### Author:  [@Giles\_Bowkett](https://rubytalk.org/u/Giles_Bowkett)
#### Post date: [9 December 2007 06:53 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/27 "2007-12-09T06:53:25Z")
> When I was on the Agile Alliance board, I wrote a position statement
> for it on certification. \<[http://www.agilealliance.org/show/1796>](http://www.agilealliance.org/show/1796>); The
> key sentence is "employers should have confidence \*only\* in
> certifications that are skill-based and difficult to achieve." Laurent
> Bossavit and I are (learning Rails by) working on a website to try and
> establish the kind of "web of trust" that allows people to vouch for
> each other. We're just barely at a minimally useful deployment (it's
> not even running on Mongrel yet), but whattheheck: \<[http://wevouchfor.org/](http://wevouchfor.org/)
> \>
>
> If we can get a non-laughable number of people certifying each other,
> we'll be ready to revamp the site to make it appealing for people
> looking to hire other people.
I think that's a good idea. workingwithrails.com comes from a similar
point of view. I usually fill out the absolute bare minimum of
necessary info on a social networking site, but I discovered today
that I'm definitely the exception, at least on that site. people are
using it a lot.
LinkedIn does something similar too, but it's kind of too formal to
take seriously. (somewhat like certifications, wow, somehow kept the
whole thing relevant.)
> **···**
>
> --
> Giles Bowkett
>
> Podcast: [http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com](http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com)
> Blog: [http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com](http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com)
> Portfolio: [http://www.gilesgoatboy.org](http://www.gilesgoatboy.org)
> Tumblelog: [http://giles.tumblr.com](http://giles.tumblr.com)
---
### Author:  [@Robert\_K1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Robert_K1)
#### Post date: [10 December 2007 14:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/28 "2007-12-10T14:24:50Z")
But then again, you're probably also an \*interviewing expert\*. There
are probably more people around interviewing whose Google-Fu would not
have brought them that far. :-))
Cheers
robert
> **···**
>
> 2007/12/9, Austin Ziegler \:
>
> > Let me try to state this a different way. We recently had someone who
> > interviewed where I work and he claimed to be (among other things) a
> > Ruby expert. Since I \*am\* a Ruby expert, I was involved in the
> > interviews with this guy. (We've since hired him, because he checked
> > out.)
> >
> > But you know the very first thing that I did? I Googled him. I was
> > able to find examples of code that he'd written (not Ruby, but other
> > languages). I went into the interview armed with knowledge about him
> > far better than any certificate would provide.
>
> --
> use.inject do |as, often| as.you\_can - without end
---
### Author:  [@Andrew\_Stewart](https://rubytalk.org/u/Andrew_Stewart)
#### Post date: [10 December 2007 17:36 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/29 "2007-12-10T17:36:51Z")
I think it depends what your goals are. Are you primarily trying to learn a language well or are you trying to make yourself more employable?
Shipping open source software is invaluable for confronting and overcoming real-world problems. But the projects you work on may well not expose you to the breadth of the language. You'll probably end up learning a great deal about a subsection of the language.
A well-designed course (certificate or otherwise) should cover the breadth of the language, or at least the theoretical side of it. You'll probably end up learning something about most of the language.
I wouldn't rely on someone who either only wrote software without any theoretical understanding of the language or who only studied the language but never shipped software.
It's similar to scientists: is an empiricist better than a theoretician, or vice versa? I'd say both theory and practice are worthwhile in their own right -- and the combination is even better.
So I think it's wrong to dismiss studying out of hand. A certificate's syllabus may (hopefully) be the most methodical way to cover the background knowledge that underpins effective software development.
Regards,
Andy Stewart
> **···**
>
> On 9 Dec 2007, at 15:36, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
> > The 90 hours of classroom work that you're spending for a certificate
> > could be spent working on an open source project and contributing code
> > that would help others and help you forge something even more valuable
> > than a certificate: a reputation. And that is something that will
> > matter to me when I'm involved in hiring far more than any certificate
> > ever will.
> >
> > I think your UW cert will be better than most crap certs out there,
> > based on what you've described, but I still don't think it's the best
> > use of your time or money, compared to \*shipping\* open source
> > projects.
>
> -------
>
> > **[AirBlade Software](https://airbladesoftware.com/)**
> >
> > Andrew Stewart of AirBlade Software.
---
### Author:  [@Jim\_Clark](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Clark)
#### Post date: [10 December 2007 18:28 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/30 "2007-12-10T18:28:16Z")
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> The 90 hours of classroom work that you're spending for a certificate
> could be spent working on an open source project and contributing code
> that would help others and help you forge something even more valuable
> than a certificate: a reputation. And that is something that will
> matter to me when I'm involved in hiring far more than any certificate
> ever will.
>
> I think your UW cert will be better than most crap certs out there,
> based on what you've described, but I still don't think it's the best
> use of your time or money, compared to \*shipping\* open source
> projects.
>
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 hear you or anyone else talking about "crap training" (which I'm sure David's is not) or how those student's time or money would be better spent on shipping open source projects and building their reputation.
Properly done, certification encompasses training and ensures all students have a base proficiency of fundamental Ruby and/or Rails concepts. That is what UW does and why it is not just a paper cert. I am enrolled in the UW program because I want to learn the language better and not be sitting in front of a debugger tracing other people's buggy code (which I've done and submitted a bug fix on RubyForge for Ruby DBI).
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 🙂 .
Cheers,
Jim
---
### Author:  [@Giles\_Bowkett](https://rubytalk.org/u/Giles_Bowkett)
#### Post date: [9 December 2007 06:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/31 "2007-12-09T06:56:22Z")
> I'm kind of with Austin here. Mostly because I've seen the IT world
> dive right into certs that prove no capability whatsoever. My
> favorite story involves a guy who spent a reasonable sum of money to
> get Cisco certified only to become mortified later that his
> credibility was a far more important currency. Certs don't really
> make for a good litmus test. I'm not a manager or employer, but I can
> tell you who I would hire just from reading this email list; and no,
> it has nothing to do with being white or having an Ivy League
> education.
I think certs are silly, but I also think criticizing the original
poster for seeking one is jumping the gun.
> **···**
>
> --
> Giles Bowkett
>
> Podcast: [http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com](http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com)
> Blog: [http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com](http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com)
> Portfolio: [http://www.gilesgoatboy.org](http://www.gilesgoatboy.org)
> Tumblelog: [http://giles.tumblr.com](http://giles.tumblr.com)
---
### Author:  [@Gregory\_Seidman](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gregory_Seidman)
#### Post date: [10 December 2007 14:52 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/32 "2007-12-10T14:52:00Z")
> \> Let me try to state this a different way. We recently had someone who
> \> interviewed where I work and he claimed to be (among other things) a
> \> Ruby expert. Since I \*am\* a Ruby expert, I was involved in the
> \> interviews with this guy. (We've since hired him, because he checked
> \> out.)
> \>
> \> But you know the very first thing that I did? I Googled him. I was
> \> able to find examples of code that he'd written (not Ruby, but other
> \> languages). I went into the interview armed with knowledge about him
> \> far better than any certificate would provide.
>
> But then again, you're probably also an \*interviewing expert\*. There
> are probably more people around interviewing whose Google-Fu would not
> have brought them that far. :-))
...which falls under places I probably don't want to work. If they can't be
bothered to Google me, it probably isn't somewhere I'd be happy.
Remember that an interview cuts both ways. You may be trying to convince a
potential employer that they want you to work there, but they'd better be
selling you on the job and the environment. When they "end" the interview
with "Do you have any questions for me?" you should be doing the same thing
they were doing: asking questions to which the answers will determine
whether you should work there. (The questions asked by both sides are, of
course, additional pieces of information for that determination.)
It's pretty common to think of job seeking and interviewing as one-sided
affairs, where the candidate humbly submits him-/herself for consideration
and desperately tries to convince the powerful employers that he/she is
more worthy than the other candidates. This is crap. If you are actually in
this position you have already done something wrong.
Part of the reason for working on/with leading edge technology is to be in
demand. The market for Java or .NET programmers is largely saturated, and
typical (note I said typical, not all -- your anecdotes have no power here)
compensation and working conditions are what they are because of
simple supply and demand economics. Other pressures level the field to an
extent, in that differences in competence have a relatively small effect on
compensation and working conditions. Likewise, with demand
outstripping supply for Ruby (and particularly Rails) developers, I can
expect to find work I like with compensation and working conditions to my
liking because I can pass up less appealing opportunities without running
out of options. As long as you are competent and can show your competence,
the same applies to you; certifications won't help with that.
> Cheers
> robert
--Greg
> **···**
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:24:50PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> > 2007/12/9, Austin Ziegler \:
---
### Author:  [@Todd\_Benson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Todd_Benson)
#### Post date: [10 December 2007 21:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/33 "2007-12-10T21:32:46Z")
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> \> The 90 hours of classroom work that you're spending for a certificate
> \> could be spent working on an open source project and contributing code
> \> that would help others and help you forge something even more valuable
> \> than a certificate: a reputation. And that is something that will
> \> matter to me when I'm involved in hiring far more than any certificate
> \> ever will.
> \>
> \> I think your UW cert will be better than most crap certs out there,
> \> based on what you've described, but I still don't think it's the best
> \> use of your time or money, compared to \*shipping\* open source
> \> projects.
> \>
> 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.
> I don't hear you or anyone else
> talking about "crap training" (which I'm sure David's is not) or how
> those student's time or money would be better spent on shipping open
> source projects and building their reputation.
I think some people are thinking that until you actually \_do\_
something, you are full of that stuff that comes out your bottom. By
the use of the word "you" I mean people in general, not you
personally.
> Properly done, certification encompasses training and ensures all
> students have a base proficiency of fundamental Ruby and/or Rails
> concepts. That is what UW does and why it is not just a paper cert. I am
> enrolled in the UW program because I want to learn the language better
> and not be sitting in front of a debugger tracing other people's buggy
> code (which I've done and submitted a bug fix on RubyForge for Ruby DBI).
>
> 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?
> Cheers,
> Jim
Cheers,
Todd
> **···**
>
> On Dec 10, 2007 12:28 PM, Jim Clark \ wrote:
---
### Author:  [@Robert\_K1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Robert_K1)
#### Post date: [10 December 2007 15:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/34 "2007-12-10T15:09:23Z")
> \> \> Let me try to state this a different way. We recently had someone who
> \> \> interviewed where I work and he claimed to be (among other things) a
> \> \> Ruby expert. Since I \*am\* a Ruby expert, I was involved in the
> \> \> interviews with this guy. (We've since hired him, because he checked
> \> \> out.)
> \> \>
> \> \> But you know the very first thing that I did? I Googled him. I was
> \> \> able to find examples of code that he'd written (not Ruby, but other
> \> \> languages). I went into the interview armed with knowledge about him
> \> \> far better than any certificate would provide.
> \>
> \> But then again, you're probably also an \*interviewing expert\*. There
> \> are probably more people around interviewing whose Google-Fu would not
> \> have brought them that far. :-))
>
> ...which falls under places I probably don't want to work. If they can't be
> bothered to Google me, it probably isn't somewhere I'd be happy.
🙂 I did not want to seriously defend certificates (mind the smiley).
> Remember that an interview cuts both ways. You may be trying to convince a
> potential employer that they want you to work there, but they'd better be
> selling you on the job and the environment. When they "end" the interview
> with "Do you have any questions for me?" you should be doing the same thing
> they were doing: asking questions to which the answers will determine
> whether you should work there. (The questions asked by both sides are, of
> course, additional pieces of information for that determination.)
Of course.
> It's pretty common to think of job seeking and interviewing as one-sided
> affairs, where the candidate humbly submits him-/herself for consideration
> and desperately tries to convince the powerful employers that he/she is
> more worthy than the other candidates. This is crap. If you are actually in
> this position you have already done something wrong.
>
> Part of the reason for working on/with leading edge technology is to be in
> demand. The market for Java or .NET programmers is largely saturated, and
> typical (note I said typical, not all -- your anecdotes have no power here)
Actually, although there are plenty Java developers around, it's still
hard (at least around here) to find someone which is either a) good or
b) has the skills you need. But that's the same with every topic:
quality is rare and expensive. 🙂
> compensation and working conditions are what they are because of
> simple supply and demand economics. Other pressures level the field to an
> extent, in that differences in competence have a relatively small effect on
> compensation and working conditions. Likewise, with demand
> outstripping supply for Ruby (and particularly Rails) developers, I can
> expect to find work I like with compensation and working conditions to my
> liking because I can pass up less appealing opportunities without running
> out of options. As long as you are competent and can show your competence,
> the same applies to you; certifications won't help with that.
Exactly.
Kind regards
robert
> **···**
>
> 2007/12/10, Gregory Seidman \:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:24:50PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > \> 2007/12/9, Austin Ziegler \:
>
> --
> use.inject do |as, often| as.you\_can - without end
---
### Author:  [@Austin\_Ziegler5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler5)
#### Post date: [10 December 2007 22:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/35 "2007-12-10T22:47:58Z")
> \> 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.
> \> 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
> **···**
>
> On 12/10/07, Todd Benson \ wrote:
>
> > On Dec 10, 2007 12:28 PM, Jim Clark \ wrote:
>
> --
> Austin Ziegler \* halostatue@gmail.com \* [http://www.halostatue.ca/](http://www.halostatue.ca/)
> \* austin@halostatue.ca \* [You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue](http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/)
> \* austin@zieglers.ca
---
### Author:  [@M\_Edward\_Ed\_Borasky1](https://rubytalk.org/u/M_Edward_Ed_Borasky1)
#### Post date: [11 December 2007 04:46 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/36 "2007-12-11T04:46:13Z")
Gregory Seidman wrote:
> Part of the reason for working on/with leading edge technology is to be in
> demand. The market for Java or .NET programmers is largely saturated, and
> typical (note I said typical, not all -- your anecdotes have no power here)
> compensation and working conditions are what they are because of
> simple supply and demand economics. Other pressures level the field to an
> extent, in that differences in competence have a relatively small effect on
> compensation and working conditions. Likewise, with demand
> outstripping supply for Ruby (and particularly Rails) developers, I can
> expect to find work I like with compensation and working conditions to my
> liking because I can pass up less appealing opportunities without running
> out of options. As long as you are competent and can show your competence,
> the same applies to you; certifications won't help with that.
Well ... such "demand outstripping supply" tends to evaporate rapidly, and someone who wants to ride the waves needs a pretty good sense of where things are going and be able to become a \*world-class\* user of new technologies very quickly. I think I can pretty much name the top twenty to fifty Ruby programmers in the USA, and the projects they're working on. Unless you're one of them, expect to find that it's an employers market.
And Austin, you'd be one of them if you came back to the USA. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Jim\_Clark](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Clark)
#### Post date: [11 December 2007 01:53 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/37 "2007-12-11T01:53:02Z")
Austin Ziegler 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
> **···**
>
> > On 12/10/07, Todd Benson \ wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 10, 2007 12:28 PM, Jim Clark \ wrote:
---
### Author:  [@Austin\_Ziegler5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler5)
#### Post date: [11 December 2007 05:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/38 "2007-12-11T05:09:37Z")
> \> 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—unless
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 6–9 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
> **···**
>
> On 12/10/07, Jim Clark \ wrote:
> --
> Austin Ziegler \* halostatue@gmail.com \* [http://www.halostatue.ca/](http://www.halostatue.ca/)
> \* austin@halostatue.ca \* [You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue](http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/)
> \* austin@zieglers.ca
---
### Author:  [@Jim\_Clark](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jim_Clark)
#### Post date: [11 December 2007 06:38 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/39 "2007-12-11T06:38:17Z")
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> 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.
>
So far I am getting a lot and I am glad I am enrolled in the program. I'll let you know after I post my project / gem and then you can decide if I've learned anything 🙂 .
Cheers,
Jim
---
### Author:  [@Chad\_Perrin1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Chad_Perrin1)
#### Post date: [11 December 2007 06:59 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854/40 "2007-12-11T06:59:32Z")
> \> \> 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 tend to agree, to some extent at least. I'm surprised, though, that
you didn't address the matter of how a CS degree is characterized here.
Computer Science degrees are not supposed to indicate a basic ability to
program -- computer science as a field is something else entirely. It is
as though everyone expects a CS degree to be the definitive programming
certification. Of course, because that's how it is treated in the job
market, schools have started chasing that in how they structure their CS
degree programs, with the end result that they end up being about as
worthless as vendor-driven certifications. Oh, sure, they make you
\*look\* good, but they don't make you \*actually\* good, at least judging by
the results I've seen.
It seems most CS degree programs are just (really long, really expensive)
Java certification courses, these days.
> 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.
Spot-on, I think, with the exception that it's not reputation that makes
the mentor -- though certain types of reputation are strong indicators.
> \> 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?9 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.
It's important to separate the certification from the instruction. A
certification is only as useful to the person pursuing it as it is useful
for getting a job -- and it is only useful to employers who know better
than to care about a certification (in that they have a competitive
advantage over those employers who take a certification as some kind of
magical indicator of ability). Certifications are also, oddly enough,
useful to instructors in that it provides them with a built-in marketing
tool: if they advertise their programs as certification training
programs, they're more likely to get students clamoring at their doors,
assuming the certs in question are in any demand.
Look past the presence (or absence) of any association with
certifications, and choose your instructional programs with care, if you
actually want to learn. If you already know the material, you don't need
a program -- just brush up on the "official" answers, and go take the
cert, if that's important to career progression.
Sadly, degrees are much the same -- but there's probably less than one
hundredth of one percent of employers out there that realize this. I
learned a lot in college -- but mostly in two specific ways:
1. pursuing knowledge on my own time
2. sticking with a good instructor for future classes, even if they're
outside my chosen degree program
The end result is that I didn't learn all that much from the classes I
needed for the degrees I pursued, even when I was getting As on
everything. Learning is something you do, not something you receive.
> **···**
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 02:09:37PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
> > On 12/10/07, Jim Clark \ wrote:
>
> --
> CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [[http://ccd.apotheon.org](http://ccd.apotheon.org) ]
> Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others
> we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of
> ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
[Previous page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-certification/42854.md?page=3)