E. Robert Tisdale said:
That's two good reasons for training and certification.
That some HR people ask for certification is a reason for getting it if you
intend to apply for a job at a company where this is the case. I'm not
convinced that it's a particularly good reason otherwise, though. The point
about certification, and the reason I suspect some professionals think it's
irrelevant, is that it conveys little about the quality of an applicant
unless the interviewer has a detailed knowledge of the exam involved. A high
mark in a trivially easy exam may boost confidence, but proves nothing. By
contrast, an average mark in an impossible exam may not look good on a job
application, even though for that particular exam it represents a detailed
knowledge of the subject matter. It's always sensible to be wary of exam
marks taken out of context.
I think a distinction needs to be made between training and certification.
Training is a productive, positive activity which is designed to improve
your skills, and as such it's valuable (provided it's *good* training).
Certification is a negative, stressful and irritating activity which makes
no difference to your ability or otherwise at a given subject. The fact that
you *can* rise to the challenge and jump through exam hoops does not mean
that you should do it for fun. Certification is no substitute for
experience. It's better to be the person who can actually do something than
the person who has a piece of paper saying that they can do something *in
theory*. The fact that many qualified people are also able people does not
make the fact that many other qualified people are not any less relevant.
People are not able because they are qualified, they're qualified because
they're able. In logic terms, being able is (usually) *sufficient* for being
qualified, but it's not *necessary*. In other words, even an idiot can pass
an exam if it's an easy enough exam. That's why people take a bit of paper
saying "I passed XYZ C++ course" with a pinch of salt. The applicant who can
correctly answer your most difficult C++ questions is a far more interesting
prospect than the applicant who turns up with a certificate saying "I passed
'A 3-Week Course in Basic C++ for Total Beginners' and got 100%". You see my
point? Whilst I have the utmost respect for people who can pass extremely
tough exams, I respect them for their knowledge of their subject, not
because they have a bit of paper saying they passed the exam. People who
know their subject are not disadvantaged by tests of their knowledge,
whereas people who fluked the exam, or simply took an easy exam, are; that
is how it should be.
Unfortunately, this is too often true.
Where did you get *your* training and certification in C++?
I thought so.
More interesting questions:
How good are your coding skills?
Do you write clear, maintainable, unbuggy, robust, efficient code?
Are your designs easy to modify?
How does your knowledge of C++ compare to other people in the company?
(And importantly, in a job situation) Are you someone we would like to work
with?
I would have thought where you got your certificate saying "I can do C++"
was one of the less-important questions. Frankly, the question is "Can you
write C++?", not "Do you have a bit of paper saying you can write C++?"
Training and certification *do* build confidence and self-esteem.
Agreed. But you don't train to build self-esteem, you train in order to
*learn*.
It is a relatively easy and painless way to learn
a new computer programming language like C++.
Agreed. And so is reading a book like "Accelerated C++".
But, if you are motivated, you should be able
to pick up a good text book, read it and do all of the problems
and exercises in about two weeks of eight hour days.
Depends on the textbook. Anything which covers more than the fundamentals of
the language will take a lot longer than two weeks for a complete beginner,
however motivated.
Depending upon your circumstances, that could be a lot cheaper
and easier than taking a course for certification.
Depending on the course, it could be a lot better (or worse) as well. A good
teacher is priceless, but a bad teacher can make learning the subject even
harder.
But don't kid yourself. It takes a long time
and a lot of experience to become a good programmer.
The certificate doesn't mean much but it may be enough
to convince the HR folks that they should schedule an interview
for you with an experienced C++ programmer who really can
evaluate your potential as a C++ programmer.
Completely agree with this last paragraph. As I said before, if you need
certification to apply for a job, obviously you have no choice but to get
it. But as you say, "The certificate doesn't mean much". You seem to have
changed your mind a bit over the course of your post incidentally
[--
3. The professionals who believe that
certifications are not worth the paper they are written on.
Unfortunately, this is too often true.
--]
Anyway, perhaps this post is getting a little long at this stage, hopefully
I've made my point by now...
Cheers,
Stuart.
