71–80 of 84 posts
"The one standout is Triplebyte. Their graduates are 6 percentage points more likely to pass interviews —a serious boost, albeit not enough to dispel the negative signal that all the others carry." I believe that interviewing.io and Triplebyte are associated entities. So grain of salt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Really. I think this sums it up: https://devrant.com/rants/1807864/reality-vs-linkedin-profil... 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.
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.
We can all make arbitrary heuristics. And we do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That seems artificial, no? Do I list them on my resume? Wouldn't that have the same "result"?
my linkedin prob lists my expired aws cert. i presume the report only cares that it is listed, not that it is expired, but no idea.
i have _not_ listed my no-longer-valid java cert. the report would presumably ignore that because it doesn't know about it.
other folks presumably list credentials they don't have, or are expired, or were obtained fraudulently, etc.
i'm not hating on their method - just don't care for misleading illustrations - too fox newsy.
and i just realized the headline that i assumed was the title of the post is not actually the title of the page, which means it may not be the intended title of the post. maybe that's standard, or seo chicanery, or clickbaiting, etc.
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…
An average business certainly won't have the same recruiting pipeline as Google, to say the least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you made a critical error of being too generic? What field and what certs? If 90% of certs are junk the your takeaway is wrong because people are posting the wrong certs? What about industry? I didn't even know coders had certs but in infosec for example some certs hold a lot of weight. I've been on the other side of an interview a few times and I can tell you, I will ask more specific and technical questions…
Read TFA, they do comparisons based on the certifying agency.
This is what you mean right?:
Coursera LinkedIn Triplebyte Microsoft Amazon Web Services (AWS) Oracle Udacity Udemy HackerRank Cisco
Are you trying to say you can tell what industry the cert is for based on that alone? Microsoft? Cisco? Haha, Udemy????
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…
The employer is paying a higher price, for no real benefit.
As an example, I've helped IT staff prepare for certification on email systems and have over 5 years of direct experience specializing in that area. They received their certifications no issues, but they paid the high priced business class which included the test. I paid for just the test when I went to test, and I was failed. It wasn't a matter of not knowing the material, there were structural issues that appeared intentional, and there is no incentive to fix those issues. When I say structural, I'm talking about system's theory properties such as determinism not being present (a property any valid test should have).
In fact measures that normal businesses enact to maintain accountability to avoid lawsuits that every business has, they've removed because they are legally shielded with no real due process. They'll string you along for 3 months before giving you a credit, when you can prove they misrepresented many things, and that they made many errors that directly impacted the outcome, while refusing to make right (i.e. you may be limited by the number of times you can test, and errors on their part, by policy, won't be adjusted).
They have such legal protection that you either pay the toll, or you don't get a temporary qualification to work. Its sad, but this interference in employer-employee relations for profit at your expense is common, and unavoidable due to monopoly/oligopoly and lack of oversight.
If I were a CTO involved in hiring, knowing what I know, I would not hire based on certifications. It only shows that you either have persistence or paid more money upfront, nothing more. The marketing being pushed for certifications towards business is fraudulent in many cases, and is not representative of skills.
The engineers with tons of certs absolutely suck.
Recently worked with one who had like 4 professional grade AWS certs and they couldn’t do anything in AWS