

Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate - edw519
http://gojko.net/2009/09/22/joe-the-developer-doesnt-need-a-certificate/

======
henning
> Joe the Plumber heard that you can make more money programming than plumbing
> and decided to suddenly become a programmer.

Where did Joe the Plumber get that misinformation?

~~~
RyanMcGreal
From a certified developer.

~~~
gloob
From a developer certifier.

------
cousin_it
Woah. People usually oppose certification because it creates barriers to
entry. (In particular, I subscribe to this point of view even though I'm a
long-time programmer.) Now this guy opposes certification for the _opposite_
reason - that it makes entry into the profession _too easy_. In a better world
this would've been some kind of clever postmodern provocative trick, like Alan
Sokal or whatever, but something tells me this is for real.

~~~
huhtenberg
An anecdote.

Back in late 90s I managed to get second best score in the country (for that
year) in Visual Basic exam under Microsoft Certified Solution Developer
program. The catch was that I had have never written a single line in Visual
Basic nor had I have any substantial database development experience.

So, yeah, it is entirely possible to get certified and not know a thing about
a certification subject. Guy's got a point.

~~~
gdp
That's just an example of a bad certification process. Being able to provide
an example of bad certification does not invalidate the entire concept.

~~~
derefr
Can you give an example of a _good_ certification process for developers? I
can't think of a one I would hire based upon.

~~~
bfung
How about making the person taking the certification create working, readable
programs, and have them submit their answers electronically. Like how
programming assignments were in college, except without the rife copying
between the participants. I think this test would weed out many people from
the very beginning.

~~~
gdp
You're talking about programming and creating programs. That would be a
really, really useless certification.

~~~
bfung
_That would be a really, really useless certification._

Please explain?

The ancestor post by huhtenberg says he obtained certification for Visual
Basic although he never wrote a single line of it before. My suggestion for
the certification process is to actually use the skill at question, and using
that as a basis for obtaining the paper that says "Yes, I can do this
proficiently", where the skill in question is software development, not
memorizing book knowledge. Why not test software development by making the
test taker develop software?

~~~
gdp
Because there is no objective measure for "quality" within an individual
implementation within a language. The best we can hope for is some guarantee
that people know what the tools and techniques available to them are, and that
they know the factors that influence software quality.

That would be more valuable than being language certified.

------
mosburger
I've always wondered if the "barrier to entry" was a way to stem the tide of
offshoring of IT jobs. If it somehow becomes more difficult for people outside
the United States or Europe to become "certified", and large companies start
insisting that their work be done by "certified" developers, you'd effectively
make it more difficult to hire offshore developers.

Of course, that assumes that it is more difficult to become certified
overseas, and I doubt that would ultimately be the case. It'd probably still
be financially advantageous for outsourcing firms to invest in the means to
certify offshore developers.

~~~
igrekel
Actually from my experience with offshore companies, they often provide more
certified developers and architects and they use this number or ration as a
selling point. Sadly I cannot point to any source or statistic to support
this.

~~~
wildjim
Didn't Microsoft used to use a "quota" system for their certification, too?
They determined how many people, per country, they would allow to be
certified, and if too many got the passing mark, the raised the requirement
"appropriately" for following exam-takers; but not based on bell-curve stat's,
etc, etc.

------
gdp
Joe the Developer is entrusted with writing code that can cost people money
and cause damage. In some cases, it can endanger lives and businesses.

Joe the Developer doesn't need a certificate, but "we the people" (as in the
people who have his software inflicted upon them) would rather he did.

The certification argument seems to forget whose benefits from certification.
It's not the developer - it's the people who are able to ensure that there is
a baseline level of competence among software developers entrusted with
certain kinds of development work.

I'm all for certification.

~~~
axod
>> "Joe the Developer is entrusted with writing code that can cost people
money and cause damage. In some cases, it can endanger lives and businesses."

That's what tests are for.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
NO, that's what proper design & development process is for. Testing is only a
(small) part of that process and as we've known for decades, you can't test
quality into a product. Hell, just a few minutes ago, someone brought me a
piece of code that has been HAMMERED on for the last nine months and it still
has a bug that wasn't noticed until today!

gdp is right: certifications are useful _if they are rigorous, targeted and
demand useful knowledge and training_

I doubt most developers would say that licensing pilots or physicians is
useless but that's essentially the same thing as claiming that certifying
programmers is useless.

~~~
amalcon
When a pilot or a physician makes a mistake, there is no chance for someone
else to correct it. That's why these professions (physicians especially)
require expensive certifications, and continuing expenses to keep these
certifications current.

Engineers are probably a better comparison: while engineers do have expensive
certifications, they aren't the ones doing most of the engineering. Instead,
they're the ones verifying that the engineering (done mostly by non-certified
engineers) meets the design requirements.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
So because there's a chance for someone to fix a bug is a reason that
certifications are useless in software? Not buying it for a second. Whether or
not the bug can be fixed is immaterial: it may have already caused thousands
of $$ of problems even if fixed. Tell that to a business whose eCommerce site
has been down for a day because of a dumb error by an inexperienced
programmer.

As far as your comment about engineers being a better comparison and axod's
comment that "most software is fun..." (WTF!!! do you think businesses expend
millions of dollars yearly on IT so they can have "fun?"), I call bullshit! As
someone with experience and in both hardware and software engineering, I can
assure you that most engineering is verified by non-certified (I assume you
mean PE's) engineers.

I live daily with software that _has to work._ Serious bugs are not tolerated
in medical devices. The attitude that "oh, we can fix that in the next
release, just tell the operator not to hit F8 before F7 or they'll misdiagnose
the patient" simply doesn't fly around here.

Sorry for the rant, but attitudes like this are exactly why software
development isn't taken seriously by most professions!

~~~
amalcon
You're making a leap here. The chance for someone to fix a bug does not make
developer certifications useless. The chance for someone to catch a bug during
review, before it harms anyone (which is what I was referring to) _still_ does
not make developer certifications useless. The latter does, however, decrease
their marginal utility. This is why it's an apt comparison to engineering: an
engineer can't "patch" a defect in his design once it's been produced, but he
can have other engineers look it over beforehand.

Now, what I mean by "certified" varies a bit across disciplines. The
professional engineer cert is a general certification, which is generally much
less useful than specific certifications for particular disciplines. The
considerations in electrical engineering are considerably different from those
in, say, structural engineering. While there is also significant overlap,
you're not going to get a general-purpose "engineer" who can verify both.

------
synnik
I've always said that certifications are a base level of competence for a job,
not a proof of expertise.

When a senior dev rants about how they don't need a certificate, I agree, but
counter them with the question: If certificates are so easy to get and
meaningless, why haven't you bothered to get them?

Note: I can think of a number of reasonable answers why not... but their
response to that question is often enlightening as to exactly what kind of dev
they are.

~~~
cschneid
In my opinion, they signal different things to different hiring entities.

To a big corp, it signals that you play by the rules, and that a 3rd party has
vouched for you.

To a small company, it signals that you don't learn by yourself, and expect
things spoonfed.

I'm not saying either is wrong, but they are different mindsets, large
companies have more need to order than small companies.

~~~
timwiseman
_To a small company, it signals that you don't learn by yourself, and expect
things spoonfed._

I don't think they say that at all. Now, I do get that impression about some
people that list tons of training classes on their resume (especially the ones
that list training classes without an accompanying certification).

Personally, I hold an MCBDA, MCITP, and A+ certifications. I pepared for the
MCDBA and MCITP on my own through a combination of books, websites, and hands
on toying with the systems. I prepared for the A+ in a peer group. I have had
a mentor that taught me a tremendous amount, but I never took formal classes
for any of it, or expected any of it to be spoonfed.

------
nitrogen
It's my view that certification is an attempt by non-programmers to find some
substitute metric that allows them to measure a programmer's worth instead of
using the only metric that should matter, the quality of their actual work.
I'm not convinced that this is necessary or even possible.

Could someone please explain to me why a market-based meritocracy for
programmers isn't good enough? The good programmers either establish a
reputation and references by doing quality work for other companies, or they
can provide examples of code they wrote independently.

I think that the lack of mandatory certification is one thing that has allowed
software to become such a vibrant field. It's as much an artistic or creative
profession as an engineering profession. For the jobs that require engineering
precision, a developer's work (or an artist-for-hire's portfolio) should be
sufficient qualification.

------
igrekel
My personal uneasiness with certifications is partly due to the fact that so
many people in IT organizations were fired without credentials. There are
technical or college or even graduate degrees in subject related to what needs
to be done in IT. It is just sad that after ignoring them for so long, they
now turn to these commercial offerings who often don't focus on the real
problems at hand in the sense that the problem is rarely technical.

That and also that several people (and I don't want to generalize because they
aren't all like that) I have met with such certifications have belief that
there is a "one true way" or recipe of doing things and are uneasy to adapt or
step out of this course. Maybe it creates in these people the false conviction
that there is an infallible answer to all problems.

------
johnohara
A former field service rep of mine now runs ads on the local cable news
channel selling mortgage refinancing packages.

I was sitting there one night thinking 'I know that guy.' And I did. He looks
good on tv too. Lost some weight, big smile, nice clothes, smooth delivery --
same as when he used to say, "I not really sure, let me call Colorado and
escalate this."

------
mikeytown2
Having previously been a CCNA, I would say that Cisco has some of the best
certificates around. If you have a CCIE cert nearly every door is open to you.

------
duncanj
If only these opinions were carried in the WSJ, FT, etc.

------
c00p3r
Many people got certificates because it is very hard, difficult and annoying
for them to show their abilities or repeat a moderate-difficult task.

Active developer with daily practice does not required any certifying papers.
Good developer even didn't hide his code. Piles of high quality code. Look at
the people who bring us linux, freebsd, openbsd and thousand other projects.

