From: Jim Clark Date: 2007-12-11T10:53:02+09:00 Subject: Re: ruby certification Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 12/10/07, Todd Benson wrote: > >> On Dec 10, 2007 12:28 PM, Jim Clark wrote: >> >>> The same could be said for *every* training program out there. For >>> instance, let's look at David Black's announcement today for >>> "Introduction to Ruby on Rails" and "Advancing with Rails". Each course >>> is 5 days long and costs $1,770 (or $1,550 early bird). So, for 80 hours >>> (maybe only 70 hours if there is a lunch hour each day) of classroom >>> instruction, it costs a minimum of $3,100 or $3,540 for >>> procrastinators. You walk in on Monday, and 12 days later on the >>> following Friday you walk out with head crammed full of Rails info. >>> >>> Do you think that is any better than 90 classroom hours spaced out over >>> 8 months with another two or three hundred hours spent on homeworks / >>> projects to slowly digest the material >>> >> I don't know what Austin would say, but I think so. I have every bit >> of respect for what Mr. David Black does for the Ruby and also the >> Rails community. So, I would take his classes. Not for credit, but >> for knowledge. >> > > That's a tough question, actually, because I'm trying to convince my > bosses to send me to the Erlang pragmatic workshop. I don't care if I > learn Erlang out of it, but I'm going to come back with different ways > of thinking about how I currently program. > > I think that what's different, Jim, is that there's *also* a distinct > difference of a non-programmer learning to program (for which a longer > course is probably better because there's more involved) and a > programmer learning another language. By time I came to Ruby, I'd > already explored (and written serious programs in) a dozen languages. > Ruby itself wasn't that hard for me to wrap my head around. > > In some ways, I think that what David does is useful, but not > necessarily for the reasons that people think. (I have taken a number > of professional courses, including an interesting Java one with > someone of Mr Black's stature that had been involved in writing an > early C compiler. Interestingly, with that Java course, I'd managed to > teach myself everything I would have learned in the course before the > course was actually presented at the company.) > > These courses are as much about how to think about programming as they > are about programming. They don't claim to make you a better > programmer; they claim to make you think about how to approach a > problem differently. (At least, that's my take.) > > I would have an issue if they started issuing "certificates." > > My issue is not with training; my issue is with training that "leads" > to a certificate. > I don't have a problem with the certificate designation because I understand that it means that a person *should* have certain fundamental knowledge just like a Computer Science degree should indicate the person has basic programming skills. Having a degree or certificate in no way guarantees that the person is a good programmer and there are numerous examples where the best programmers had neither. As for training, it shows absolutely nothing. Someone could go to David's classes and fall asleep with no consequences except that they wasted their money or their employers. At least with the UW certificate program, you have to hand in homework assignments that Ryan Davis grades and gives feedback on to keep people on track. Hence, there is certain level of participation and achievement that training does not ensure. If you don't show up to class, don't turn in assignments, and don't make an effort, then you don't get your certificate. Don't get me wrong about training though, if I had an extra $5+k to pay for David's classes, airfare and hotel, I'd be there :-) . For me, $600 every third month is a much more affordable training payment plan. >>> Both classroom instruction and contributing to open source projects are >>> valuable ways to learn the language. I just don't think it is up to you >>> to decide what is the best use of my time or money :-) . >>> >> Well, nobody is deciding that. But, if you were the person hiring >> someone to help you on something very important, would a cert matter >> at all? >> > > I said what I said because I'd never hire based on a cert, and > wouldn't look on a cert -- especially a cert for Ruby -- positively. > I'd look primarily for shipping code and the ability to prove to me > that your knowledge is solid. > > A cert doesn't show any of that; training and experience do. Like I > said above: my issue is with the whole idea of certs. At best, they're > useless as indicators of anything; at worst, they're scams. (And yes, > much the said *can* be said of university degrees. I think there's a > difference, but less than most people think.) > > -austin > I agree that people should be hired on ability and not just because they have a cert, degree or any other piece of paper in hand. A cert however can very well be placed at least on equal grounds as training for the points I note above but it depends on the cert program. Paper certs show nothing except someone crammed for an exam and passed. The UW cert provides reasonable assurance that the student was awake and could finish the assignments. In fact, the UW cert is earned by completing graded Ruby programming assignments instead of a one-time exam. Hence, you need ability to get a UW cert, not just knowledge. Regards, Jim