In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kurt D. Starsinic) wrote:
> A well-administered certification will *correlate* to competence.
Well, by such a definition, I contend no such certification exists, or
can exist, on any significantly large scale.
> I'm not suggesting that any certification process can (or should)
> guarantee either 0 false positives or 0 false negatives. A useful
> certification program, IMHO, is one that turns up more qualified
> candidates than a dartboard method would. What are your criteria?
One that does more good than harm. One that does not lead to
significant exclusion of qualified applicants (this is a *big* deal that
should not be overlooked, but often is; forcing people into a
certification program is demeaning at best, and unjust at worst). One
that does not lead to significant wasting of time in interviewing and
possibly hiring unqualified ones.
In other words, a useful certification process is a fantasy one in a
place where every day is sunny and the trees are made of candy.
A certification might turn up more qualified candidates than a
dartboard. But in my experience, it turns up more unqualified ones,
too, and in greater numbers. I find that by far the best way to get
qualified candidates is to go through user groups, word of mouth,
personal contacts, etc. Sure, that can't always be done; but that is
the only way I've seen anyone find consistently good candidates. I've
never seen certification help an employer with any significance.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
