[flanked-evergl]

> I remember a time when online certificates was an anti signal.

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.

[andrewjl]

Thinking this way tends to carry a bias against historically underrepresented backgrounds in the tech industry. In some cases certifications might be the only way to get ones foot in the door.

It's fairer to just focus on competency, certified or not.

[treprinum]

I have over 100 Coursera/edX/Udacity certificates and work on the bleeding edge of tech (AI). MIT's Underactuated Robotics got me into the first cohort of Udacity's Self-driving Car Nanodegree. I think you are shooting yourself in the feet if you plainly reject people like me who just want to keep learning new things.

[mindcrime]

I think there's a big difference between these two types of people:

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.

[gorjusborg]

I group cert-seekers together. I don't see motivation mattering. People who have time to 'prove' their knowledge/skill are really just showing that they aren't really into the thing, they are into being recognized as being into the thing.

The exceptions are certifications that are required by law.

[a_vanderbilt]

I feel it's a bit more nuanced. If someone is early in their career and they have some decent certs (CCNA, RHCSA, Sec+) then I see it as a positive. What really matters is how they present that knowledge. As you have alluded to, a lot of candidates just memorize and regurgitate to get the cert. Unfortunately, at big firms the resume robots filter out plenty of great candidates simply because they lack ITIL or some other kind of useless cert. They don't get a chance to show off what they know.

[gorjusborg]

> Unfortunately, at big firms the resume robots filter out plenty of great candidates simply because they lack ITIL or some other kind of useless cert. They don't get a chance to show off what they know.

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.

[a_vanderbilt]

Agreed

[Waterluvian]

They’re not saying that though. They’re saying they’ve never experienced it being a positive signal. I haven’t either. But I don’t think we’re claiming people like you don’t exist and we’re not judging people because of their certs. Just observing the correlation.

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.

[themoonisachees]

I mean this in the nicest way possible. I genuinely have nothing agaisnt you and this is as far as I know the first time i've ever read one of your comments.

You appear unsufferable. If i was in charge of deciding whether or not to hire you, I would not, based on this comment.

[operatingthetan]

>If i was in charge of deciding whether or not to hire you, I would not, based on this comment.

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.

[l33t7332273]

I agree with this sentiment.

Something about the phrase “the bleeding edge of tech (AI)” is just very off putting.

[gorjusborg]

It is that perfect combination of over-confidence and lack of understanding that often veils insecurity and incompetence.

Screams Dunning-Kruger effect.

Again, I also have nothing against the person here, it is the behavior that is a red flag.

[hyperhello]

Dunning-Kruger didn’t mean what you’re assuming it to.

[l33t7332273]

Can you elaborate?

[P_I_Staker]

Flagged and downvoted. You've been nailed.

[bdcravens]

Nothing to keep you from learning out of personal interest and leaving it off of your resume.

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.

[lazycog512]

there's a difference between certs as a signal and certs as actually learning something

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