares to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, expressing concern earlier this year that the blueprint sends “conflicting messages about U.S. federal AI policy.”

In a letter obtained exclusively by FedScoop, Arati Prabhakar responded to those concerns, arguing that “these documents are not contradictory” and highlighting how closely the White House and NIST are working together on future regulation of the technology.

At the same time, some industry AI experts say the way in which the two documents define AI clash with one another.

Nicole Foster, who leads global AI and machine learning policy at Amazon Web Services, said chief among the concerns with the documents are diverging definitions of the technology itself. She told FedScoop earlier this year that “there are some inconsistencies between the two documents for sure. I think just at a basic level they don’t even define things like AI in the same way.”

Foster’s thoughts were echoed by Raj Iyer, global head of public sector at cloud software provider ServiceNow and former CIO of the U.S. Army, who believes the two frameworks are a good starting point to get industry engaged in AI policymaking but that they lack clarity.

“I feel like the two frameworks are complementary. But there’s clearly some ambiguity and vagueness in terms of definition,” said Iyer.

“So what does the White House mean by automated systems? Is it autonomous systems? Is it automated decision-making? What is it? I think it’s very clear that they did that to kind of steer away from wanting to have a direct conversation on AI,” Iyer added.

Hodan Omaar, an AI and quantum research scholar working with Castro at ITIF, said the two documents appear to members of the tech industry as if they are on different tracks. According to Omaar, the divergence creates a risk that organizations will simply defer to either the “Bill of Rights” or the NIST RMF and ignore the other.

“There are two things the White House should be doing. First, it should better elucidate the ways the Blueprint should be used in conjunction with the RMF. And second, it should better engage with stakeholders to gather input on how the Blueprint can be improved and better implemented by organizations,” Omaar told FedScoop.

In addition to compatibility concerns about the two documents, experts have also raised concerns about the process followed by the White House to take industry feedback in creating the documents.

Speaking with FedScoop anonymously in order to speak freely, one industry association AI official said that listening sessions held by the Office of Science and Technology Policy were not productive.

“The Bill of Rights and the development of that, we have quite a bit of concern because businesses were not properly consulted throughout that process,” the association official said. 

The official added: “OSTP’s listening sessions were just not productive or helpful. We tried to actually provide input in ways in which businesses could help them through this process. Sadly, that’s just not what they wanted.”

The AI experts’ comments come as the Biden administration works to establish a regulatory framework that mitigates potential threats posed by the technology while supporting American AI innovation. Last month, the White House secured voluntary commitments from seven leading AI companies about how AI is used, and it is expected to issue a new executive order on AI safety in the coming weeks.

One of the contributors to the White House’s AI Blueprint sympathizes with concerns from industry leaders and AI experts regarding the confusion and complexity of the administration’s approach to AI policymaking. But it’s also an opportunity for companies seeking voluntary AI policymaking guidance to put more effort into asking themselves hard questions, he said.

“So I understand the concerns very much. And I feel the frustration. And I understand people just want clarity. But clarity will only come once you understand the implications, the broader values, discussion and the issues in the context of your own AI creations,” said Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a Brown University professor and former top official within the White House’s OSTP, where he helped co-author its Blueprint for an ‘AI Bill of Rights.’ 

“The goal is not to say: Do every single thing in these frameworks. It’s like, understand the issues, understand the values at play here. Understand the questions you need to be asking from the RMF and the Blueprint, and then make your own decisions,” said Venkatasubramanian.

On top of that, the White House Blueprint co-author wants those who criticize the documents’ perceived contradictions to be more specific in their complaints.

“Tell me a question in the NIST RMF that contradicts a broader goal in the White House blueprint — find one for me, or two or three. I’m not saying this because I think they don’t exist. I’m saying this because if you could come up with these examples, then we could think through what can we do about it?” he said.

Venkatasubramanian added that he feels the White House AI blueprint in particular has faced resistance from industry because “for the first time someone in a position of power came out and said: What about the people?” when it comes to tech innovation and regulations. 

Civil rights groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center have also joined the greater discussion about AI regulations, pushing back on the notion that industry groups should play any significant role in the policymaking of a rights-based document created by the White House.

“I’m sorry that industry is upset that a policy document is not reflective of their incentives, which is just to make money and take people’s data and make whatever decisions they want to make more contracts. It’s a policy document, they don’t get to write it,” said Ben Winters, the senior counsel at EPIC, where he leads their work on AI and human rights.

Groups like EPIC and a number of others have called upon the Biden administration to take more aggressive steps to protect the public from the potential harms of AI.

“I actually don’t think that the Biden administration has taken a super aggressive role when trying to implement these two frameworks and policies that the administration has set forth. When it comes to using the frameworks for any use of AI within the government or federal contractors or recipients of federal funds, they’re not doing enough in terms of using their bully pulpit and applying pressure. I really don’t think they’re doing too much yet,” said Winters.

Meanwhile, the White House has maintained that the two AI documents were created for different purposes but designed to be used side-by-side as initial voluntary guidance, noting that both OSTP and NIST were involved in the creation of both frameworks.

OSTP spokesperson Subhan Cheema said: “President Biden has been clear that companies have a fundamental responsibility to ensure their products are safe before they are released to the public, and that innovation must not come at the expense of people’s rights and safety. That’s why the administration has moved with urgency to advance responsible innovation that manage the risks posed by AI and seize its promise — including by securing voluntary commitments from seven leading AI companies that will help move us toward AI development that is more safe, secure, and trustworthy.”

“These commitments are a critical step forward and build on the administration’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights and AI Risk Management Framework. The administration is also currently developing an executive order that will ensure the federal government is doing everything in its power to support responsible innovation and protect people’s rights and safety, and will also pursue bipartisan legislation to help America lead the way in responsible innovation,” Cheema added.

NIST did not respond to requests for comment.

Industrial policy is all the rage. The Biden administration is infatuated with tax breaks, subsidies, and mandates meant to encourage—or coerce—firms to locate or expand operations in America. Biden’s team is primarily selling these actions as a way to strengthen national security, particularly in relation to China. But they are also telling folks that their policies will boost U.S. manufacturing and revitalize local economies across the country. State officials have been making similar claims about their industrial policies for years, and like them, Biden’s big plans will fail.

The CHIPS HIPS and Science Act calls for $280 billion in various subsidies, tax credits, and loan programs to stimulate semiconductor research, development, and manufacturing on U.S. soil. Similarly, the poorly named Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides at least $400 billion in government subsidies for non-carbon-based energy such as wind and solar, as well as subsidies for electric vehicles and related infrastructure e.g., charging stations.

Government officials and lawmakers from both major parties are praising the CHIPS Act. To commemorate the one-year anniversary of it becoming law, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, said he’s “…proud to be an early supporter of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.” Meanwhile, shortly after the CHIPS Act became law, Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), a Democrat, said “I am delighted about $52 billion that is going into chips, that is going into domestic manufacturing, that is going into strengthening our supply chains.”

There is less support for the IRA among Republicans, but even GOP lawmakers appreciate the investments in their districts that the IRA is subsidizing.

The CHIPS Act and the IRA thrust national industrial policy into the spotlight. While the federal government has doled out subsidies (farm subsidies, banks, Solyndra) and levied mandates (Davis-Bacon Act, Buy American Act) on companies for decades, the most exact laws appear to be ushering in a new age of interventionist economic policy. Unlike China or Russia, the U.S. has largely avoided national industrial planning. Economic development incentives are typically viewed as something government officials do to help companies in their districts or important industries in their states. It is cronyism for sure, but no one thinks the government is trying to control the economy or even an industry. Now, that is less clear.

Supporters of the CHIPS Act say it is needed to limit China’s ability to access the latest microchip technology as part of a bigger effort to slow China’s growing influence in the world. The Biden administration is actively working with Japan, The Netherlands, and other countries to shape the microchip industry—where inputs come from, where the final products are made, and who can buy them.

Similarly, the stricter buy American mandates in the IRA are trying to shape supply chains and manufacturing processes for electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines. To be eligible for the IRA’s subsidies, electric vehicles and their components need to be built in North America. America’s large fiscal capacity—we have the largest economy in the world—means we can generally out-subsidize any other country if that is our goal. Other countries are unlikely to go down without a fight though, as demonstrated by Europe’s response—its own $270 billon green subsidy program.

Watching countries compete in a subsidy arms race reminds me of the subsidy battles among U.S. states. Bloated state budgets stuffed with federal pandemic aid caused states to go on a spending spree in 2022. Ohio gave chipmaker Intel INTC hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and tax credits to open a new manufacturing campus. Michigan’s state Economic Development authority gave $600 million in grants and $1.1 billion in tax breaks and lower utility rates to General Motors GM to convince it to build a new truck and battery factory in the state. North Carolina gave $121 million to Boom Supersonic, an aviation company with plans to build hypersonic passenger planes. There are hundreds of other examples.

Biden and his administration can learn something from states’ experiences with subsidies—they do not boost economic growth. Research shows that economic development incentives are rarely sent to places with the worst economies, despite repeated claims that they can revitalize downtrodden towns or cities. But even if the money did flow to the places in the worst shape, it would not do much: Research finds that while subsidies typically increase employment in the targeted industry, they do not increase total employment or per capita incomes.

Despite the evidence that subsidies are generally economic losers, some folks, including some economists, suggest we rethink them rather than scrap them. In a new NBER paper, economists Dani Rodrik, Nathan Lane, and Réka Juhász (RLJ) argue that industrial policy, of which subsidies are a key part, should be evaluated on narrower goals, such as whether it reallocates resources toward the targeted industry rather than whether it promotes broader economic growth.

But merely boosting an industry is not what politicians promise from more active industrial policy. They claim that economic growth will be widespread. In recent remarks about the IRA, Biden said “I wish I hadn’t called it that, because it has less to do with reducing inflation than it does to do with dealing with providing for alternatives that generate economic growth”.

If industrial policy only helps the targeted industry, any moral justification for it withers. Taking money from one group of taxpayers and giving it to another could be defended (though not by me) if the entire economy benefited. But if firms in the targeted industry are the only ones that benefit, or even worse, only certain firms get the spoils, most taxpayers have nothing to gain from letting politicians and bureaucrats play venture capitalist with their tax dollars.

RLJ also claim that for industrial policy to work, governments do not need to consistently pick winners, but rather pick enough winners to offset the losers. This is like a stock portfolio, where a couple of big winners can offset dozens of smaller losers. A safer alternative to picking individual stocks, however, is investing in the market via an index fund. This is the prudent choice for most investors and the more remunerative strategy on average, since actively managed funds generally do worse than passive index funds.

There is an index fund strategy for industrial policy: promoting competition and innovation through low taxes, modest regulation, and simple laws that apply to all firms. Instead of trying to pick winners, policymakers should focus on setting up an economic environment that allows for experimentation and incentivizes success. At the state level, Florida, South Dakota, and New Hampshire provide good models.

It is hard for policymakers to stick to this basic strategy since it does not provide many ribbon-cutting ceremonies or photo opportunities, but in the long run local economies and the national economy will benefit. Free markets are a tried-and-true mechanism for promoting prosperity and America has leveraged the power of free markets to become the largest economy in the world. Now is not the time to abandon what works.

Whether you work at a college, university, adult education center or serve in military or corporate training settings, UW’s online Ed.D. program will give you a strong background in the functional areas of higher education, preparing you for senior administrative positions as well as teaching in a higher education setting.

While the Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration stresses theoretical study and research, the Ed.D. emphasizes applied theory and research with the goal of providing a stronger foundation for enhancing your professional practice and leadership skills, making it possible for you to effect visionary changes in your organization.

Have Questions?
Contact our program coordinator!

Application Deadline

• January 15 - Fall/Summer
• September 15 - Spring

Minimum Admission Requirements

• A minimum of three years of full-time experience in higher education or a related field
• Master's degree from an institution accredited by a regional accrediting body in any academic discipline
• Minimum Graduate GPA: 3.0
• GRE scores: 151 verbal, 153 quantitative, and 4.0 analytical writing

International Students

• TOEFL: 550 minimum written or 80 minimum online, OR IELTS: 6.5 minimum overall score
• GRE: 151 in verbal, 153 quantitative; 4.0 in analytical writing

How to Apply
Please visit our program admission webpage for more details.

Below is a sampling of Higher Education Administration Ed.D. classes you might take as a student at the University of Wyoming:

• Educational Issues in Race, Class and Gender
• Community College Issues and Leadership
• Issues in Higher Education
• Higher Education Finance
• Advanced Organizational Leadership
• Leader as Direction Setter
• Law of Higher Education

View the full doctor of education higher education administration concentration degree program curriculum.

The UW Ed.D. in Higher Education Administration prepares you for upper level administrative positions at colleges and university and other post-secondary environments.

Higher Education Administration Careers

UW higher education administration Ed.D. alumni can work in the following positions: Vice president for academic services Assistant professor Professor Degree coordinator Residence coordinator Professional academic advisor Director of faculty outreach and support Vice president for student affairs Vice president for academic services Associate dean of students Director of student success

Research and write a dissertation based on your interests and career goals. exact dissertation titles include: “The perceptions of principals regarding the formative supervision of teachers” “Understanding the implicit costs of regulatory compliance at a small liberal arts college” “Higher education leadership and women: Understanding the work-life balance through the voices of real moms” As an online higher education administration doctoral student, you will have chance to earn a terminal degree while also retaining your position at your current institution. You will also develop the research and leadership skills to take your career in new directions and make a difference in students’ post-secondary experiences. Here are some reasons to consider the UW Ed.D. higher education administration program: Flexible Course Delivery Maintain your current work and life commitments while earning your doctorate. Courses are offered online and through a blended format of online and audio conferencing. Campus Orientation Spend one day on the UW campus near the beautiful Laramie Mountains, where you will learn about the program while getting to know faculty and fellow students. The remainder of your program takes place 100 percent online. Faculty Practitioner-Scholars Learn from faculty who have held various administrative positions in post-secondary settings and are also active scholars. UW higher education administration faculty study areas such as community colleges, adult education, distance education and social justice in higher education.   Assistantships Explore graduate assistantships in other campus departments. These opportunities offer full-time, on-campus students faculty research involvement, college-level teaching experiences and stipends.   Minor Add a graduate minor in qualitative research methods or quantitative research methods to your Ed.D. program. Travel Grants Pursue support to cover travel costs associated with presenting at or attending professional conferences. Scholarships Look into relevant graduate scholarships from UW, such as: Clarence Jayne Memorial Scholarship Kercher Family Scholarship in Education Accredited ]]> The College of Education at UW is nationally accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).   Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) Select a degree program dedicated to excellence. The College of Education is among the approximately 100 institutions that belong to the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. We apply the CPED quality framework to help prepare you to become a skilled practitioner who can meet contemporary educational challenges. Are you considering an academic or leadership position in higher ed? These programs might be of interest:

The need is measured in billions of dollars

'Ain't going to hand people houses for free'

Excellence: We are driven to do our best, learn from our setbacks, and tenaciously seek to improve.

Collaboration: We value partnerships and recognize that our success is due to the talent and time of the entire team.

Respect: We honor and appreciate the traditions, beliefs, and individuality of all.

Integrity: We are committed to honesty and authenticity, adhering to strong moral & ethical principles in everything we do.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion: We believe our diversity is a source of our strength and strive to understand, value and involve all.