Re: ruby certification

On 12/10/07, Jim Clark <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 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.

Ultimately, the problem is one of wishes and horses. It may differ in
the rest of the world, but certificates in the U.S. and Canada are
essentially worthless, and it's greedy vendors' fault in large part.
Sorry.

I've worked with too many "certified programmers" from "technical
colleges" (e.g., DeVry) that were hired because they had that
certification.

> 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.

Yes and no. You've said the first thing that makes me think that the
UW program you're talking about isn't a waste of time, money, and
effort: that it's taught by Ryan Davis. The reason? The man has a
reputation that's well-earned and well-deserved. If anyone *else*
teaches the program, that reputation disappears along with Ryan=97unless
there's someone with equivalent reputation doing it.

Still, it reinforces my point: your certificate is going to have value
because of who is mentoring you during the process. NOT because it's a
piece of paper. I'd still feel more comfortable hiring someone with a
visible reputation of open source contributions. It's not the piece of
paper (the certification) that has value; it's the process. If that
process changes, the value evaporates.

> > 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.)
> 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.

Very *much* depends on the program *at the time that you completed the
program*. (I personally wouldn't trust a program that had me teaching
it; I just don't have the patience required to be a good teacher. I'm
a good mentor, but not a good teacher. There's a difference.)

> Paper certs show nothing except someone crammed for an exam and passed.

Yet this is *exactly* what the OP was asking for: is there a cert
available for Ruby. Most people aren't interested in taking 6=969 months
to get a piece of paper (sadly). Even with your cert, it doesn't
*mean* _anything_real_ until it's clear that you were learning from
one of the preeminent voices about Ruby.

Certs, by and large, are scams. That's not to say that there aren't
good processes and programs, but those speak to the quality of the
programs, not the pieces of paper you get from them.

-austin
--=20
Austin Ziegler * [e-mail] * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * [e-mail] * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * [e-mail]