Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:54 PM, psykx.out <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Basically as I see it now _all_ certs are bad. all of them period. if >> you can't explain to an interviewer why your would be good for the job >> in question you shouldn't have it. This come from somebody working in IT >> > > A certificate can save you spending the time making that explanation. > Saying "I have a degree" saves a lot of time, on both sides. > > When I went for a gig with the BBC they had me do a brainbench test. I > was quite impressed with it, it really felt to me like someone who > knew the language and what was important about it wrote it. I'm > curious about answers to this thread too (less though about the > meta-discussion about merits of certification). > > P >
That's interesting. From Perl Cert posts I've read on LPM and Perl Monks a lot of people don't rate Brainbench tests. The main argument being that the tests are based on memory of functions and their parameters, as opposed to whether you can actually write code. In fairness if you can remember a lot of functions and their parameters without having to look them up, you'll potentially be a faster programmer (or at least spend less time looking up functions and their parameters). Although in fairness BrainBench are about the only ones (I did once come across another) that offer some kind of Perl Certificate. This could be clear evidence that the BBC at least prefer to deal with certified programmers. Lyle _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
