S
Scott M.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this (I can always tell when a thread
will go on for a while).
I have had about 8 years of general HR experience working for corporate
hotel & restaurant chains. From there, I worked for an IT Training &
Consulting firm (formerly Professional Development Group [N.E. based] now
known as Knowledge Impact) for 5 years. I started as an instructor and
became heavily involved in Recruitment & Selection of, not only instructors,
but architects, engineers and software developers. We were, in fact,
delivering the MS curriculum at the time.
For the last 6 years, I have owned and operated my own training & consulting
business (TechTrainSolutions.com) and, in that time, I have hired several MS
certified contractors for various projects. Because I have had experiences
(bad ones) with MS certified folks (not all, mind you) in my former
position(s), I have known not to rely solely on the cert.
It's difficult working with contractors, because you don't often get to meet
them, face to face, before making the hire decision. Sometimes I am looking
for instructors (and MS certified people tend to do well as instructors) and
sometimes I am looking for engineers, architects and/or developers.
One decision I made for my business at the very beginning, was to NOT
become, nor work with MCT's (MS Certified Trainers). That may sound strange
coming from the owner/operator of an IT training business. But, when you
are an MCT, you are forced to use the MS curriculum (which, by the way
sucks!) and you may not deviate from it. As a trainer myself, I can tell
you that having the courseware, outline and exercises mandated in such a
severe way is not condusive to learning. It's condusive to maintaining
consistency, which is what MS wants, but not condusive to educating people.
I wanted and need the flexibility to throw away the lesson plan if that's
what a particular group needs in order to understand the concepts and
implemenation of whatever we're discussing.
Anyway (and back on topic), one important fact that you shouldn't forget is
that many certified people expect better compensation because of their cert
(like a college grad would) and most larger companies provide their own on
or off-site training to their employees (by hiring companies like mine).
From dealing with these HR people for over 10 years, I can tell you that
they'd rather hire someone with skills and train them on what they don't
know than to hire someone claiming to know it all.
Ok well, my fingers are getting tired as well.
Take care,
Scott
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this (I can always tell when a thread
will go on for a while).
I have had about 8 years of general HR experience working for corporate
hotel & restaurant chains. From there, I worked for an IT Training &
Consulting firm (formerly Professional Development Group [N.E. based] now
known as Knowledge Impact) for 5 years. I started as an instructor and
became heavily involved in Recruitment & Selection of, not only instructors,
but architects, engineers and software developers. We were, in fact,
delivering the MS curriculum at the time.
For the last 6 years, I have owned and operated my own training & consulting
business (TechTrainSolutions.com) and, in that time, I have hired several MS
certified contractors for various projects. Because I have had experiences
(bad ones) with MS certified folks (not all, mind you) in my former
position(s), I have known not to rely solely on the cert.
It's difficult working with contractors, because you don't often get to meet
them, face to face, before making the hire decision. Sometimes I am looking
for instructors (and MS certified people tend to do well as instructors) and
sometimes I am looking for engineers, architects and/or developers.
One decision I made for my business at the very beginning, was to NOT
become, nor work with MCT's (MS Certified Trainers). That may sound strange
coming from the owner/operator of an IT training business. But, when you
are an MCT, you are forced to use the MS curriculum (which, by the way
sucks!) and you may not deviate from it. As a trainer myself, I can tell
you that having the courseware, outline and exercises mandated in such a
severe way is not condusive to learning. It's condusive to maintaining
consistency, which is what MS wants, but not condusive to educating people.
I wanted and need the flexibility to throw away the lesson plan if that's
what a particular group needs in order to understand the concepts and
implemenation of whatever we're discussing.
Anyway (and back on topic), one important fact that you shouldn't forget is
that many certified people expect better compensation because of their cert
(like a college grad would) and most larger companies provide their own on
or off-site training to their employees (by hiring companies like mine).
From dealing with these HR people for over 10 years, I can tell you that
they'd rather hire someone with skills and train them on what they don't
know than to hire someone claiming to know it all.
Ok well, my fingers are getting tired as well.
Take care,
Scott
Dave Sexton said: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
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.
