Re: Certification

[Swee-Chuan Khoo <sckhoo@asiapac.net>]

i think a test with the techincal knowledge with some 10% of control
question to see thro the bluff is better. i will hire anyone
who can answer the question over a person with that piece of certificates.


On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Pete Cottrell wrote:

> 
> 	I'm not going to weigh in too much on pros and cons of
> certification, except to say that, like others, I'm also not impressed
> with credentials. Candidates impress me with what they have to say in
> their interview, not with an (all-too-often bloated) resume with a 
> bunch of acronyms.
> 	The point I'm wondering about, not because I'm inclined that
> way, but just because of experience in a litigious business world and
> society, is: what are the legal ramnifications that SAGE might have to
> deal with if they become a certifying body? What if they grant
> certification to someone who passes the tests, but is an idiot and
> then is hired by a company by virtue of that certification, and then
> takes some company down through his/her boneheaded action? The specter
> of malpractice claims begin to appear; I can see entities coming after
> SAGE. They may not win, but anyone with a lawyer can be more than a
> nuisance.
> 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Swee-Chuan Khoo, sckhoo@asiapac.net | Not only do i speak for
http://www.asiapac.net/~sckhoo/	    | myself; I am myself
-------------------------------------------------------------------
       Today you lose.   Tomorrow you win.    Life change.