[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Certification value (was Bitwise operators)
I went to an interview a few years ago for a contract. They gave me a paper
with a list of 20 acronyms, basically from CORBA to HTML.
The task was to write down what every of those acronyms stands for, not an
verbal explanation but instead what they exactly where abbreviations for.
Nothing else.
I didn't get the contract, a year later this hyped dot-com company went
bankrupt.
Johan
"Scott P. Smith" wrote:
> I forgot to mention she was certified and proudly stated that several times
> during the interview.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott P. Smith" <ssmith@scott-smith.com>
> To: <ajug-members@www.ajug.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Certification value (was Bitwise operators)
>
> > Funny story:
> >
> > While interviewing about 6 months ago, I had a technical interview with a
> > women who wrote some code on a board and asked: Would this compile, and
> if
> > so would it run?
> >
> > I answered that it would not compile and explained why. She said no, it
> > would compile, but you would get a run time error. I knew she was wrong.
> > She went on to explain that this was a question on the Java certification
> > exam, so she knew this was the correct answer. I was very adamant that I
> > was correct. I wrote the code down in my notebook, and told her I would
> > check it when I got back home. By the time I got back home, she had sent
> me
> > an email saying I was right and that this would not ADVERSELY affect her
> > evaluation. Wow, I was glad to hear that being correct would not
> adversely
> > affect me.
> >
> > She was a 'Senior' engineer, and this was a follow-up technical interview
> > held after the less technical first round.
> >
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul Philion" <philion@acmerocket.com>
> > To: <ajug-members@www.ajug.org>
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: Certification value (was Bitwise operators)
> >
> >
> > > I'm going to jump in here....
> > >
> > > All of my comments are based on direct experience with the rigorous
> > > certification test development process at Sun. Further, I'm also pretty
> > > biased.
> > >
> > > Scott, you directly mention "Has the correlation ever been
> > > experimentally measured?" The answer is "Yes!", for every single version
> > > of each Sun exam. (They are rewritten and retested from scratch every
> > > few years.)
> > >
> > > A bigger question is: What do the tests actually measure? They measure
> > > different things (the whole point of having several different exams).
> > > The SCJP exam tests knowledge of J2SE. Nothing more. It does not measure
> > > how good a programmer you are, or what your work ethic is like, or if
> > > you can meet a deadline or if you're a good person to have on a
> > > development team. It simply tests knowledge of basic Java.
> > >
> > > The SCJP exam is set up with the following in mind: If you've been a
> > > Java programmer for a year, you should be able to walk in, sit down and
> > > pass the exam. If you don't know Java, or you've only been using it
> > > on-and-off for a little while, you should fail. That's how exam is
> > > indended and structured.
> > >
> > > This goal is acheived using a "beta" process: Hundreds of candidate
> > > questions are written (on the order of 400 for the SCJP), and then many
> > > people (who are anywhere from Java experts to completely unaware of
> > > Java) sit down and take the whole exam (it takes about half a day). Each
> > > individual question is then scored, based on the following criteria: The
> > > Java experts got it right and the Java novices got it wrong. (There's a
> > > whole, complex statistical model behind it, which I won't get into.) Any
> > > question that does not score well based on these criteria is thrown out.
> > > The rest are used to put together the actual exam.
> > >
> > > Is this a perfect system? No; there are a number of flaws. First, the
> > > exam is mutiple choice. Second, it is fairly easy to pick up one of the
> > > study books and use that to pass the exam (because it is mutiple
> > > choice). Third, people have taken the exam "shared" the answers with
> > > friends (and the whole internet). These things actually devalue the
> > > certification process because they allow a person to pass who should not
> > > pass.
> > >
> > > That's why there are many exams, both multiple-choice and practical.
> > > While the SCJP exam will not answer the question "Can X write good Java
> > > code?" (and it was never intended to), the combination of the SCJP and
> > > SCJD exam will answer the question: "Can X use Java to solve a complex,
> > > real-world problem?"
> > >
> > > As for any sort of certification for "job performance", personally I
> > > think that is at least 80% based on the actual work environment, not the
> > > potential employee. Some people thrive in high-pressure start-ups,
> > > others don't. No test can determine that.
> > >
> > > Just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > - Paul Philion
> > >
> > > Scott P. Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > >I never said it was easy to pass all the various certifications tests.
> I
> > > >did not mean to imply that. I probably wouldn't pass any one of them
> > today.
> > > >I would have to prepare for it a few weeks. If I passed, does it make
> me
> > a
> > > >better software engineer?
> > > >
> > > >I was commenting on the coloration between on the job performance and
> > being
> > > >certified.
> > > >
> > > >Has the correlation ever been experimentally measured? A test is not
> > valid
> > > >unless it is objectively correlated with the criteria it is attempting
> to
> > > >measure. We take SATs to enter collage because the score on the SAT
> > > >correlates highly with performance in collage. (Of course it's not
> > > >perfect.)
> > > >
> > > >What you are tested for when you take the SCJP is performance on the
> > SCJP.
> > > >Extrapolating that to above average work performance is not necessarily
> > > >valid. Maybe it is. I have a subjective opinion that I can't back up
> > with
> > > >proof. Unless it's backed up be evidence, It's a matter of faith.
> > Either
> > > >you believe in it or you don't. Maybe there is proof. But don't quote
> a
> > > >study paid for by Sun. They are not objective. Is Gosling certified?
> I
> > > >have no idea. If he is, did he actually sit down and take the tests.
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Curt Smith" <chsmith@speakeasy.net>
> > > >To: <ajug-members@www.ajug.org>
> > > >Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 5:30 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Certification value (was Bitwise operators)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>My incompetence at subtle sarcasm in my post below caused at least a
> few
> > > >>folks to misunderstand that I was actually attempting (poorly) to
> > advocate
> > > >>certification. SCJP though would not be my suggested end point,
> rather
> > > >>SCWCD plus SCEA. After passing both and many others, I found the
> > > >>design of SCWCD to be an excellent test of ones knowledge of JSP,
> > Servlet,
> > > >>taglib, web.xml etc. Modern trick question design of multiple choice
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >_can_
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>be tough and rigorous. Take the SCWCD if you think it's so easy and
> of
> > no
> > > >>value. :)
> > > >>
> > > >>Appologies, curt
> > > >>
> > > >>Curt Smith wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>>I will probably offend many people by saying this, but I place no
> > > >>>>>value in
> > > >>>>>being certified.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>I agree regarding SCJP. Referring to beyond SCJP, analogously I'm
> > > >>>glad the
> > > >>>American Medical Assoc. doesn't feel that getting a BS in biology is
> > > >>>sufficient
> > > >>>to be an effective brain surgeon, there is also more to learn and is
> > > >>>of essential
> > > >>>value including and even beyond SCWCD, SCEA, IBM XML , , ,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>curt
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>--
> > > >>
> > > >>Curt Smith
> > > >>chsmith@speakeasy.net
> > > >>(h) 404-294-6686
> > > >>(w) 404-463-0973
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johan Thorselius, EDGECODE COMMUNICATION AB
web: http://edgecode.com