61–70 of 84 posts
I believe that interviewing.io and Triplebyte are associated entities. So grain of salt.
> today’s depressed labor market
I thought the US unemployment rate for tech jobs was below 2% (unemployment in general in the US is below 4%).
Certs could be neutrally or even positively correlated with interview performance, but by pre-filtering the population, the opposite phenomenon arises.
Some use them as a minimum requirement for performing certain jobs. In such a case, listing certifications is valuable not because it says you are any good at your job, but because it shows simply that you meet the minimum requirements to be legally employed in your profession.
The other way they are used is as a marker of expertise. This is almost always misguided. Advertising one's certification status where none is required conveys a sense of insecurity, need for social approval, and overly strong attachment to formal procedures.
That does not mean you cannot learn something from a certification course - by all means! But true experts are always judged by their results, not by their certs.
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…
That is interesting data, but it's not that clear that you can derive actionable advice from it — particularly for employee candidates themselves. Is it the listing of certifications that is inversely correlated with the career progress of the employee? Or is it because listing a certification is strongly correlated to having one, with this being what is truly inversely correlated with career progress? And, if so, in…
One thing I've been thinking about is getting a GCP certification to increase GCP recruiter reachout down the road, as I've really enjoyed working with GCP and would like to stick with it in future work. Guess I'll just do more keyword work in the 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…
People with long About blurbs on their LinkedIn profiles tend to be weaker as well.
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…
You need the full picture, that is people not making the cut to exclude this pattern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People with long About blurbs on their LinkedIn profiles tend to be weaker as well.
really? i found longer texts useful if they contain interesting details about the work of the person. shorter ones always leave me wondering who that person is.
Guys who spend a lot on self-promotion are tryhards. The really strong workers don't need to promote because their work history speaks for itself.