Re: Certification value (was Bitwise operators)

["Scott P. Smith" <ssmith@scott-smith.com>]

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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>