4 ms·

> There's no reason someone can't have both skills and certifications Of course you're right that it's not impossible. But here's why it happens anyway and why

> There's no reason someone can't have both skills and certifications Of course you're right that it's not impossible. But here's why it happens anyway and why the heuristic of them being roughly mutually exclusive is not insane: 1. There's a certification that's nearly meaningless because it's so easy to obtain without also having the relevant expertise that the certificate is supposed to represent. 2. People who are actually good at the thing will notice the certificate doesn't measure the skill correctly, and will also note that there are people in the world with this certificate who don't know the skill. 3. Those experts will not use the certificate when they hire people, and will not get the certificate since it doesn't work and no one who is an expert is using it to hire anyway. 4. Meanwhile, there are basically only two groups that care about the certification: > a. People who are clueless: a clueless hiring manager who doesn't understand the domain they are hiring for so they are looking for cheap proxies for skill and experience. Clueless wannabe professionals who don't understand the domain or the industry enough to have been in the expert group above but who are still looking for jobs in the field. Clueless clients who are impressed by the certification because they don't know any better. > b. The people who are taking advantage of the clueless clients: Professionals and hiring managers who know very well that the certification is worthless, but who use it for sales and marketing anyway because it mollifies clueless clients. If that trend holds, then you have a signal (the certification) the repels experts, while attracting the clueless and those who would exploit them. So when you find someone in the world with that certification, you should expect on average for them to be clueless or preying on the clueless. That's why treating it as mutually exclusive isn't insane heuristically, even though it's not impossible that someone who is good also has a certification.

balabaster 10y ago
Additionally technical certificates supposedly measure competency in a particular technology. That technology is obsolete roughly at the time you're sitting to write the exam. So you've spent time learning material (assuming you didn't already know it) to cover a technology that will be in the process of being replaced as you sit down to write the exam. You may as well have spent the time using the skills productively rather than using it to obtain a piece of paper that says your skills are obsolete... Plus there's the financial outlay of it; costs to obtain the course material and sit the exam. These points (including yours) basically amount to my bias against obtaining certificates. I'm not against the material itself, if it's useful. But I'm not in the habit of paying for or spending time on education for anything other than the value of my interest in the material. A piece of obsolete paper does nothing for me at this point in my career. YMMV
loteck 10y ago
This is a great comment to illustrate grandparent's point that irrational hate of certifications permeates the industry. Many certifications under discussion here are meant to assist at the entry-level. That's what the certificate is "supposed to represent". That's what skill the certificates "measure correctly." That's the 3rd group of people who care: people operating at or near the entry level. It is no surprise that experts hiring experts in any field couldn't care less about certifications (aside from ones required by regulation). At the expert level, you hire real, verifiable experience.
ABCLAW 10y ago
You've ignored the point of the post you're replying to. You're looking at the credential as a employee signalling tool, not a tool for other parties to satisfy a business need. Your HR department needs avenues to sift through referrals and comparison points. If an individual has the certificate and compares equally with a non-certificate candidate, the first individual has signaled, through the certificate, that he is interested in the field, as well as willing to invest time and resources into advancing in that field. This is the flipside of the employee signalling. If an applicant applies without the certificate to a post which requires it, he will recognize his cover letter/interview should make a point of demonstrating competence in the area of the certificate. This is an instance of employer signalling. If an applicant fakes having acquired the certificate and there is an easy way to determine whether or not he is faking, then HR now has an easy sieve for removing employees willing to misrepresent their skills to obtain the job. This is a step in the HR QA process. Some employers work outside the 'work for hire' states. If they contain a certificate requirement in a job posting with enumerated skills, they can point to ineptitude in the certificate skillset as reasons for dismissal depending on the jurisdiction they're in. This is a tool in legal's toolbox. Perhaps the certificate system is the result of the collaboration of a number of employers attempting to pool credential and training requirements for an industry, then create requirements for credentialing into legislation to control the industry pipeline of workers. This is a method of signalling to legislators or restricting competitors by indirect means. And so on. Additionally, your fact pattern has a small problem: expert acting as hiring managers who have knowledge of the problems with the certificate are free to adjust their screening procedure to obtain more fully vetted candidates. The only time avoiding the certificate entirely is when the signal it provides is negative. This doesn't mean that certs are useful, merely that they might be useful to stakeholders you aren't considering.
- pmichaud 10y ago
  I did ignore that mostly, you're right. My basic claim is that on average this is actually true: > The only time avoiding the certificate entirely is when the signal it provides is negative. And further, I think all your examples are perfectly valid, real-world examples that I don't dispute exist and that lots of people find important. I also think perfectly good and reasonable people operate in the reality of their industries and play ball with these things when necessary. AND I think all the use cases you mentioned are bad for the system overall. As in, they are real, and in a practical sense we can't just ignore them, but ideally we wouldn't have them. HR using negative signals for filtering is bad. Job requirements tailored to the actual job are good. Broad and mostly arbitrary requirements from a third party are bad. Applicants to a well specified job also know to address weaknesses in their cover letter. Specific and well-specified requirements are also useful in legal disputes. Using arbitrary requirements to provide legal for firing people is bad. Employers colluding to control the training pipeline using arbitrary requirements encoded in law is bad. I agree with you that they useful in the real world, but I'm arguing that that usefulness is evidence that the system is worse than it could be.

balabaster 10y ago

Additionally technical certificates supposedly measure competency in a particular technology. That technology is obsolete roughly at the time you're sitting to write the exam. So you've spent time learning material (assuming you didn't already know it) to cover a technology that will be in the process of being replaced as you sit down to write the exam. You may as well have spent the time using the skills productively rather than using it to obtain a piece of paper that says your skills are obsolete... Plus there's the financial outlay of it; costs to obtain the course material and sit the exam. These points (including yours) basically amount to my bias against obtaining certificates. I'm not against the material itself, if it's useful. But I'm not in the habit of paying for or spending time on education for anything other than the value of my interest in the material. A piece of obsolete paper does nothing for me at this point in my career. YMMV

loteck 10y ago

This is a great comment to illustrate grandparent's point that irrational hate of certifications permeates the industry. Many certifications under discussion here are meant to assist at the entry-level. That's what the certificate is "supposed to represent". That's what skill the certificates "measure correctly." That's the 3rd group of people who care: people operating at or near the entry level. It is no surprise that experts hiring experts in any field couldn't care less about certifications (aside from ones required by regulation). At the expert level, you hire real, verifiable experience.

ABCLAW 10y ago

You've ignored the point of the post you're replying to. You're looking at the credential as a employee signalling tool, not a tool for other parties to satisfy a business need. Your HR department needs avenues to sift through referrals and comparison points. If an individual has the certificate and compares equally with a non-certificate candidate, the first individual has signaled, through the certificate, that he is interested in the field, as well as willing to invest time and resources into advancing in that field. This is the flipside of the employee signalling. If an applicant applies without the certificate to a post which requires it, he will recognize his cover letter/interview should make a point of demonstrating competence in the area of the certificate. This is an instance of employer signalling. If an applicant fakes having acquired the certificate and there is an easy way to determine whether or not he is faking, then HR now has an easy sieve for removing employees willing to misrepresent their skills to obtain the job. This is a step in the HR QA process. Some employers work outside the 'work for hire' states. If they contain a certificate requirement in a job posting with enumerated skills, they can point to ineptitude in the certificate skillset as reasons for dismissal depending on the jurisdiction they're in. This is a tool in legal's toolbox. Perhaps the certificate system is the result of the collaboration of a number of employers attempting to pool credential and training requirements for an industry, then create requirements for credentialing into legislation to control the industry pipeline of workers. This is a method of signalling to legislators or restricting competitors by indirect means. And so on. Additionally, your fact pattern has a small problem: expert acting as hiring managers who have knowledge of the problems with the certificate are free to adjust their screening procedure to obtain more fully vetted candidates. The only time avoiding the certificate entirely is when the signal it provides is negative. This doesn't mean that certs are useful, merely that they might be useful to stakeholders you aren't considering.

pmichaud 10y ago
I did ignore that mostly, you're right. My basic claim is that on average this is actually true: > The only time avoiding the certificate entirely is when the signal it provides is negative. And further, I think all your examples are perfectly valid, real-world examples that I don't dispute exist and that lots of people find important. I also think perfectly good and reasonable people operate in the reality of their industries and play ball with these things when necessary. AND I think all the use cases you mentioned are bad for the system overall. As in, they are real, and in a practical sense we can't just ignore them, but ideally we wouldn't have them. HR using negative signals for filtering is bad. Job requirements tailored to the actual job are good. Broad and mostly arbitrary requirements from a third party are bad. Applicants to a well specified job also know to address weaknesses in their cover letter. Specific and well-specified requirements are also useful in legal disputes. Using arbitrary requirements to provide legal for firing people is bad. Employers colluding to control the training pipeline using arbitrary requirements encoded in law is bad. I agree with you that they useful in the real world, but I'm arguing that that usefulness is evidence that the system is worse than it could be.