Reply to: do you pay for training?

[To BI or not to BI?]

.....I don't pay any attention to whether someone is University educated or not when I'm looking at a CV. Again, just like certification, it doesn't mean anything.

But you said it yourself

In summary, all a degree (or higher) shows is that you have the ability to learn.

and I would add, the ability abstract form the theory and apply it to to a real life situation

[Cowboy Bob]

So university degrees and formal education are useless, right?

In the real world, yes they are. I have an MSc in Computer Science and can honestly say that most of what I learned was b0llocks. A few months ago I looked back at what I was taught at University and some of the code that the professors produced was really cr@p, embarassingly so. Consequently, so was most of my code, even code written for my MSc thesis was pretty bad (though it worked).

You know the old axiom - those that can do, those that can't teach. That is oh so true.

In summary, all a degree (or higher) shows is that you have the ability to learn. I don't want to see ANY code of the standard that is written to "University standard" in my projects. I don't pay any attention to whether someone is University educated or not when I'm looking at a CV. Again, just like certification, it doesn't mean anything.

[Angela_D]

For me it would depend on where the reference to the certification is on the CV. If it's in a prominent "look at what I got" position, then the CV will go straight in the bin. If it's in a low key "on top of my experience I also happen to hold this" position, then I'd give the CV a chance.

I know where you're coming from. However ......


I have a string of academic and professional qualifications. I'm not going to hide these at the back of the cv where they are likely to be ignored but upfront. Management types like that stuff and thats how they themselves progressed.

If a techie is sifting cvs then your view holds some water.

The primary reason I have my 'best' quals upfront, immediately after a couple of lines profile and listing core 5 competencies is for the agent to read. The first hurdle / block. How many times have you wished to have one cv for the pimp and another (more or less the same content but diff. presentation) for the client.

The recruiter is ignorant and doesn't care about the nitty-gritty. Many of them are are impressed by paperwork. It can be really frustrating to be rejected by an agent because you don't have MCP in Exchange but only 6 years hands on!! Obviously the MCP is the right, safe choice to put fwd to a client.

2 hurdles: agent, client interview *in that order*. You need to do whatever it takes to get to stage 2 even if stg on the cv may not be exactly how you would like to portray yourseld to potential "co-workers."

[cojak]

or from a trainer who, if they were any good at the subject they're supposed to be teaching, would be out in the marketplace using their skills.

Oh yes my friend, I couldn't agree more...

Being an accredited trainer and a consultant means that you can take the odd 3 days off here and there, train the occasional Foundation course and be back at your desk with no off comments from your prime contract.

It keeps my accountant happy and I know I've got work if things turn quiet between 'proper' contracts.

[Numptycorner]

So university degrees and formal education are useless, right?

Only if you don't have them, apparently

[To BI or not to BI?]

Experience IS knowledge...

So university degrees and formal education are useless, right?

[Lucy]

Would you go to a dentist without qualifications Franko?

With Dentists in the UK, who can tell the difference ?

[Francko]

Experience IS knowledge...

Yes and no. When I was a developer I have seen many of them keep using the wrong structures simply because they didn't have the theorical knowledge to approach the most efficient ones. If you don't have enough knowledge your experience will be limited and you might be like a pianist who plays with a single hand. Of course, you can improve your knowledge everyday while you are doing your day-to-day job but that is not necessarily the case for everybody. We all agree that knowledge doesn't make up for lack of experience but what I find disagreable is your opposition to reward theoretical knowledge. You are wrongly concentrating your focus on people that do not study properly and effectively, but that is probably the same percentage as people who do not work properly and effectively.

[Francko]

Would you go to a dentist without qualifications Franko?

No I wouldn't but the dentist sector is very different. There is a common set of knowledge that people should know and use it everyday. What is that with IT? What's important to know and what's not? Does it really matter if your unix administrator knows the Markov chain or the red-binary tree when all it really matters is that your unix servers are working all the time? Besides, the technology is continually changing so that what you knew in the past is almost useless and the continous training is the most important thing.

[Cowboy Bob]

Both knowledge and experience are important.

Experience IS knowledge...

[Numptycorner]

Would you go to a dentist without qualifications Franko?

[Francko]

It does, because as far as I'm concerned certificates are irrelevant, it's the X years of experience that I'm interested in. If you are emphasising something that I see as irrelevant then the CV gets a lower "grade" in my eyes. Any candidate that is emphasising their ability to memorise a bunch of crap is (maybe sub-consciously) telling me that they have a lower abillity to actually apply their knowledge. That's just the way I personally read CVs, others may do it differently.

Both knowledge and experience are important. Just as you said some people memorise a bunch of crap then other people do a crap job and pass it as an outstanding experience (sometimes even adding things that they never touched, and oh... magically everybody assumes some management and team leading responsibility too). By penalising the ones who worked hard for the knowledge (and normally the ones with the right attitude to work hard when they do experience) I am not sure what you can really achieve.

[Cowboy Bob]

I'd say you should look at the CV as a whole. If the candidate has X years of experience AND certificates to support that, too, it doesn't matter where in the page the certificates appear, does it?

It does, because as far as I'm concerned certificates are irrelevant, it's the X years of experience that I'm interested in. If you are emphasising something that I see as irrelevant then the CV gets a lower "grade" in my eyes. Any candidate that is emphasising their ability to memorise a bunch of crap is (maybe sub-consciously) telling me that they have a lower abillity to actually apply their knowledge. That's just the way I personally read CVs, others may do it differently.

[Francko]

I wonder how many people here would go to a self taught dentist or surgeon.

Well, you must admit that in IT is slightly different. I'd be happy to have a tutor at work to teach me how to do a specific type of surgery but 95% of the time I have always been the most experienced person on the subject (yes, even when I had 6 months - 1 year experience) while the majority of "seniors" in reality were bluffers who worked their way up by licking managers @rses. So after many years I guess I have become used to train myself only by myself (and yes, even the few courses I have attended I have found the instructor not much more experienced - he was probably given a couple of weeks to prepare for the course). Yet, I do believe studying for a certification is a good way to check your theoretical progresses (although, yes, there are exam crams, answers, cheats, and you can memorise some.... but that's what even dentists and surgeons do when they pass the exams).

[To BI or not to BI?]

I'd say you should look at the CV as a whole. If the candidate has X years of experience AND certificates to support that, too, it doesn't matter where in the page the certificates appear, does it?