51–60 of 84 posts
Coursera/Udemy/etc certs are obviously useless because they don't actually signal anything.
A "Top 10% at interviewing" cert is a bizarre idea but the two don't compare imo.
I found that studying for certs was incredibly helpful for me in the start. I learned how to be a Linux power user with the LPIC-1 and 2, I learned networking with the CCNA, did certifications for configuration management tools for stuff like Puppet, got my CKA, and my AWS SA.
On top of being a self taught programmer (I don't do anything impressive, my code is just throwing JSON from one side of a datacenter to the other) I feel that I am pretty good at my job. I'm comfortable working on a private cloud which has services scaled to millions of concurrent users.
I'll never get a FAANG job, but I still make good money and regularly get positive performance reviews and peer feedback at the jobs I do have.
So if you feel like getting a cert will plug a knowledge gap, please go ahead and get that cert. But don't get certs just to collect trophies to put on LinkedIn.
Also, if anyone can recommend a good alternative to the now defunct Linux Academy, I would totally purchase a subscription. A Cloud Guru ran that amazing resource into the ground and now just caters to cert chasers collecting trophies instead of actually going above and beyond to teach the fundamentals of a technology.
Author/OP here. Just heard an interesting and relevant tidbit from someone who read the post. Apparently a while ago, Google fed resumes of employees into an ML model and correlated several metrics to the success of a specific engineer at Google. There was a lot of interesting data gathered from that but one that stood out was exactly that the number of certifications listed was inversely proportional to the engineer…
53 vs 57 is presented as if the difference was over 50% and including shitty Linkedin, Udemy etc. certifications makes me think this article started from the conclusion and tried to find the data to match.
Programming certifications definitely look terrible. I would rather interview someone with a side project than someone with a cert.
I've worked in finance, healthcare and defense industry, all those industries do not mark you negative for having IT related certifications. Continue education is a big thing in those industries and generally, degrees and certifications usually get reimbursed. For me, the key is to match certifications with their work. If I see OCAJP, but zero work experience in that space, or you work on-prem system only, but has AW…
pretty sure they're talking about listing certifications on your linkedin, not just having certifications. i.e. it doesn't matter to this blog post that you either have or do not have a certification -- it only matters whether you have listed it on your linkedin.
Author/OP here. Just heard an interesting and relevant tidbit from someone who read the post. Apparently a while ago, Google fed resumes of employees into an ML model and correlated several metrics to the success of a specific engineer at Google. There was a lot of interesting data gathered from that but one that stood out was exactly that the number of certifications listed was inversely proportional to the engineer…
But that's circular. Career progress is not necessarily correlated with actual performance. The latter is really hard to separate from politics. It is possible to have a stellar career while being a mediocre performer if you know how to work the system and have a bit of good luck. Likewise, it's possible to be an outstanding performer and have a mediocre or even non-existent career if you don't happen to be in the right place at the right time, or if you rub the wrong person the wrong way.
Author/OP here. Just heard an interesting and relevant tidbit from someone who read the post. Apparently a while ago, Google fed resumes of employees into an ML model and correlated several metrics to the success of a specific engineer at Google. There was a lot of interesting data gathered from that but one that stood out was exactly that the number of certifications listed was inversely proportional to the engineer…
Maybe naturally curious people that want to acquire broad and diverse knowledge aren't that interested in climbing the career ladder in Google? Maybe the career ladder in Google is built in a way that encourages narrow focus and singleminded dedication to a single metric only - the career in Google itself? And maybe that's not how everybody is measuring success in life, both professional and broader?