Re: Why get Certified
From: UAError (null_at_null.null)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:14:25 -0400
"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m-me@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> 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