Certifications are what makes something a profession vs a job.
Doctors, Lawyers, and plumbers all have certifications. You can be pretty sure that someone in a profession has a minimum level of competence. They may not be awesome, but they’re not a total idiot.
With software, you have to evaluate each candiate on their individual merits. And figure out what that means. And figure out how to do it. FizzBuzz, is, almost, in a way, a certification. They’re just first-pass filters
The real issue is the possibility of certification mills and/or gaming.
In the .NET world if you saw someone who was recently “C# .NET Certified” you usually took it as a sign that the developer didn’t know how to code. This may have been an isolated culture thing but I think its pretty universal in the software culture that you learn through doing.
I think the closet thing we have to certification right now is a CS or Engineering degree. After that its largely products you’ve shipped, open source contributions, or references from other developers.
I think its pretty universal in the software culture that you learn through doing.
Sure. But then after learning, I can surely prove that I have some demonstrable level of competence.
In theory, this is what certifications should provide, but in practice, certifications generally signal the exact opposite in this field. My guess would be that this is a function of the lack of maturity of software development as a profession, and the pace of growth in demand for developers.
As long as it is easy for a good developer to find employment without spending time and money on certification, only the incompetent and inexperienced seek out certification in an attempt to bolster their spotty résumés.
Right, I find this to be an overall reactionary attitude. But, as computers become more central to everything we do, we must acknowledge our overall responsibilities to the rest of humanity and stop the childishness cowboy coding.
Not all certifications are driven by people bolstering resumes, many times, employers request and pay for certification.
There is a distinction between a certification for a profession and a certification as described in this article.
Doctor/Lawyer/Plumber style certification is usually government mandated because people’s lives and property are at stake. For a large portion of software development there can be shoddy work that gets the job done(most software development) . I don’t think we will be seeing certification on this level for Software for a long time. If we do see it, it will be certification for application domains where lives are in danger (avionics, medical, plumbing). Not in Rails.
The certification described, as well as the certification that pops into my mind, are the tool specific certifications. In order for certifications to be valid and taken seriously they need a certain level of rigor above just learning the tools(Rails) and practices. These are seen as bad because more often then not they are pushed by tech schools and the company trying to pimp their goods. I think these are cultural things that will change with time, but until then we’ve only got the institution, degree and past works.
I will admit to actually being AT said discussion, and therefore, relating more to the discussion itself than to the article’s take on it. That may have something to do with it!
work that gets the job done
Right, I would argue it actually doesn’t get the job done. It’s often overbudget, overschedule, and has terrible UI/UX.
Regardless, I certainly acknowledge that the University of Phoenix-es of the world aren’t doing anyone any good.
The problems you describe I have experienced both in the Enterprise and doing Client work. And I can say with confidence that communication and “specification” are largely to blame. The product owner says X, the developer hears and then makes Y, product owner complains, budget expands, schedule expands. Further the organizations that have these issues are also never given time to refactor systems or code and it devolves into a ball of mud. UI/UX being poor is also largely because the product owner holds the money and power, has a vision for what it should look like and nags until it looks one way.
These are hard issues and its largely why you see so many methodologies, document types, diagrams and protocols in the enterprise and client work.
That said these is not always the case. Your point stands very often. Lots of developers make mistakes out of lack skill and they are paid barely anything for their work!
I think there is a market for all levels of skill in development right now because Bob’s Pizza is going to pay the old guy down the block to whip together a website for him for $50. He learned in a class and can do it in frontpage! If I had to go through the trouble of an expensive certification there is no way I’m making Bob’s Pizza website for $50, there is a good chance I wouldn’t do it for any price.
Agreed! And if software became more of a profession, I think we could help properly guide people into adopting better practices; nobody tells a lawyer how to run a court case, for example.
But, as computers become more central to everything we do, we must acknowledge our overall responsibilities to the rest of humanity and stop the childishness cowboy coding.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but to move in this direction I think it’s necessary to recognize the current state of the world.
It’s all well and good to say that certs should be good, prestigious signals of competency, but you’ll never get them there if you don’t directly engage with the reasons they currently serve as the exact opposite.
Sure. I don’t see certs as a panacea, by any means. But I think that the utter, instant repulsion to them just as disdainful as people who whinge about XML. Certainly, it can suck. Most things can suck. But it’s not always terrible.
I think it’s important though to draw a distinction between competency in a field, versus competency with a specific toolset. The examples you give are all the former, IMO.
A Rails certification would be a very narrow, toolset-based competency, of more value to HR people and those issuing the certs, than to the person taking them.
This is an interesting distinction. I’ll have to give it more thought.
Why do you see the certs as being valuable only to employers? If it gets you more likely to be hired, it’d be just as valuable to the employee. I can see it being valuable to both or neither.
I think there’s more long-term value in learning and being able to apply generic CS/Software Engineering knowledge to a problem, versus knowing how to achieve a very specific task with a certain tool. (I’m probably biased, as I’d like to think that 4 years at university weren’t entirely wasted!)
Yeah, see, my CS degree was basically worthless. I learned much more about CS on my own. That said, I use my tool-specific training way, way more than anything I did in my degree. This may be a function of being a Rubyist.
A tendency towards autodidactism does seem to be a common theme in these sort of discussions. My personal experience has been that my degree gave me the grounding I need to learn any specific tool/concept/whatever that I need to do my job each day. Could I have gotten just as far without it? Maybe.
Obviously everyone’s mileage varies; learning style can have a huge effect on the value one places on a specific mode of instruction, as well as the material itself.
Personally, I think the whole apprenticeship movement has a lot of merit to it, my main criticism of the software engineering element of my degree was that the industry-based project element of it was contrived compared to the reality of working in a consultancy. If you’re going to claim to instruct on “industry-relevant” skills, then you should make sure they actually reflect the reality of the industry…
I think the most important thing is to support genuine learning and useful skill acquisition, rather than the “check a box” mentality that a lot of other certifications seem to entail.
Right! I think that apprenticeship is an excellent model for software education, and we should be doing more of it. In the Ruby world, we have been. It’s pretty awesome.
However, at the discussion, developers expressed repulsion to even ‘I successfully completed this training course’ as a certificate.