Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

http://gojko.net/2009/09/22/joe-the-developer-doesnt-need-a-certificate/

by edw519 • 17 years ago

46 67 17 years ago

duncanj• 17 years ago

If only these opinions were carried in the WSJ, FT, etc.

gdp14• 17 years ago

Joe the Developer is entrusted with writing code that can cost people money and cause damage. In some cases, it can endanger lives and businesses.

Joe the Developer doesn't need a certificate, but "we the people" (as in the people who have his software inflicted upon them) would rather he did.

The certification argument seems to forget whose benefits from certification. It's not the developer - it's the people who are able to ensure that there is a baseline level of competence among software developers entrusted with certain kinds of development work.

I'm all for certification.

TallGuyShort• 17 years ago

Ideally, I would agree with you. But at the same time, when I think of the people I know who have certifications, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't trust any of them to write code I would depend on for anything. The systems for certification that are in place today, are IMHO, lacking real credibility. There will always be people who try to beat the system, because they DO see a certification as something that benefits them - it gets them a job. As long as that's the case - I place a lot more emphasis on my personal experience with a person, than what certifications they can show me.

gdp14• 17 years ago

I agree that the existing certification programs may be lacking, but I don't think that negates the need for them. It just means we need to come up with better certifications.

roedog882• 17 years ago

What about certifying the software that Joe the developer creates, rather than Joe the developer? This is the approach the FAA takes with DO178B for the flight software on the jet planes that we ride.

These are very large projects, using hundreds of developers. The quality of the team members varies. Half are below average for the population at large.

Adding certification on top of this doesn't change the fact that half the developers will be below average. The projects are too large.

gdp14• 17 years ago

> What about certifying the software that Joe the developer creates, rather than Joe the developer?

There's a simple reason why - it costs x to certify 1 developer, and y to certify a piece of software.

For most software, "y" is still too expensive to offset the potential damage caused by software failure (compared to a jetliner, where the potential cost is huge).

A programmer may create hundreds or even thousands of pieces of software during a career. Average x over that number of projects, and it's negligible. Multiply that number by y, and you have an enormous figure.

Also, the cost of certifying a piece of software to provide any kind of assurances of quality is time consuming and expensive. Compare this to a certification that shows that anyone who wants to claim to be a "software engineer" actually knows the first thing about software engineering, and is at least capable of producing software in a systematic way.

It's just like we license drivers once and assume that that basic level of competency will ensure "quality driving" on a variety of road types. We don't certify each driver for each road individually.

hernan7• 17 years ago

Do you mean half are below the median?

(Actually, if the rockstar programmer stories are true, then it's way more than half of the programmers that will be below average. Which strengthens your point in a way.)

axod2• 17 years ago

>> "Joe the Developer is entrusted with writing code that can cost people money and cause damage. In some cases, it can endanger lives and businesses."

That's what tests are for.

jefffoster• 17 years ago

But the tests are only as good as the person writing them.

gdp14• 17 years ago

No, tests ensure certain functional behaviour under one input.

Certification would ensure that Joe is capable of writing tests that actually test anything, for example.

HeyLaughingBoy3• 17 years ago

NO, that's what proper design & development process is for. Testing is only a (small) part of that process and as we've known for decades, you can't test quality into a product. Hell, just a few minutes ago, someone brought me a piece of code that has been HAMMERED on for the last nine months and it still has a bug that wasn't noticed until today!

gdp is right: certifications are useful if they are rigorous, targeted and demand useful knowledge and training

I doubt most developers would say that licensing pilots or physicians is useless but that's essentially the same thing as claiming that certifying programmers is useless.

swombat2• 17 years ago

You're making one huge assumption here: that the certification actually certifies anything at all. As a matter of fact, it does not. Certifications are useless. Having or not having a certification is no indication of presence or lack of programming skill.

I'll go further, though. The certifications do you, as the public who makes use of developer services, a disservice. They imply that someone has verified and certified "a baseline level of competence" - but that implication is a fabrication, a lie.

All the certifications do, effectively, is give people who shouldn't be in programming jobs working for people who shouldn't be hiring programmers.

gdp14• 17 years ago

> You're making one huge assumption here: that the certification actually certifies anything at all. As a matter of fact, it does not. Certifications are useless. Having or not having a certification is no indication of presence or lack of programming skill.

Bet you're not a fan of driver licensing either, right? 'cause a driver license is no indication of the presence or absence of driving skill, either.

Oh, wait, yes it is.

mgrouchy• 17 years ago

I would argue that certification has very little do with the quality of software that a developer would produce or a baseline level of competence.

We generally hope that a degree would give you a baseline level of competence, but I'm not sure that is entirely true either.

gdp14• 17 years ago

Degree programs that contain certain requirements could be accredited as being equivalent to a certain certification.

Not all degrees programmes include even the first thing about software engineering - they have plenty of programming, but nothing that would actually ensure that people have a systematic approach to software development.

cema• 17 years ago

This is basically a CYA ("cover your ass") argument. It seems to be a correct one. Which explains the (mostly negative) attitude to certifications from the community.

cousin_it2• 17 years ago

Woah. People usually oppose certification because it creates barriers to entry. (In particular, I subscribe to this point of view even though I'm a long-time programmer.) Now this guy opposes certification for the opposite reason - that it makes entry into the profession too easy. In a better world this would've been some kind of clever postmodern provocative trick, like Alan Sokal or whatever, but something tells me this is for real.

huhtenberg2• 17 years ago

An anecdote.

Back in late 90s I managed to get second best score in the country (for that year) in Visual Basic exam under Microsoft Certified Solution Developer program. The catch was that I had have never written a single line in Visual Basic nor had I have any substantial database development experience.

So, yeah, it is entirely possible to get certified and not know a thing about a certification subject. Guy's got a point.

gdp14• 17 years ago

That's just an example of a bad certification process. Being able to provide an example of bad certification does not invalidate the entire concept.

skolor• 17 years ago

A similar anecdote (although not directly related to programming):

I got my MCSA while in high school. When Microsoft offer the Dreamspark certifications, I jumped on the free upgrade test, and went and took it. I spent an hour or so studying for it, and got >900. Does that mean I am qualified to manage a Windows 2008 domain? Maybe. What it does mean, however, is that I am at least somewhat familiar with the tools that are available.

While this may not be the same situation for programming certifications, I know for a fact that the MSCx certs have been helpful. While I don't know the ins and outs of maintaining a server, I am consistently shocked when I talk to a "server guy" who doesn't understand Active Directory structure at all, or the various types of inheritance that go on in Windows. I may not know everything, but at least I know what I don't know.

That, I think, is the biggest benefit of a certification. It may not show what you do or do not know, but it does show that you at least know of the topics, which is more than can be said about many people.

halo• 17 years ago

They aren't incompatible viewpoints.

As a thought exercise, imagine a job that requires a qualification that has little-to-nothing to do with the actual profession.

This would both artificially increase the barrier to entry for people with skills but no qualification, while decreasing the barrier to entry to those without skills who have passed the qualification.

cousin_it2• 17 years ago

You have a point. Thanks.

henning• 17 years ago

> Joe the Plumber heard that you can make more money programming than plumbing and decided to suddenly become a programmer.

Where did Joe the Plumber get that misinformation?

RyanMcGreal• 17 years ago

From a certified developer.

gloob• 17 years ago

From a developer certifier.

synnik• 17 years ago

I've always said that certifications are a base level of competence for a job, not a proof of expertise.

When a senior dev rants about how they don't need a certificate, I agree, but counter them with the question: If certificates are so easy to get and meaningless, why haven't you bothered to get them?

Note: I can think of a number of reasonable answers why not... but their response to that question is often enlightening as to exactly what kind of dev they are.

HeyLaughingBoy3• 17 years ago

and meaningless

Aren't you answering your own question here?

cschneid• 17 years ago

In my opinion, they signal different things to different hiring entities.

To a big corp, it signals that you play by the rules, and that a 3rd party has vouched for you.

To a small company, it signals that you don't learn by yourself, and expect things spoonfed.

I'm not saying either is wrong, but they are different mindsets, large companies have more need to order than small companies.

timwiseman3• 17 years ago

To a small company, it signals that you don't learn by yourself, and expect things spoonfed.

I don't think they say that at all. Now, I do get that impression about some people that list tons of training classes on their resume (especially the ones that list training classes without an accompanying certification).

Personally, I hold an MCBDA, MCITP, and A+ certifications. I pepared for the MCDBA and MCITP on my own through a combination of books, websites, and hands on toying with the systems. I prepared for the A+ in a peer group. I have had a mentor that taught me a tremendous amount, but I never took formal classes for any of it, or expected any of it to be spoonfed.

zmimon• 17 years ago

> certifications are a base level of competence for a job

Unfortunately some of the certified people I've met have been so genuinely awful that I don't think you can even claim that. I tend to be with the article author on this one - people tend to get certified because they are unable to compete in other ways and want to bolster their resume.

wildjim2• 17 years ago

Non-Education Board certificates are not a baseline for anything besides having read the book and paid the money. They are essentially meaningless, these days -- more a way for a Com to fleece you -- and seeing them on a CV, I tend to view them as noise; nice to have, I guess, but proving absolutely nothing useful. A "Preferred Reading List" might mean more to me on a CV, but that's easy to fake.

The biggest problem is cert's would almost never pass the same standards as the equivalent from most govt's Education Exam board. If they did, perhaps they would be more useful. Education Exam standards can also vary significantly between countries, and these com's sadly can't be bothered in expending the effort internationally.

johnohara• 17 years ago

A former field service rep of mine now runs ads on the local cable news channel selling mortgage refinancing packages.

I was sitting there one night thinking 'I know that guy.' And I did. He looks good on tv too. Lost some weight, big smile, nice clothes, smooth delivery -- same as when he used to say, "I not really sure, let me call Colorado and escalate this."

mosburger• 17 years ago

I've always wondered if the "barrier to entry" was a way to stem the tide of offshoring of IT jobs. If it somehow becomes more difficult for people outside the United States or Europe to become "certified", and large companies start insisting that their work be done by "certified" developers, you'd effectively make it more difficult to hire offshore developers.

Of course, that assumes that it is more difficult to become certified overseas, and I doubt that would ultimately be the case. It'd probably still be financially advantageous for outsourcing firms to invest in the means to certify offshore developers.

igrekel2• 17 years ago

Actually from my experience with offshore companies, they often provide more certified developers and architects and they use this number or ration as a selling point. Sadly I cannot point to any source or statistic to support this.

wildjim2• 17 years ago

Didn't Microsoft used to use a "quota" system for their certification, too? They determined how many people, per country, they would allow to be certified, and if too many got the passing mark, the raised the requirement "appropriately" for following exam-takers; but not based on bell-curve stat's, etc, etc.

c00p3r• 17 years ago

Many people got certificates because it is very hard, difficult and annoying for them to show their abilities or repeat a moderate-difficult task.

Active developer with daily practice does not required any certifying papers. Good developer even didn't hide his code. Piles of high quality code. Look at the people who bring us linux, freebsd, openbsd and thousand other projects.

igrekel2• 17 years ago

My personal uneasiness with certifications is partly due to the fact that so many people in IT organizations were fired without credentials. There are technical or college or even graduate degrees in subject related to what needs to be done in IT. It is just sad that after ignoring them for so long, they now turn to these commercial offerings who often don't focus on the real problems at hand in the sense that the problem is rarely technical.

That and also that several people (and I don't want to generalize because they aren't all like that) I have met with such certifications have belief that there is a "one true way" or recipe of doing things and are uneasy to adapt or step out of this course. Maybe it creates in these people the false conviction that there is an infallible answer to all problems.

mikeytown2• 17 years ago

Having previously been a CCNA, I would say that Cisco has some of the best certificates around. If you have a CCIE cert nearly every door is open to you.

nitrogen• 17 years ago

It's my view that certification is an attempt by non-programmers to find some substitute metric that allows them to measure a programmer's worth instead of using the only metric that should matter, the quality of their actual work. I'm not convinced that this is necessary or even possible.

Could someone please explain to me why a market-based meritocracy for programmers isn't good enough? The good programmers either establish a reputation and references by doing quality work for other companies, or they can provide examples of code they wrote independently.

I think that the lack of mandatory certification is one thing that has allowed software to become such a vibrant field. It's as much an artistic or creative profession as an engineering profession. For the jobs that require engineering precision, a developer's work (or an artist-for-hire's portfolio) should be sufficient qualification.

Joe the Developer doesn’t need a certificate

Related Stories