The definition of certificate, according to my dictionary, is A document certifying (to attest as being true) that one has fulfilled the requirements of and may practice in a field. Over the years, many types of certification in the computer field have popped up. Some of them are highly regarded as great tests of a persons ability to perform the job for which he or she has received certification. Others, in my opinion, do nothing more than show the persons ability to memorize information, and, in some cases, could present a false security regarding the persons abilities.
Questions come to mind that may make you think about how you value RPG certification. Why are IBMs certifications acquired ex post facto, and how does that chronology relate to the definition of the certification? Most RPG programmers are already on the job. Many others also have a degree. Doesnt a degree mean more than certification in this case? If someone receives a passing grade in a computer science curriculum, doesnt that mean more than certification? If you happen to be one of those RPG programmers who holds a degree and suddenly you are forced to obtain RPG certification, how would you feel? The potential for frustration would be especially intensified if, before this certification hype, you were regarded by management and your peers as a great asset, completing tasks on time and always looking for ways to improve.
The objectives for RPG certification can be found at http://www.ibm.com/Education/ certify/tests/obj260.phtml. These objectives would make you believe that the test will be fair and do a good job of measuring the current knowledge of the programmer. But since the test itself is multiple choice, I feel that this is not the case. If the test were an essay-type test in which you explained each of the objectives listed on the page, I think we could agree that certification would have real significance. One could even be given various levels of certification, depending on the score received.
While preparing for this article, I also wanted to know how others felt about certification, so I posted a message on newsgroups and mailing lists, requesting opinions on the RPG certification. Some stated that the certification tests are SEU biased since someone who uses a GUI source editor doesnt come in contact with the SEU commands that are on the test. Others felt that these exams only test the coding ability of people, not
their true programming ability, which they felt was more valuable. Others asked why, if IBM is placing such an emphasis on learning Java and stating in advertisements that if RPG programmers dont learn Java they will be flipping burgers, is RPG certification necessary at all? Finally, others felt that the RPG test was too general and should be divided based on the focus of the questions. For example, it should exclude questions regarding library lists and stick to true programming questions.
Is the idea of certification for the benefit of the employee or the employer? I could see how being certified would help consulting shops. When talking with potential customers, the mention of having only certified programmers would ease the minds of the customer, and in some cases would justify a higher rate. A certified programmer may also have an easier time finding a job, contracting or not. But realistically, I would say that certification should not be the main criterion on which you judge a programmer whom you are looking to hire or a consulting shop that you wish to hire to perform your Y2K programming.
One advantage of certification that I can see is that it may help to weed out the people whom you may not want working on mission-critical software, but a list of people who failed the test probably will never be made public.
Now, you may ask, If you think RPG certification isnt a good way to judge the competence of our programmers, do you have a better suggestion? I would answer this question simply with another question: How did you rate your employees competence before RPG certification? Most likely by the work they have done, by how successfully they perform their duties, and by the opinions their peers have of their work. These, I feel, are much more valuable measurements of compentency than a piece of paper that says, I took a test and passed.
The bottom line is this: Obtaining RPG certification itself wont make you a better programmer. You have to want to be a better programmer and work at it through educational and tactile means, as well as possess the intuitiveness needed to be an effective problem solver.
Certification is by no means a bad thing; it just may be being pushed for the wrong reasons. It seems, again, that in the current state of need for IT professionals, quick and dirty seems to be the way to go. I wonder where programmers get the ideas for their quick-and-dirty programming style?
LATEST COMMENTS
MC Press Online