CAUGHT

It all depends upon several factors such as what the technology is. Lets say that you?re looking for an XSLT person for an opening at your company. There are two candidates, the first has five years of experience, but no paper and the second has three months of experience and a certificate in the technology. According to your reasoning you would hire candidate number 2 based upon a piece of paper and a three-month work history.

Taking your argument to the next step lets add three additional candidates Michael Kay, Steve Muench and Jeni Tennison. Following your logic candidate number 2 would still be your choice over Michael Kay, Steve Muench and Jeni Tennison. This totally disregards the fact that Michael Kay and Steve Muench were involved with designing XSLT and Jeni Tennison has written books on the topic.

Interesting argument, it certainly explains quite a bit about how business works. Rather than get the best and most experienced person for the job, get the person with a piece of paper that read the books written by the best and most experienced people.

the people that have the paper may not have developed the real work workplace skills needed, like effective communication, working under tight deadlines and problem solving where time is critical.

Often, the person with the most experience actually working with the technology will have far more to offer than merely knowledge of the technology, even if they also have that piece of paper.

When I was working in restaurants cooking, I saw a large number of chefs, complete with papers from schooling, change careers because the actual workplace was not what the school taught, nor did they have the skills to perform even the most basic tasks in a high volume kitchen. In reality, I only met 2 papered chefs that could handle the high volume kitchens, in 20 years working in them. I've met chefs that are stunned that I spent that long in that style of establishment, and they all concider me their EQUAL, even though I never studied cooking, I only did it while working.

Jaqui,
What is it with IT people and food services? Including myself about half of the IT people that I've known have worked in restaurants. There seems to be some kind of bizzare relationship.

by w2ktechman Jun 7, 2006

that a lot of people with the paper still dont know anything. I have a few certs, but I know full MCSE, MCA, etc. that barely have knowledge to run (let alone work on) Windows systems. It is because cheats become available quickly.
In fact I know someone who got 100% on a cert for Win2k, and then asked me the next day, how to add a computer to the domain, and what would happen if they created a local user account and tried accessing the network.
To me, paper means very little unless there is experience behind it.
but, I am not a hiring mgr either.

by leobloom Jun 7, 2006

You can not compare training in IT to medical or legal training.

If I want to try something new I can try it on a test pc or test domain; and no one is harmed. Althought medical students work on cadavers and law students test themselves in moot courts, a person trying to self-teach themselves the medical or legal profession would not have these opportunities.

What about others - say Construction & Accounting then?

What motivates the IT industry(s) to always say NO when moves are made to turn professional??

Yes there are non-professional construction persona / accountants - but again would you hire them over regulated ones?

With the new examples it seems to come down to trust. Do you trust the person with the paper or the person with the experience?

This decision seems to vary depending on the field, but seems to be effected by the person making the decisions knowledge of the subject in question.

I don't know why IT seems to foster more trust. I do wonder though whether it has anything to do with the individual making the decision not wanting to admit they no nothing (or little) about computers and so trust it with the person that speaks the best 'geek'

accountants have to be certified.
Lawyers have to pass the BAR exam for EACH state they work in. They move to a new state, they HAVE to pass the test all over again for that new state.

These are all professions where there is a lot at stake so the Government has put in regulation to get them more money for oversight of the regulation... oh, I mean to protect us!

Yes, A CPA may or may not be the best at tax. If a person is a CPA they may have what it takes. They also may not. I know of many PAs tho have dropped the CPA from their business. I know Lawyers who will not practice who sell business insurance... $$$

by jtakiwi Jun 7, 2006

Unfortunately, there is no unifying body in IT, like CPA's or Civil Engineers, etc... I wouldn't say that IT folks don't want to be professional, it is more the nature of the industry, alot of folks are self taught, you can be just as skilled w/ regard to IT if you have the paper (4 yr. or higher degree) or not. The other professions, such as engineering, or lawyers, you cannot test to be one of those w/out the related degree. Certs are not a valid qualifier as a few hours study can set you up to pass some of those tests. Plus, the certs are geard towards a certain subset of the industry, or a certain product, so I suppose we could have tons of different professional credentials, but that would fragment IT quite a bit.

by jkn1ck Jun 8, 2006

That would mean that after 17 years in the industry I should be overlooked when a new guy fresh from college applies for the same job as I am? I taught myself how to build desktop computers from the ground up in 1985. I worked my way into the industry by applying to a compnay that did not even know what desktops were. I knew where they were heading and worked my way to a situation where I could show them what I had. When it came time to put in desktops I was there and I moved into the position i knew was coming.

I recieved my CNE certification and never needed it.
I am self taught and proud of what I have done with what i know.

AMA certification be hung.

If you can pass the boards, and demonstrate your competence thaen you cna practice. If you have the paper and pass the boards, then flunk the practicle, then you may not practice.

That would force many incompetents out of the medical field. I believe that Insusrance would really be the driving force. If a practicioner is insured then they would get the business. If they are a hack, then they'd not be insurable. The really crappy thing is the AMA would manipulate the insurance industry...

They have used FUD to damage almost all the reputation of ODs until they decided ODs were OK. Now ODs and MDs are targeting Chiropractors together to get more healthcare $$$.

From a personal level I would LOVE IT to have entry requirements as I've nearly got the 'piece of paper'.

However I've also nearly finished a year's placement in the real world. And apart from coming out of university to find that I was taught next to nothing. I have learnt more from the 'self-taught' people with experience that 4 years studying has taught me.

I also know some 'peers' that are going to complete university with a degree in computing without any technical skills whatsoever because they're good academics and can work the system.

If it was my server, I'm trusting the guy with experience any day of the week.

What if the piece of paper was a prerequisite for entry to the Industry? Experience will come with time. The industry is mature enough to handle that now surely?

yes the industry has been around long enough to be able to start to call it a proffession, and require that those working are professionals.
no, with the instability of technology, requiring the piece of paper from schooling isn't possible, the schools don't teach the tech currently used, they are usually 2 to 5 years behind the times.

so we require the schooling, say a 2 year course, that means that at best the new person has 4 years of technology changes to learn, on top of all the resposiblities of the new job. the person teaching themselves will often be learning the bleeding edge technology, so when they start work, they only need to learn the new job resposiblities, they probably have knowledge about newer technology than being used in the company.

How about a Philosphy major? Like the chairman od the Codasyl Database committee for years, Bill Steiger. How about a guy with an MD, who had one class in CS, but is one of the top OS guys in the world. How about an ED LIN, DO He wouldn't be qualified from your point of view.

How about a guy who worked at AT&T named Cecil Moye? He was only taught through the U.S. Navy. He also worked with developing BCPL -> the predecessor to C...

Grow up. You want a stacked deck for yourself.
You seem to forget that the pepole who have developed IT weren't exclusively the degreed professionals. In fact I think that in IT was the one area that ability was the main separator. If you could do the tech side of the job you go to X level. If you were incompetent, pretty, or had the right connections, you'd go into management.

Many of us learned from the Joyce Staatzes and Donald Knuths of the world. Some of us weren't even in IT when that happened.

by jtakiwi Jun 7, 2006

Also, maybe it would make sense to have IT structured like a union, as in apprentices, journeymen, mid level managers, whatever. Maybe you don't need a degree to be considered "professional" until the manager level. The Journeymen are the experienced folks who really know their stuff, but don't have the paper, or maybe not a specific paper. Who knows. Probably a great business opportunity along the lines of the professional orgs for Engineering, Accounting, etc...

by hal 9000 Jun 8, 2006

Would a newly graduated Student be of any assistance to a specialised Program writing team? That's easy the answer is [b]NO![/b]

Could they drop into bottom or even mid level [b]Bank Security Without Supervision?[/b]

If you consider the Paper as a prerequisite what would have to be studied? The IT field is massive and no one can hope to know even half of what is going in in the more specialised areas so what should be on the Curriculum in the first place?

Now that's a better question.

Col

by maecuff Jun 7, 2006

I'd have to say that the best person for the job is who should be hired.

I'm self taught and can code rings around some people with 4 year degrees. There are also people who are MUCH more advanced than I am..and they may or may not have a degree.

I don't understand how this equates to a doctor or lawyer..you're comparing apples and oranges.

Both are fruits, round, have pips and grow on trees. Not really that different?

The question is not based on who can do what... but more on the future. Us, the experienced push for a more professional status / regulation that forces newcomers to become certified in some manner.

We educate them and so the cycle is born...

by maecuff Jun 7, 2006

is Us, the experienced, people who have a degree?

If so, it doesn't take a degree or certification to push for a more professional status. There is no doubt that having the degree is helpful, but it doesn't guarantee that having a degree will make you better technically or professionally. I've been in upper management for 4 years now and it is through my years in IT (self taught, on the job experience, etc) that has allowed me to get to this level.

ya gotta earn beer money somehow while learning the it stuff :D

editing to add:

and you have to admit, the high pressure of short order cooking is excellent training for server down times. ;)
when it comes to a crunch like getting the network running after it crashed, the experience of working food industry in a short order restaurant where fast table flips are the goal is great training for meeting tight deadlines.
[ I may have taken that particular skill too far, I have been known to serve 180 meals in 37 minutes when I'm the only cook in the kitchen..and a 3 minute well done peppercorn NY steak ]

Your skills are beyond mine, short order in an pancake house.

I did, however, learn one thing, put Alpo in a crepe and people will think that it is fancy. Thinking about it now reminds me of some big name software. Hmmm....

First, when many got into the field there was not the GLUT of training that there is today.

Training is their to try to replace experience, but having a degree or cert does not mean you know anything about the field.

Why are some people obsessed with degrees? Easy. A lot of the people that do the hiring DON'T KNOW TECH, and so have no other way to gage you that they can handle.

Another reason degrees are seen as so important is the upper management spent a lot of time and money on degrees, and to turn around and say degrees are not important is too much of a slap in the face for them.

The best bet? Do both.

Been in IT for over 10 years, and went back to school because work will pay for it. Will have my experience AND a BA in networking.

The BEST fit is to work in the field first. The training is more meaningful if you can relate it to something. Believe me, I have seen a lot of people take the tech classes just because someone told them "you can make a lot of money working with computers". Ever see someone take a programming class that can't even work a word processor? Not pretty.

I HAVE gotten a bit out of my degree (two semesters to go and will be done) as it fills in the blanks for what you learned in the field.

I agree completely. I've nearly finished a one year placement as part of a four year degree course. I learnt morein the first 2 weeks on the job than I did in two years at university.

In terms of people taking the courses without much of a clue, I had this beauty:...

induction day at university and I'm in the lad early as I didn't want to be late. So I fire the machine up, log on and start playing around to see what sort of software I'm going to get to play with over the next year. Fellow student comes and sits next me and opens with

"Hi I'm John Doe, how do I turn it on?"!!!

Unfortunately I've yet to tell that story to anyone who believes it, but I promise its true. so sad....

in the one course I did take, this one girl was having a hard time understanding the lesson, she is sitting there reading exactly what needed to be punched into Acc Pac GL, word for word, number for number right there, and she couldn't figure out what to do to get the lesson done.

I pointed to the data, said this needs to be entered into the program. walked away and had another student come and ask me to debug her COBOL program, all 30 thousand lines of it in a printout.
[ that one took me 20 minutes to find the mistake in it, and I had never even looked at Cobol before then, she had missed a semicolon ]

that you were there early? :p No wonder people don't believe you when you make up wild stories like that!

As for the twit, I have seen it myself.

Did a network project through the campus to wire a network for a local school. I was the only one that didn't have my CCNA in the group, but I was the only one that knew how to do punchdowns and testing, not to mention routing the cables, organizing and labeling, so I became the chief and had to show people how to do something and have them take over.

it was sad.

by onbliss Jun 7, 2006

Here I was a BSc(Physics) with experience in customer support installing/supporting SCO UNIX and Novell Netware and some development; then there was this person with Engineering degree in CS with less experience in the IT than me.

He walks to me and asks me to format & create a DOS bootable floppy disk. This was in the mid 90s.

There are some things that only Experience can teach, that no degree or certification can teach.

by deadly ernest Jun 7, 2006

A few months a friend showed me their brand new Dell box. It had several things that looked like buttons but the only ones that moved were the ones to take the case off. In the end he showed me how. The damn Dell logo slides up and the button is there with the front USB ports. :8} :p

But I am intrigued, unless you have corrected it in the last few minutes, What were you doing in the LAD early on open day :^0 the LAB would make more sense.

When I was getting my quals I went to a Technical College, one fellow student was there because the company that signed him up on a 5 year contract wanted him to learn HOW to the work not just the THEORY he got in his Batchelor of Science - Computing. When I spoke to him I found out that the recruiting manager hires Uni grads for technical positions and the IT manager finds most don't have any practical knowledge - all theory. At that time uni is based on what the academics want to teach and their assessment of what you learnt via assignments. Tech college was based on 'Here is the problem solve it - the faulty hardware is there for you to work with. Can't beat competency based training. :-)

I haven't seen anyone saying that the degree is 100% a waste of time, only that experience counts for far more than training "in the field", where having done it, you can deal with it.

What has been said is that we can't ignore those who will go out and buy the books, read them, break their own systems and get them working again, take a low paying job doing IT and getting experience while teaching themselves more. These are the people who won't leave when the day is done, unless the critical job is done. These are the people that will come in a 2 am to get the system back up without bitching, they really want to be doing it, and know that the 2 am call is a part of the job.

Self taught does not equal good work ethics.

I have known my share of self-taught techs that were clock watchers, after spending half the day playing solitare.

I agree that a lot of the self-taught have the ABILITY to fix the system.

Lucky for me, we are not a 24 hour shop, so I don't have to worry about it. I do schedule myself to work on weekends if I have to take a server down for more than a half hour. Half hour is done with warning, but during business hours. More than that, and I come in on Sat or Sun and do it. no one has down time, and I don't have the added pressure of 100 people asking when the server will be back up. One less thing to distract me. But it is my choice, not at direction from my boss.

by subee Jun 7, 2006

I say do both if you want job security - on the very off chance that you absolutely can't find any techie job you like, you always have a degree in SOMETHING to fall back on. It doesn't hurt that it's an IT degree.

I just don't think it's as black and white as some people think. Although people with experience will definitely have more to offer than a recent college grad, there is something to be said about the discipline required to complete a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science or Information Technology, etc. I'm sorry, but 4 year degree in CS is NOT the same as a 4 year degree in elementary education - some degrees require more work and more dedication than others - the material is more challenging. And if you have the experience to add to that, managers will trust that you are not only capable of learning things and figuring things out, but that you can handle pressure.

I have a friend who has been building computers and setting up networks since he was 14. Knows Linux and Windows pretty much inside and out. He and I are in our 3rd year of CSci and he wants the degree because he wants as much knowledge and certification as he can get - he just thrives on this stuff. The guy is a genious, not just with computers but with physics and math, etc. When he gets done with school, he is going to be a VERY valuable resource. The main reason? Not only does he have the experience AND the degree, but he has people skills...which many of the techies I have met over the years simply don't have. This just happens to be one of the biggest complaints that management has about IT staff.

I aggree that the people skills are high on the list. The number of people in IT / CS related jobs that have none is shocking. Hence the stereotype IT guy situation.

Nothing is worse than working with somebody who for some reson thinks he / she is better and more intelligent than everybody else.

I wonder why people can boast about hardware / software specs they have but yet see no reason to boost theor personal 'h-esk' specs .

I previously stated that university taught has so far taught me next to nothing. While this isn't entirely true the basic premise is, graduates are taught basics and 'how to learn'.

The advantage of the education is shown when the comparision between possible employees is on more level playing field. Forget the guy with experience, as he gets the job. Two guys (or gals) for a trainee/junior position, no experience between them. Do you hire the candidate with or without that bit of paper?

the paper will get the job, all else being equal.

for the simple reason that the schooling has at least taught the person a foundation in the field.

2 applicants for an entry level position, one with schooling, one with 6 months experience, much harder call, since the 6 months work experience will have given that person as much valuable knowledge as the schooling did the other. [ ideally for the experience ]
This is when you have to look at the person and their "fit" with the team more closely.

Again I agree with you. I think at the end of the day its all down to the position, and 'relavent' quals and experience. But when it takes time to get the experience (about one year for every year of experience you want) getting the paper can be a useful boost to your CV

I am looking for a number of things in a prospective team member. Do both candidates have the same personality? Interests? Willingness to learn? Do they both present equally professionally?

Personality fit for a team is pretty critical. A bad fit can throw a team off and you don't want that on a sensitive or highly visible project. Or indeed any project.

A person's interests tells me how they will spend their free time. I am more interested in someone with a hobby than somone whose hobby is being a couch potato.

Willingness to learn is another key- especially in an entry level candidate. I want to know that the individual will seek mentorship in addition to what I will insure is provided.

And while I know that Business Professional isn't the standard, I want to see a candidate that can rise to that standard. And I have indeed worked in environments that required Business Professional as a dress standard.

In short (I know, too late) the paper may or may not be a consideration.

That happened once... Lew Jenkins...

A college education taught me almost nothing. It certainly didn't teach me to learn. One of the big reasons I dropped my pursuit of a computer science degree is, simply, that I could learn the equivalent of a semester's worth of schooling in a week on my own. Going to school for computer-related skills increased my educational workload by something like two hundred percent, and multiplied the time it took to learn something by about two [b]thousand[/b] percent. I learned as much PHP in a week as Javascript in an entire three-credit class -- and, for a bonus, I was learning CSS at the same time I was learning PHP, but learning Javascript in a classroom setting sucked the life and motivation out of me so that I wasn't learning anything not required for school.

People are good (or bad) learners regardless of whether they've ever seen the inside of a college classroom (or lecture hall, as appropriate). Sorting for people who have been to college does nothing to indicate any improved ability to learn, from what I've seen, since people who are good at learning graduate with college degrees about as often as people who are bad at learning. On the other hand, sorting for enthusiastic autodidacts that have never been to college but have interesting skillsets pretty much guarantees you'll get people who learn well and quickly. After all, you have to be enthusiastic about learning to go out and pursue knowledge on your own, while you only have to want to be well-paid to sit passively in class taking notes and memorizing what is necessary to pass midterms.

"[i]Do you hire the candidate with or without that bit of paper?[/i]"
To answer your question: if they both have the same skills, I hire the one that pursued the knowledge, rather than having it handed to him in a classroom. I hire the one that is interested in the subject, rather than thinking that a piece of paper guarantees a paycheck.

You can have a degree or not. I suppose that, all else being equal, an employee having a degree might be a slight advantage for the hiring employer. That assumes that both the papered graduate and the nongraduate are self-taught, regardless of any fancy toilet paper with letters like BS smeared on it, though. If you're an accomplished autodidact, maybe a degree in addition to that is a bonus. If you're not an accomplished autodidact, I don't want to hire you no matter how many caps and gowns you have in your closet.

As a project manager, I KNOW that it is my history of leading successful projects that gets me the next contract. When business is considering who will lead their multi million dollar initiative, who do you think they will be excited about attracting? The 20-something with a four year degree? Or the seasoned professional with 10 years of implementing successful projects?

Incidentally, I don't have an IT degree. My formal training is in nursing- Emergency nursing to be specific.

What I also have is a deep interest in IT that dates back well over 20 years. I started with keypunch (yeah- I know) and stayed current with technology. While I no longer code, I can- and in several languages. I have worked in networking since the 90s, have carried around a few Micro$oft certs, have carried around a few Cisco certs, and am capable of doing the work, not just leading the project.

My partner is similar. Four year degree in Mathematics and Economics, deep interest in programming. He has been in his role for 27 years and is curently the Senior Application Architect. While it could be argued that a BS in Math might be applicable to a career in complex application architecture, it isn't the same as a degree in Computer Sciences.

And if I am selecting a team for a complex application, I want his years of expereince and system knowledge, not a fresh out of college with no real world experience.

And regardless of how I gained my knowledge, I am no less a professional than a degreed individual. The professional part isn't conferred with the degree. It is earned in the trenches- whether you are a Doctor, Lawyer, or Project Manager.

Edited for typo

by zaferus Jun 7, 2006

I've worked with a lot of IT people in my career and a large mix of experience over education and vice versa.

I?ve seen people who have ?10+ years experience? but it?s been in a limited scope and they tend to get out of their element quickly, and have seen educated people who don?t have a good grasp of how something works they just know if they put this input in they get a certain output.

I?ve seen a bachelor degree technical manager (aka Mr. Knowitall) who tried to hot swap RAM on a server (that wasn?t hot swappable) and left scorch marks on the motherboard. I?ve seen ?highly experienced? network techs that connected a gigabit server network to a user (workstation/printer) 100 MB network through a 10 MB router and spent 2 weeks working on why the network was ?slow? (and there were 2 of them working on this I kid you not).

I think the question is a valid one, but like most things you can?t say "experience always beats education" or the other way around and I?ve seen great techs from both sides. And seen techs on both sides who only seem to know how to BS their users and management and scapegoat as required.

-Z

I have seen similar. My favourites were the guy who had worked the Help Desk for a number of years and had finally moved to the Unix Security group. Stopped me early one morning because he couldn't connect to the network. My first question to him was if he had done the basics- check your cables etc. "Oh yes" he tells me. I reached around to the back of the computer and handed him his patch cable. It had been un-plugged. He had the grace to be embarrassed.

I think that we all have stories about the idiot moves we have seen. And we can probably tell on ourselves. I agree that not all experience is broad enough to compensate for all needs. I also have seen too many certified "professionals" that couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

But no question, you are correct. I should not have stated an absolute. I agree that there aren't absolute answers to this.

but, if it becomes law that anyone practicing IT needs a bit of paper whats going to happen to the guys with experience?

Are you going to force a 30+ veteran to sit a test of programming in VB? or for that matter what is going to be assessed in such a diverse field? How will the regulators handle bleeding edge fields?

I've been thinking about these questions everytime regulation is mentioned and I can't find an answer. Maybe thats the reason that we don't any regulation yet?

If anything, all you would see was more and more employers demanding it as a job requirement for new hires.

Also, a fresh graduate will not expect as much pay as a 30+ year veteran, so this is a way of keeping the pay scale down.

by mjd420nova Jun 7, 2006

The "paper says you can talk the talk, but walk the walk?? I started in 1963, and learned by "playing" with a bread board and some simple logic chips. I did earn an associate degree while in high school, and was tempered in the storms of the Viet Nam conflict. My first job was in a calibration lab, and the computers came naturally in the early 70's. I have encountered many a "papered" individual, that didn't have a bit of hands on experience, but tried to command a high pay to match the "paper". Many fell by the wayside and left the market segment because of that inexperience. I'm actually an electronics technician, with work experience from high voltage power systems to mainframe systems and support. Most of that background has been on site support for a large cross section of industrial manufacturers. My education has consisted of numerous manufacters schools slanted to specific products and services. A candidate in my view must be able to soothe the savage beast(end user) and fix the problem, whether a modem, printer, plotter, monitor or stand-alone PC's. Many jobs involve working on someone elses products and software. A piece of paper does not reflect this hands on experience, nor does it imply expertiece in any field, only that the fundamentals have been met. Many Cert courses test for these skills, but can not teach how to handle a disgruntled user who knows nothing but professes to know all. I've trained many a tech in the field skills, and even presented a few papers on how to approach users in a forward manner and deal with two problems, 1. The problem as reported by the help desk..2. The problem as perceived by the user. Too often the real problem lies in the interface between the user and the help desk people. An incomplete discription can lead techs to assume one type of failure and doesn't have anything to do with the real problem. I think the use of "papered" persons on the help desk staffs can go a long ways to build the neccesary backgrounds needed to make them effective in the hands on areas. There are those who should never progress beyond the desk, as they are fools in the field. Management staffs should be alert to this, and allow experienced techs to do the screening before turning them lose on unsuspecting users. If this isn't done, the real techs will be scorned by proxy and not trusted. Also, someone who knows their job will have double duty, soothe the feathers of the user whose machine is torn up and fix the offending hardware or software. Not always easy, and sometimes impossible. Choose your candidates carefully. One trick I've used is a simple test of ten questions that are simple to the real tech, but will dumbfound the book learned ones with what may be misleading symptoms.

by sleepin'dawg Jun 7, 2006

you have to realize most candidates are being screened by HR departments who have no concept of what IT is and what is required to perform the job. HR people are human and don't want to make any mistakes and thus, they will look to a certificate as a sort of guarantee an individual is qualified. It makes it very difficult for an experienced individual to get by the screening. It will hopefully change when more computer literate people become involved in HR but that is going to take a while yet. This is why experienced people should try to circumvent HR by approaching department heads directly.

Several years ago, you might have wanted to order some hardware for your department but the purchasing people had no knowledge of computer companies other than IBM. As the saying went, "Nobody ever got fired for buying big blue." I often found myself in the position of practically having to beg purchasing to buy the equipment I was specifying.

A similar attitude is in place in most HR departments. What a cert or degee shows is that an individual is trainable but is no guarantee of competence. That should be determined by the individual asking for the "warm body". Competence comes in many forms, not all qualified by any piece of paper.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

it tells you right where the problem is in the printout, so NOW being used to it, (thanks to your experience) you would probably see it in two.

What used to be fun, when this one guy would go to get the teacher to show his program worked, we would get in and make a few changes, so when he came back it wouldn't work.

The teacher thought he was the biggest loser! Maybe this young pup will learn manners next time? :D At the end of the class, we told him, but there was nothing he could do and no way to prove anything. Knowing bugged him just as much as not knowing had. ]:)
[i]
(this was back in high school, so I plead young and wild and not lose any sleep over this now! B-) )

and that was reading the 30 thousand lines of code one by one until I found it.

The current crop of experienced IT persons from what ever background, qualification, cert, walk of life...

The "current crop" of IT professionals proves that even a degree is no guarantor of skill or talent, let alone centrally regulated certification. The "current crop" proves that many of the best the IT industry has to offer are not only not degreed, but in some cases are almost pathologically opposed to college degrees.

The "current crop" proves that it would be a monumentally awful idea to impose central regulation of the sort you propose on the IT industry.

But looking at the state of some software, systems and national IT projects it is clear that somthing is not right.

How good would it be that have a large enough IT body to say to any large IT company..."NO"...we will not have that.

Currently there is no such method to push for such sweeping changes...

I know a bunch of Surgeons, but I know two Vets who are better as cutters than any FACS member I know...

I also think they are more concerned with their patients than the average Doctor,too.

by subee Jun 7, 2006

Jtakiwi, I think that would would be a great way to determine an individual's skill level - except without the actual union part :) I'm not completely against unions (I used to belong to one) but they tend to foster poor work ethic in some people becase you "can't get fired" without a whole lot of second chances.

by onbliss Jun 7, 2006

Though I have certifications and diplomas, apart from a Physics degree..I am mostly self-taught.

But having something on the line of Associate Member of Institute of Engineers or other professional qualifications, will be an added benefit to our Industry on the whole. This will provide a path for experienced people to be a member or fellow of an internationally recognized body. It is debatable though if people would pursue this path; if they can just go get a normal degree what is the motivation to go this route.

But with different [b]Needs[/b], standards and specifications that are prelevant in the industry, it might be an arduous task. There already exists many consortiums dealing with different aspects of our industry. For example W3C, OMG etc. Having an umbrella Institute, covering all these industry standard and non-standards, could get daunting.

by tink! Jun 7, 2006

Other than medical and legal, many professions don't have regulations stating you HAVE to be certified to be a professional.

This then leaves the decision up to the employer. I was an in Accounting for 2 years, but never certified as an accountant.
I have been managing IT in the officeplace for over a decade, but don't have any actual certificates.

My work experience in the officeplace began when I was a Freshman in high school, so by the time I graduated HS I probably had more office experience than many college grads. It is this experience, as well as my ability to display my aptitude while working, that gave me the jobs that I got. (Assistant Bookkeeper, MIS, IT Mgr)

Certification is nice for an employer because it says the person has the education and the general knowledge of the area, but there is [b]soooo[/b] much that can only be learned through experience. Because tech is a problem solving profession, you can only teach so many incidents, there is no way to cover all things that could happen. Therefore actual experience I think has more weight over a paper.
Tink

I'm very much a professional.

I have no degree, though I spent a fair bit of time in college for computer science and programming before I dropped schooling to move to another state and actually do work. I have a couple certifications, but my experience tells me they don't matter one whit in ensuring that I know what I'm doing. I'm a graduate of two trade schools, and I did learn things at both, but autodidactism has taught me a heck of a lot more.

Work experience has taught me a bit about IT work, but not as much as reading and doing on my own have taught me.

You don't need a piece of paper and letters after your name to make you a professional. The difference between IT professionals and law professionals is, at least in part, that IT professionals not only know the piece of paper and alphabet soup don't make them "professional", but aren't afraid to admit that it's all pretty useless.

Don't push IT toward centralized regulation. All you'll do is make it even more difficult for discerning employers to figure out who's worth hiring. Professional regulation like that of CPAs and lawyers is like a union for rich people, as opposed to unions for poor people as in many blue-collar professions. It's just a way to limit who gets to be a member of an exclusive club, to fatten the people in charge, and to get more money for less value provided from employers.

by hal 9000 Jun 8, 2006

But if you had of said the [b]Difference between True Professionals and Want to be Professionals[/b] is that they realise that all those letters after their name only impress those who are not worth impressing in the first place. So most of use don't even bother remembering what we are supposed to actually use. :p

Personally I only use those silly things when I'm doing Legal Work or work that might lead to Court Action. Even when I was working at IBM one of the Make Believe Jumped Up Smart Arses insisted that I put some letters after my name for the business cards that they where going to print up for me to throw away so I inserted [b]RL[/b] which got him going and he just had to ask me what they meant. I told him [b]Isn't it obvious? Raving Lunatic because I'm working here.[/b] :^0

I never heard another word mentioned about the Alphabet Soup that would take up several lines of paper after that. Of course I always used them when required for the Legal Work or things like that but never on anything else. Mainly because I didn't want a whole lot of [b]Blind Freddie's[/b] following me around asking stupid questions making out that they where impressed because of all those stupid letters. ?:|

Personally I don't know anyone else who uses them either unless their immediate job requires it for strictly Legal Reasons. :p

Col ]:)

by rknrlkid Jun 8, 2006

>>Professional regulation like that of CPAs and lawyers is like a union for rich people, as opposed to unions for poor people as in many blue-collar professions. It's just a way to limit who gets to be a member of an exclusive club, to fatten the people in charge, and to get more money for less value provided from employers.<<

I've been saying this for years! Most "professional" certifications are aimed more to keeping people OUT, then letting people IN! The majority of them (expecially in medicine, law, etc) seem to be more of keeping an exclusive club, than promoting better quality for end customers.

by sir_cheats_alot Jun 7, 2006

"would you hire and trust a self taught Lawyer or Doctor - Doubt it - so why in IT??"

this is a semi-flawed logic, in the sense that you are comparing completely different things..

I for one am self taught. you know what i hear from so called certifed support techs over the phone?? the sound of pages turning in a book. this tells me: A. They are clueless, B. i should hangup right now before they go through the standard check list i automatically go through before i call for help. you know basics..check for loose connections, cables, and so on. OR i cut them off and tell them what is happening, and what i think it might be(after telling them to put away the book of course) naturally i mention my system specs. I love to tease the local repair shops with these things because that is all they do is read from a bookand repeate it to the person on the phone. a friend of mine that works for Gateway told me that they too are told to repeat what ever the book says. If an HP user calls my ISP for help specifically do you know what the number one thing they might tell them to do? REBOOT. surprisingly enough that seems to work 40% of the time.

Anyone can repeats what a book says(which a lot of the time is exactly what certified techs with little or no actual hands on experience do). in the real world environmeant you probably don't have a book to look to,and your expected to just know the information. a certification to me means very little, beyond that you had the money to go to a university or tech school. In my case i don't have the money to go to a tech school and get certified. for the most part i am probably the most honest(if not second most) PC repair guy in my area. If i don't know how to fix something right off hand i'll say so. in the spirit of not remainning ignorant i search the web for similar problems, and i usually come across a solution that works. if i don't come up with a solution, then i send them to someone i know with more knowledge then i...he happens to live right around the corner from me, and is certified, so i often ask his opinions.
I have been doing this the last 4 1/2 years, and i think i've done quite well, and i have never heard a complaint from anyone. if i mess something up i fix it no extra charge. I value hands on experience a little more than then certifications(even though they are nice to have) as i have seen far too many ignorant people at "help desks", and phone support.

In short a certification means nothing without experience to back it up.

There was no money made available to me for this degree.- I worked long hours in to the night after class and every weekend for 5 years to earn the money to take my degree. In fact (after year 2) I ended up working for the University as a Tech (the 'sacred' experience - it was a clever move if I do say so). I left with 3 years tech experience and a degree. I barely had a day off over the 5 year period.

by gsquared Jun 7, 2006

The workings of the human body don't change from month to month or year to year. The understanding of it does (MRI alone has made huge differences, and PET scans and such), but there are basics, like setting bones and pulling bad teeth, that have been true for millennia.

Law is slow to change as well.

It's easier to regulate when you can have a standard in place for long enough that the students learning it in school will still use it when they graduate.

If you studied medicine, law, engineering, accounting, etc., in the 1970s, you're probably still able to do a decent job as a family doctor, a lawyer, a civil engineer, or an accountant. If you studied computers in the 1970s, you have just about zero skills from that time that are still applicable.

If you studied medicine in the late 90s, you definitely still have skills that are applicable. But you probably wouldn't be familiar with XML Web services, definitely wouldn't be familiar with Ruby on Rails, DotNetNuke, etc.

The thing about working in IT is that much of the production is closely related to research. Using a new technology to do a new thing, or to do an old thing better than before, is what IT is all about.

If you check, the people doing medical research are often not MDs. The people researching new materials to build buildings and bridges are not construction engineers. And so on. IT has the two subjects, research and practice, too closely tied together to truly standardize.

On the trust issue: Would you trust a doctor who got his MD from Harvard in the 60s, who reads the medical news, but who hasn't the foggiest idea how to operate an MRI or PET scan, who's been practicing family medicine solidly since then? For a regular MD type issue, yearly checkup, kid's got the flu type things, you would do well to trust that doctor.

Would you trust a computer programmer whose training was in the 60s, who still uses punch-cards, who hasn't the foggiest notion what an object is and thinks that database programmers are talking about second movies (which are never as good as the first one, except for Empire Strikes Back of course)? Would you hand him a project? Definitely not.

The same can be said for lawyers, accountants, civil engineers, etc., as for the family doctor.

So, self-trained or formally trained, it's the skills held and the familiarity with them, not the piece of paper, in IT.

Thank goodness we don't actually need the bureaucratic nonsense of unions in IT. You can get the equivalent of apprenticeship via open source development and support: write excellent howtos, provide "technical support" to your peers in the open source community, write code, run mailing lists and integration projects, and so on. It all adds up to a fair bit of parallel with union apprenticeship and mentoring mechanisms. Given time, it will even be as widely accepted as a measure of competence and professionalism -- as long as nobody actually screws it all up with central regulation and/or unionization in the meantime.

by kattoon Jun 7, 2006

We have a simple solution in our IT dept. We have a 4 hour test that each new hire has to take before they can even come in for a formal interview. If they cannot pass the test, they don't get the interview. You would be suprised how many people cannot pass the test, but say they've worked in IT support for years.

We grew tired of hiring people that supposedly knew their software/hardware, and had papers proving it, but could not cut it in our busy department.

It's pretty bad when a person who graduated with a BS in Computer Science and got their MOUS certification still can't pass the test.

Most of the people who passed the test and are now valued employees, are self taught or were taught on the job. Most of them do not have degrees in a technology field.

Several months ago I interviewed with a company that gave a VB .Net ?test? using snippets of code from their own system with errors added. The objective was to find the errors that the programmers added. Unfortunately I not only found the added errors, I also found some of the errors that are in their current production system. They were a little bent out of shape over that, needless to say I did not get the job.

by kattoon Jun 7, 2006

Sorry you didn't get the job (although they should have seen the bright side to your findings).

We do the exact thing here. Our test is made up of Real Tech Support questions we get, and it includes some minor networking trouble-shooting questions and what we call "Beyond the Basics" for MS Office. The test is long, but if you know your stuff, it isn't really that difficult.

When someone fails it or doesn't finish, then we know that person doesn't know what they say they know.

by geeen Jun 7, 2006

I've been in the industry 7 years and it's all self taught with a few classes as a beginner in new technologies here and there. I think it's a great thing to get into new stuff, you can get your certs or whatever other paper you want to get later. The experience is much more helpful than the paper. I took a class just to take it back a few years ago and I had more knowledge then the trainer - but I have also taken short classes on different subjects that I have knowledge in and have found the instructors to be great at showing me items I was unsure of or just didn't know about. So, it's a double edged sword in some cases. But I'll take the experienced over the paper any day.

by jdmercha Jun 7, 2006

Show me a 12-year-old who can remove an appendix or write a will.

I can show you many 12-year-olds that can build and operate a computer, write code and develop web pages.

lets put them on linux boxes, with no drag and drop development tools [ since those aren't common in linux ] and see how well they do. ;)

by jdmercha Jun 7, 2006

They teach that stuff in our high school. But to be more exact, they teach C++ using notepad. And the kids are 16 not 12.

Recently a friend was lamenting the fact that he couldn?t call himself a senior web developer because he doesn?t know C#. I tried to explain that there are plenty of senior web developers that don?t know C#, they know PHP or VB or Java or JavaScript. Titles don?t depend on the specifics; rather they depend on the subject matter knowledge. The only thing that was stopping him from giving himself a title was himself.

There really are no standards for titles or even a cheat sheet with equivalencies. Life would be a lot easier if everyone knew that an STA at Bell labs was equal to a Systems Analyst II at Fidelity.

Of all the titles that I?ve had over the years I am most proud of one that a former manager gave me a few years ago, ?Mad Scientist?. It has a nice ring to it and tends to stop people in their tracks.

the best one I got was the can do guy. I got everything done that was asked, even when everyone else said it couldn't be done. :)

not counting, of course, the time I gave myself the title of GOD, which actually went over very well in that workplace. ]:)

by ed woychowsky Jun 8, 2006

You get to have worshipers and I get to have minions.

by deadly ernest Jun 7, 2006

Everything in a uni course is the edited collected wisdom of what others have done and found time to write down. Sadly, the editorial bit done by educators and academics often result in teaching results and not processes. And they tend to leave out, or gloss over, anything they disagree with or think is no longer relevant.

Many of the greatest advances have come about because someone did something the highly trained experts at uni just KNEW was impossible to do.

The world has room for both and people from both spheres contribute in different ways.

I was self taught and then went and got qualifications to say I knew what I knew. In class, some of the better teachers would seek comment from me about some things as my knowledge exceeded theirs.

by sleepin'dawg Jun 8, 2006

intelligence and far to many don't or won't use what little they've got. When [b]we[/b] hire people it is always on a probationary six month trial. I often find the people we retain are the experienced ones, with or without papers. Most of the time we end up chopping the ones who think their degree or certs guarantees their positions.

I try to avoid direct management because I know I am not the most diplomatic of individuals, in fact I can be somewhat brutal at times. If you asked me how I inspire people, it's really quite simple, I remind them that nobody is irreplaceable and if they won't or can't deliver what I want or need, I will find people who can. The implied threat usually produces the results I am seeking. Not too surprisingly, it is uasually the experienced people who'll come through best for me.

The funny thing is, I must be doing something right, in terms of management. The turnover in personnel is very low by industry standards. My partners keep telling me I have to be more diplomatic in todays business environment but I point out to them that all our people know, I apply the same standards to myself as I do to the employees. I'll pull myself off a job and give it to someone with more competence rather than persist in screwing around with something I think I'm liable to bolix up. My people know that and when they start to feel something is beyond them, they aren't afraid to speak up and say so, because I have yet to fire anyone honest enough who will admit his limitations. In these cases I reassign the individual to more suitable tasks. However, the individual who tries to bullsh:t his way through the job is going to be toast; very quickly. I am not renowned for patience or the ability to suffer fools. Experienced people are quick to pick up on this, those who've just graduated quite often just don't measure up.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by it cowgirl Jun 7, 2006

Law school merely trains law students how to use their skills to interpret the law, how to find the law. The art of practising law and knowing what is the current law are self taught. Not much different than Abe Lincoln teaching himself the law.

I think it is brilliant that your company actually tests people to prove what they say they know.

Many years ago I was applying for a job. The description stated a requirement that I "knew" computers. The recruiter went through the basic tests- the ones I could do sleeping (how do you create a document in Word?). Finished the tests and was waiting for a printout of the result. Printer proceeded to go down hard. So I fixed it.

I was later told that they had never had such a perfect fit for a company ever before. I was there for two years before I made a geographical move that ended our association. For about five years later, I continued to get calls from my old boss asking if I would consider moving back as they couldn't find anyone with my skill set.

It is always good to be valued because you bring the right skill set to the table.

PS- Ed- you should have never been passed over because you found their errors. They should have been ecstatic that you would consider joining them!

But Ernest, there is precious little competency based training here in the US. Even trade schools don't give you what you need- at least in IT.

For your "I don't believe it" file-

I know a wonam who was going for a Masters in Computer Science. Her first year she ended up in a Java course. Her first assignment she came to me- help me figure this out. We spent two nights on it- presumably that was the work she turned in. Got another assignment- didn't come to me, went a friend of mine. She had plans for the weekend so basically what she did was drop it on him- do this for me, it's for work. He called me to see if I knew anything about the requirements which were unclear to him. As the assignment seemed familiar, I pulled out my daybook. Sure enough it was this woman's homework.

She hasn't completed her Masters some 5 years later... my friend and I suddenly became unavailable.

by deadly ernest Jun 7, 2006

Here in Aust it came about due to a national conference on training in the mid 1980's. The Prime Minister of the day (Bob Hawke) called together business, unions and educators. The end result was a recommendation that the whole tertiary education system convert to competency based training, and that some of the secondary eductaion go that way.

Well the technical colleges quickly switched as did some of the state schools (changes depended upon state govt policies). But there was very little take up at the unis as it now meant the professors had to do quantative assessments and not qualatative, thus they lost power over the students and the externally checkable tests would show up any teacher short comings.

This did happen with the tech colleges and the overall quality of teaching went up as the poor ones left to be replaced with quality teachers.

It took many years but some unis are now becoming competency based in their courses. I never could understand the uni objections after all the medical and structural engineering courses are naturals for CBT.

Some of the hold out unis did not even think about switching until after Bob Hawke tied Federal govt funding to unis on their level of CBT support and this lead to slow funding cut backs that took years to eat the fat out of the unis. They are not yet all CBT and many are screaming about having insufficient funding despite not going with the govt directive to switch to CBT some 20 years later.

I know how you feel about 'friends' and 'helping' with their studied. On my web site I have a work in progress that started as study notes on maths for a 'friend' who is doing a course in early childhood teacher. Don't know why, she hates kids and can'e teach if her life depedned upon it. She wants a degree as it will get her a better job as a govt clerk and this was the easiest one for her. :0

Anyway, she failled maths in high school and now has to relearn all the maths up to year 10 - so I taught her and got her through the three semesters of maths she had to learn. The notes are simple, and I do mean simple, explainations of what certain maths things are and how you do them.

I call this a work in progress as it has gone so far that I intend, some time :p , to expand it and make it available as a more comprehensive maths teaching aid.

Looking at responses do we then want change the way IT is educated in the first place. For example: Have courses with more hands on / apprenticeship / real life situations - would this become more appealing to the masses??

For the experienced not needing this path, say a fast track method to gain the same credential?

This would then build foundation level requirements for all and could cover proprietary and open source elements.

The credential could have levels ? if you want to take it further.

by hal 9000 Jun 8, 2006

I've tried to kill a few over the years but they just managed to run too fast for me to catch them. :(

When I went to Uni there where [b]No Computer Science Courses[/b] it was all called [b]Electronic Engineering[/b] so from a technical point of view I have no IT Qualifications even if I do have a PHD in Electronic Engineering specialising in Computing Systems.

I've been working with Mainframes since 74 and PC's sometime after that when what is now called a Note Book actually was called a [b]Portable[/b] and looked like a Plastic Suitcase only heaver.

But the very first [b]Paper Qualified Person[/b] that I ran across was given a job by me to write some code to be part of an [b]Engine Management System[/b] back in those days we wrote the code in Boolean and had to fit it on a 64K EPROM. The one very small subsystem that he rewrote for me came back as a 128 K Basic format to burn into that EPROM and when I asked how he intended to actually fit the entire system on the available Hardware I was told that it wasn't his problem that should be left to a [b]Hardware Designer[/b] to accomplish. He was a good example of why [b]Paper Training[/b] doesn't work in this field and I might add the Medical Field as well as those guys not only operate on Cadavers but latter on in their courses they treat living sick people. We call them [b]Medical Students.[/b]

But I've worked with several [b]Paper Trained Techs[/b] and several On the Job Trained ones and I look for commitment rather than anything else if the people are willing and want to work as apposed to just having a 9 to 5 job with [b]Great Pay[/b] I'll take the worker every time no matter what the qualifications are. You can always teach what is required but you'll never manage to make a lazy person do an effective job properly.

I used to look for commitment to the job in all my staff when I chose them and I think that you'll find the same applies today no matter the field.

Col

When you set a path like that, you discourage those who are already here. I have worked successfully in my profession for several years. Are you suggesting that someone like myself or HAL or Maecuff should be required to waste a mass of time and money so that we can continue to do what we already successfully do?

There IS a certification for Project Management. I refuse to get it. Why? Because the governing body has determined that there is no difference between leading an IT project and leading a Construction project.(!) Having had to do both, I KNOW there is a difference and a major one. There is finally a cert that recognises this difference but it hasn't gained traction yet. And I can take it further- there is a difference between an infrastructure project and a software dev project. How do you define a single cert for that? How do you define a career path for it? Answer, you don't.

I do not see a value to acquiring an cert just because it is there. I feel strongly that it is a waste of my time to get a cert that doesn't tell you what I am qualified to do. Read my resume- if my qualifications and history of success are not enough, I probably don't care to work for you. Why? Because I am MORE than my education or area of specialty. I have unquantifiable skills that allow me to be successful in the projects I take on. I didn't get those skills by reading a book and taking a test. I got them though years of experience in both IT and elsewhere.

I don't feel a need to seek a credential or certification that doesn't tell you nearly enough about what I am able to do. The fact is that my EXPERIENCE is what determines if I get the job.

by zaferus Jun 8, 2006

I think you're right on with this TiggerTwo.

The problem is that exams can't test some of the most important aspects of a good IT person. The ability to work with people, to follow a solid troubleshooting process in complex situations and the ability to pick up concepts and learn system intricacies can't be tested past a very simple level.

Exams typically follow absolutes and theory over reality - which is why many people study for the exam differently than for application in the real world. I've gotten lots of certifications and many tests really had nothing to do with what I needed to know for what I was certified in.

The problem with an apprentice program is that the best IT people are always unbelievably swamped and only the mediocre or poor ones would be readily available - and do you want people learning from them?

-Z

by deadly ernest Jun 8, 2006

except the carriculum stuff. With CBT you have practical quantitaive exams, it is easy to have subjects set up so that people, who know how, can self study. Thus the self-study and the experienced can come in and sit the exam, if they pass they pass. Next subject thanks. When I did my quals, using CBT I did a whole semester's worth of classess by turning up week one at the self-study centre, get the project assignments; take them home return them for marking in week two and sit the exam (which included amendments to the projects) at the same time. That was Smester 1 done in two weeks, took a break and then did semester 2, the same way; followed by half of semester 3 and a third of semester 4; all done in the first two months. If you are a fast self learner or experienced you easily fast track by proving you can do it.

Is that not like administering your own [the company] cert to even get the job. How is that any better than having an industry standard cert so you do not need to worry about it...

Or is it that companies would rather do this than trust a standard cert program?

by rob mekel Jun 8, 2006

A company self test or cert (CSC) gives the company the insight on how one has converted his Industry Standard Cert (ISC) AND working experience in to skills needed for the job.
So will give the company better knowledge of what kinda employee they?re going to hire. And there is of course the difference between passing an ISC examination with A+ or D- (if the latter is ever possible)
All in all the company will have better results to make their decision upon who to hire.

A CSC is more in addition to an ISC then a replacement of.

Rob

There are those of us out here that pre-date IT certification or indeed even degrees. When I started, the MOUS and MCSE didn't exist. There wasn't a wiring standard outside of best practice- which every person who has ever pulled cable is aware of. Or should be. BICSI was a telephony standard, not a data standard.

There are women in the field- like me- who were actively discouraged from IT because it wasn't a woman friendly field. The women here in this forum represent many of us that have had to break barriers in order to advance. And breaking those barriers had NOTHING to do with a degree. You don't GET a degree in glass ceiling breaking.

Edited because I want a spell checker!

by kattoon Jun 8, 2006

As a woman, I found I had to prove myself that much more just to get as far as I did in the tech industry. It's not so hard nowadays, but back in the late 80s early 90s (when I was job seeking), it was much more difficult.

I broke the barriers by shear skill and knowledge, not a degree (I don't have a degree, just some college classes)

by kattoon Jun 8, 2006

This is a test geared to the needs of OUR company only. Not all companies have the same needs or need the same standards.

Even within our large firm, there are some offices that have a greater need for specific knowledge than the other offices. So the tests for each office within our company may or may not be exactly the same. Some may have more networking questions, some may have hardware and software questions and some may only have software questions. It depens on the size and needs of the office in question.

This is where "standardization" fails. It assumes that all companies have the same needs.

by x-marcap Jun 8, 2006

The company test finds out these things.
1. Do you know your stuff.
2. Can you think on your feet.
3. Are you willing to be cooperative.

Std Certs concentrate on stuff that may be completely irrelevant. You can know virtually everything about the system but not know about mass deployment. Most companies do not use MS mass deployments, anyway.

by jaqui Jun 8, 2006

come with a non distro centric linux cert, it will impress.
come with no cert, doesn't matter

come with a company cert, not impressed.

if you are going to be working tech for me, or as a developer, you had better be able to follow instructions ]:)
I test techs and developers by handing them parts, a cd and a printout, they get to assemble the hardware, then build from source the os.

this is the hiring test. if you fail, you can't do the job.

by maecuff Jun 8, 2006

a degree or certs will fix that?

How?

by shellbot Jun 8, 2006

"state of some software" ??

The most robust application i ever had the pleasure to work with was done by a team of 2 "unqualified" people, who had a few years experience. They started out at the bottom and worked thier way up, teaching themselves, learning the trade..because they spent years doing the crap tasks, BUT that made them better developers.

Now the current database application i support was done by a team of 4 people. Each CERTIFIED in thier particular field. The Lead Web Developer has about 100 qualifications (i exagerate of course but you get the idea).
It is the biggest piece of i have ever seen/worked with. This guy doesn't know what an array is? How does someone who is supposedly a certified Javascript expert not know what an array is?? I asked him to include 2 new ID's in the array that specified which ID's were exported, and he came out and said he didn't know how, did i know? If i did, he would give me remote access to his computer to do it.

Now thankfully, having taught myself web design, javascript, dhtml, visual fox pro, sql server (i'm no expert at it, but i freely admit it)..ect ect..i was able to insert the required info..

Excuse my rant, but in the past, i have always hired experience and willingness to learn over fancy qualifications. I know alot of people who get the paper because they can make more money. Beats working as Mickey D's as one once said. I know developers who don't even own their own computer..

But yes, all things equal, like no experience, then a cert goes a long way to at least say they have some fundamentals.