[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Certification value (was Bitwise operators)
Don't feel too bad about this silliness. When I took my commercial
pilot's test, they did the same thing except, of course, with aviation
acronynms.
Cindy Jeness
Johan Thorselius wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>