Hi Scott,
I had no idea that you worked in HR, so it's nice to hear those comments from
someone with real experience in seeing how people measure up. But my personal
experiences still differ so I'm not sure I can concede to your perspective
without some other opinions from HR people too. Just out of curiosity, if you
don't mind me asking, where exactly have you conducted interviews for solution
developers?
Here I've tried to create a comparison of different credentials to each other
and on-site testing used when determining whether a candidate is suitable for
job placement. In each row I list the minimum set of proof that I believe can
be safely assumed, in general, for each credential and in each of the metrics
listed. The purpose was to help me organize, and therefore understand, the
relationships between the credentials and there potential value to employers,
but I really like how it turned out so I'm going to post it
(Originally, I wrote this chart in a grid layout but out of a fear of
misalignment I chose horizontal partitioning instead - I hope it's legible
College
Cost At least some; usually high
Time Invested At least some
Learning Some proof
Studies At least enough to pass
Knowledge At least enough to pass; acquired through studies
Experience No proof
Skill No proof
Person No proof
Certification
Cost At least some
Time Invested At least some; more for those without experience
Learning Some proof
Studies At least enough to pass or supplemented by experience
Knowledge At least enough to pass; acquired through studies and/or
experience
Experience No proof
Skill No proof
Person No proof
Resume
Cost Generally free
Time Invested None
Learning No proof
Studies No proof
Knowledge No proof
Experience Some proof, but only when job history is supplied and
can be verified
Skill No proof
Person No proof
On-Site Testing
Cost N/A
Time Invested N/A
Learning No proof
Studies At least enough to pass or supplemented by experience
Knowledge At least enough to pass; acquired through studies and/or
experience
Experience No proof
Skill Some proof
Person Some proof, but only after meeting them in person
All other things being equal, it's clear to me that certifications and degrees
can make up for some of the places where resumes lack. It's also clear that
on-site testing is the best means for finding a suitable employee. Since you
can't very well meet and test everyone that has applied for a position, in
many cases, it makes sense that you should probably value degrees and/or
certifications over resumes when choosing who you are going to interview.
I've worked with several college grads that I wouldn't hire for my own
business and I'm sure the same would be true for some MCSDs, but I find that
many of the developers I've worked with that don't have any credentials really
have been novice programmers with well-written resumes. They are hired many
times without adequate testing and are expected to author WinForms and web
applications, design databases, analyze business requirements; generally
architect and implement solutions far beyond their ability. In the past, a
lot of them have relied on me for help, and in many cases I was learning
myself so I was just doing the research for them. Training for these new
hires ends up being a free course on entry level .NET in some cases.
Therefore, I'd prefer at least some credentials over those candidates that
only supply a resume, but I respect your experiences as well. Therefore, I
would just caution employers to be wary when inviting people in for an
interview based solely on their certification and/or educational achievements,
although there isn't really much else to go on, and should test them as you
have suggested to get a better idea of their knowledge and skills (although
not necessarily their ability). But I definitely don't think that
certifications should be completely disregarded when browsing the market.
I don't want to get carpal tunnel, so I'm done for the night. (sorry for the
excessively long post
--
Dave Sexton
Scott M. said:
Well, I do happen to have quite a bit of experience in HR (with a specialty
in recruitment and selection). If I am looking for a software developer,
engineer or architect, I will put in requirements for applicants such as
college degrees and minimum experience requirements. Those are the things
that will weed out the folks without the minimum requisites I am looking
for.
Now, if I had 2 applicants with identical backgrounds and one had the certs
and one didn't, I have to tell you that the certs wouldn't, in any way,
shift my focus to the one that has them. I've just seen too many people
that have the certs, but not the skills & knowledge.
I would (as most tech empoyers do) give each applicant either a test of my
own or ask them to provide examples (not written, code) of projects they
have worked on and solutions they have created.
It's just my opinion, and I am in NO WAY saying that anyone who has a cert
doesn't have knowledge. I'm simply saying that a cert doesn't tell me what
"skills" and "experience" they have. And, that's what I need to know if I'm
hiring someone.
-Scott
Dave Sexton said:
Hi Scott,
I hear you Dave, I just disagree that you can say (with any generality)
whether or not a cert holder knows more than a non-cert holder.
I think experienced human resource personnel would disagree.
The mantra that has worked well for me in these situations is "show me
what you can do" don't "tell me what you can do".
I agree that's a better approach to finding the right employees for the job
than hiring only on the criteria of certifications and degrees. The point
is, who do you ask to show you what they can do? I would choose a person
with a cert or degree over someone without, because the person that
possesses the credentials are telling you what they can do and that's the
first step. The question I posed before tries to clear up whether or not
certs actually tell an employer what the person can do, and that's why I've
asked for feedback from people with a lot of experience interviewing job
candidates with and without certifications and degrees, but my experience
tells me that MCSDs are generally better solution developers.
Resumes are complete nonsense and I think they should be generally ignored
by any serious employers as credentials. Certs and degrees fill in the
spot nicely because they are neutral, just like SSL certs. They also look
nice on a wall if they aren't damaged during shipment
--
Dave Sexton
Scott M. said:
I hear you Dave, I just disagree that you can say (with any generality)
whether or not a cert holder knows more than a non-cert holder.
The mantra that has worked well for me in these situations is "show me
what you can do" don't "tell me what you can do".
Hi Scott,
[Just having some knowledge, e.g., enough to pass the tests, isn't
usually
enough to potential employers so I guess the real question is, are MCSDs
generally more knowledgeable and experienced than those without
certification?]
I think only those experienced in interviewing could accurately answer
this
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this. My experience tells
me that employers care about what you know and what you can do for them,
cert or no cert. For programmers anyway, most employers ask for
examples of programs that the candidate has written or worked on and ask
them to explain their solution. Some employers give a "test" of their
own during an interview to weed the "talk the talkers" from the "walk
the walkers".
True, but I was just stating that I think experienced interviewers know
better if MCSDs commonly "walk the walk" and whether those that aren't
certified generally just "talk the talk". In my limited experience
working with MCSDs and interviewing people in general, both points seem
to be true. If so then employers would benefit from holding MCSDs in a
higher regard over the general population of developers.
