[bunsenhoneydew]

Good. I spent about 15 years hiring and managing MS devs and these certs were always a red flag to me. It almost guaranteed the person would only know the MS exam way and would have no critical thinking capabilities. They also rarely knew anything beyond the MS world.

They were a very strong indicator of someone’s ability to pass an exam, not that they were a good engineer.

From talking to other disciplines, the networking and infra certs were useful but everything I saw about dev certs was negative.

I guess they were useful in helping thin down a pile of CVs as these went straight to the bottom.

[_8j50]

I've heard that reasoning of certs under different IT disciplines from different managers as well. To me, the fact that you think that way is a redflag that you don't do technical interviews right and perhaps you haven't managed to train people right either.

The cert only tells you that they know the $cert way of doing things and that in itself shows minimal competency as opposed to someone making things up. A cert says nothing about other abilities such as critical thinking and abstract reasoning. It only helps you decide whether or not you should call them in for an interview. Your technical interview should include practical questions that filter out candidates that can't be bothered to research a subject and stick to the cert way no matter what.

[mixmastamyk]

Yep, GP rant is middle-brow dismissal.

[thanatropism]

And now you’ve lost a bunch of red flags you were able to use for recruitment.

[mathattack]

In general I’ve viewed any 3 or 4 letter acronym (MSCA, MBA, CISA, PMP, etc) to be a bad signal. It’s as if they’re signaling a lack of depth.