| Why not both? Actual practice is invaluable. Would you hire a lorry driver that had only ever studied the theory of driving, and never actually got behind the wheel of a truck? But certifications do two things: One, they cover the material in a rigorous, reliable fashion. If someone passed the cert, it can be safely assumed that they have a certain minimum understanding of the subject, even if it isn’t deep or comprehensive. Sure, you can still “train to the test” and emerge certified without even knowing how to turn on a computer, but I would argue that this is even more difficult to pull off than a legitimate mix of study and practice. And two, they give HR a checkbox that can be easily checked off. Keep in mind that the vast majority of HR departments have absolutely no clue what the job entails. For any position within ICBM range of IT, at least 90% of what is on your CV is complete gobbledygook to them; a wizard’s incantation in ancient Latin. It’s why you need to be exceedingly careful with acronyms/abbreviations vs full names of any skills or talents or achievements… using one where the other is expected can have your application binned because they don’t realize that one is functionally identical to the other, and that checkbox doesn’t get checked off. They _quite literally_ do a “paint by numbers” in order to gatekeep the applications that come in. As such, HR departments _absolutely adore_ official/formal education because it typically has consistent and simplified naming, allowing the focus of the education to be vaguely grokked by a non-technical person. That name allows them to put a tick in a checkbox that covers a whole host of job/hiring requirements, and relieves them from an entire metric arseload of hard thinking and intellectually intensive evaluation. It’s also a lot easier to input into hiring software. |