From: John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@...>
Date: 2007-10-25T05:41:29+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Certification Test

The real reason certifications are weak is because they tend to only  
test encyclopedic knowledge.
The test and its backing research is what determines the value of the  
test.
Good testing will define what the test can determine.
A good programming test would simply include analysis, design, and  
bugstomping.
This is a language test that simply tests your understanding of the  
grammar, usage, and vocabulary of the language.
Most tests of any topic avoid subjective parts because it is  
difficult to apply metrics to them accurately or meaningfully.
That's not bad, just incomplete.

These tests are good in that they check knowledge of the details of a  
subject. They don't test your skill at applying the knowledge.

I support the idea of certification/testing if it the testing is  
understood for what it is.
We all know that A+ certs don't mean you are good at troubleshooting  
hardware, because the test doesn't actually physically involve  
hardware or software!
I've been to good interviews where they created a battery of  
activities using real software and hardware with only you and a clock  
to figure out what's wrong. It was a good test. The only measure of  
success or failure was you versus yourself, the clock and compared  
with the other participants.

We'll see what the Ruby test turns out to be like. I have high hopes  
for it though. The language designers have integrity and are not  
doing any of this to get rich, just to promote and validate their  
creation, it's a fairly natural step. And if nothing else, the fee  
money will certainly go towards a cause we can all appreciate... Ruby!