I remember a time when online certificates was an anti signal. I think it still is in many startups. (Most people just hire on skill.)
I have never interviewed someone with many certifications and thought the person would be a good addition to a team, and I have never worked with someone who has many online certifications and thought they are good at the things they are certified in.
Edit: to add to this, you know what signal I’ve also never observed in 11 years? A PhD indicating someone will be an exceptional engineer.
You appear unsufferable. If i was in charge of deciding whether or not to hire you, I would not, based on this comment.
Something about the phrase “the bleeding edge of tech (AI)” is just very off putting.
Screams Dunning-Kruger effect.
Again, I also have nothing against the person here, it is the behavior that is a red flag.
Good thing we don't hire people based on social media comments then! It really looks like you just took an opportunity to use careful language to bully someone that you just didn't need to.
the former tend to be the type that list as many of those 100 certs as they can on your resume - I assume you're the latter and actually tailor mentioning those to very relevant / the best of the best
1. Collects certifications just to pad their resume, and get there probably by mostly studying brain-dumps and memorizing the answers. Often have little or no actual experience with the technology in question.
2. Gains certifications related to things they have actually done / are actually doing, and use the certification process as a "forcing function" to motivate doing a deeper dive into obscure or less frequently used corners of the technology that they may not currently be strong in. Puts the certification on their resume but only expecting it to be a "weak signal" that complements their actual experience.
I think there may also be a 3rd category which may be relate to (1) but specifically relates to people who are just beginning their careers and seek a few certifications just to give them "something to hang their hat on" as far as getting in the door somewhere.
Anyway, I consider myself a representative of group (2) and as such I tend to default to an assumption that most people are also in that group. As such, I consider certifications a positive (if weak) signal, unless there is some other "red flag" to suggest the person is in "group 1". Like having 100 certifications, but not documented experience actually working with any of those technologies, or something like that.
The exceptions are certifications that are required by law.
Fair enough.
If someone it doing it satisfy a bureaucratic machine, I'll suspend judgement. If they think that makes them actually better than someone who actually does the thing, hard pass. It's usually pretty easy to tell where people fall based on their general behavior.
I don't care about who someone is, or where they to school. I care about what they can do. Certs don't show any of that.
The issue is putting it on your resume and thinking it's a criteria hiring managers would use.
If you can build some body of work, whether it's a paper, code, etc that reflects what you've learned, that's infinitely more relevant.
It's fairer to just focus on competency, certified or not.
https://www.edx.org/learn/computer-programming/massachusetts...
People within companies are all different, so we can't say. Some hiring managers might, others actually prefer no degree, others might focus more "shipped". It depends
The courses from Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford, MIT are quite good. There is no paying, just knowledge.
Taking the course is not a negative signal.
Putting the course on your resume, as if that conveys useful information, is.
Are you a hiring manager? A you are hiring manager of the whole IT industry?
Even in this thread there are many that have successfully landed great jobs with certificates on their resume.
You also seem to be missing that the content associated with the certificate can be fine, but the validation process broken enough that the certificate per se (and therefore listing it on a resume) is worthless.
(I prefer to hire based primarily on work samples or a take-home project.)
People actually learn the basics of CS and foundational knowledge in those courses. And how to use git and GitHub.
I never stated that those certs, or courses alone would be enough. This comment thread started because someone called it anti-signal. Listing anything on a Resume is never pointless, it tells us something about the potential hire.
Courses like the one mentioned are open, which means if you wanted to test that knowledge you could, easily.
That could tell you so much about the potential hire:
* Did they actually do the course.
* Did they retain the information.
* Did they understood the material.
* How did they use the information, in their own projects or clients.
From those answers you would even be able to learn more about their seniority level.
The point is, "anti-signals" is just not everywhere the case. It might be for some, sure. But how many of those would like to see formal CS education?
Seems that even you are more on the side of actual code examples. And in order to create great code, allot of deep knowledge is needed. Which those courses provide.
Sorry, but you have absolutely wrong ideas about resumes, how they are read, and what information they convey. Both descriptively and normatively.
> Courses like the one mentioned are open, which means if you wanted to test that knowledge you could, easily.
If I have to test anything, I'm going to test the actual job skills. But actually the point of a degree/certification/whatever on a resume is to show me that someone else already did the testing so I don't have to spend time doing it. Conversely, if I have to test it again, it's pointless to put on a resume.
It seems you are misunderstanding me again, If someone puts something on resume. It's a signalling they think it's important. And in order asses candidates on their strengths, we use the resume.
If you are worried that they are missing the information from the course, I gave how it's actually great tool to asses candidate.
You also thinking that can outsource in some sense if developer will workout at the work place you are hiring for. This is a mistake.
Instead of making blanket statements, and dismissing people on frivolous things. Like going to ivy league universities or having certificate.
It's better to test the person, to get the know more about the strengths and weaknesses.
A resume is just window into the candidate thinking process.
-edit It's clear from your comments you're not aware of the great work at Harvard with CS50 course.
I don’t get the elitism or why you think someone with a degree from a specific school is inherently stupid. That’s as weird as refusing to hire non-formally educated people.
Harvard is good for signalling, traditional liberal arts, and pre-law (but, I repeat myself). It's not a very good teaching university overall, and especially not in CS.
That said, I think you’re completely out of touch with how 18 year olds choose universities. It can be as simple as a friend of theirs is also attending, or the school is close to a parent’s home, or they were actually in a liberal arts program before they switched into CS.
Sometimes as you implied, it’s their parents making that decision for them.
There’s no point in holding the cost of a student’s education over them, especially as you don’t know even how much they paid.
It's not reasonable, those statements are liability for you and the company you represent. Hiring laws are quite strict of discrimination.