Re: Why get Certified

From: UAError (null_at_null.null)
Date: 04/12/04

  • Next message: Jonathan MacCollum: "70-300 - Tomorrow's the day!"
    Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:14:25 -0400

    "DalePres" <> wrote:

    >Like you said... you can be a bad developer with or without certification.
    >I didn't say certification will make you a good developer. The only way to
    >become a good developer is study, practice, and learning from the
    >accumulated experience and knowledge of others. All those things are the
    >things that you do when you're studying for certification.
    >You certainly can't be a good developer if you don't know your tools. So if
    >you haven't done the study required for certification, are you really a good
    >developer? If you do know your tools, then you have done the study required
    >for certification, whether or not the book you studied from said anything
    >about certification on the cover.

    I was simply trying to temper the statement:

    "The biggest benefit is that you'll be a better developer."

    I've been watching this newsgroup for several months now and
    it seems that a significant portion of the traffic (aside
    from the MCNGP's) is generated by people looking for an
    entry level position in I.T., right after school. They tend
    to grab a statement like the above and run with it. Given
    the opportunity cost of pursuing certification these
    individuals would be much better advised to do something
    else to become "better developers", something that allows
    them to reap rewards much quicker and acquire skill of more
    immediate relevance; even a 4 year bachelor curriculum just
    gets things started. The crux is that there is no
    certification to prove that you are a good developer.
    Ultimately a candidate has to successfully manipulate the
    situation so that she/he gets an interview with the person
    who is familiar with the requirements of the position to be
    filled, to get an opportunity to show off relevant skills.
    Granted that is not easy but I don't think (MSCD.NET)
    certification is the answer.

    Even for an experienced developer pursuit of certification
    represents an opportunity cost as he/she spends time on
    acquiring "perishable" knowledge - time which could be spent
    on extending one's skills in a more long term fashion. But
    all sorts of reasons can justify the choice.

    IMO, if you look at MSF's team roles, the MCSD.NET
    certification fits best with the development management
    (architect) role. Looking at the remaining development roles
    even an MCAD could be considered overkill because it
    provides too much breadth while not guaranteeing sufficient
    depth for a specific role. Ideally the development manager
    (with the MCSD.NET) would monitor and assess the
    contributions of the remaining development team so that
    "re-inventing of the wheel" would be curtailed and more
    appropriate mechanisms available in the framework would be
    pointed out to less experienced developers. However this can
    only work if the development manager is 100% committed to a
    single project - something that is very rare for individuals
    acting in the "architect" position.

    Ironically if an architect operates in a medium to large
    organization even the knowledge acquired through the
    (MCSD.NET) certification process isn't sufficient, as the
    corporation will most likely have a heterogeneous I.T.
    infrastructure not solely based on MS technologies. Granted,
    in large projects a development manager would be assigned to
    each feature team, where some teams would only use MS
    technology - but some basic knowledge of the non-MS systems
    you are interacting with would still be desirable.

    Ultimately requiring a MCAD/MCSD.NET for an entry level
    position is just silly. Not that it ever stopped employers
    and recruiters in the past from requiring a laundry-list of
    disparate skills, containing all the latest buzz-words they
    could muster. By the time that new hire is in a position to
    fully utilize the assets of the certification, the
    certification itself will have been replaced once if not
    twice, completely eroding the investment in the initial

  • Next message: Jonathan MacCollum: "70-300 - Tomorrow's the day!"