Hi Dave,
First off, I agree 100%, tests are not a good evaluation of what someone can accomplish..... but.... <g>

Steve McConnell did a great job of changing my mind about the value of certification in his latest book, After the Gold Rush. I'm not sure I can do the whole chapter justice, but I'll paraphrase.

If you are looking for an excellent developer/consultant, and you pay no attention to certifications, the talent pool looks like this:

Excellent  |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
           |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
           |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
           |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
           |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
           |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
           |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Less       |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Excellent  |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

So, the odds are even that you will grab either an excellent or a less excellent candidate. But, what if you limit your search to those who have passed a specific certification test

Even if some less than excellent developers pass the test, and some excellent ones fail it, the talent pool would look something like this if the hirer limited his search to certified developers only.

Excellent  |XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
           |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
           |XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX
           |XXX  XXXXXXXX   XXXXXXX X  XXX
           |X  XX   XXXX   XXX  X XXX  XXX
           |XX  XX          X XX        XX
           |  X             X            X
Less       |          X             X      
Excellent  |X                   X         

So, the odds of getting a better developer are improved if you limit your search to certified developers.

So, what if a real ace shows up that hasn't taken the test. If he's as good as he says he is, wouldn't he be willing to take the test to get the job? And, if not, would you want to hire him anyway?

Marty



>Tests are not a good evaluation of what someone can accomplish.
>
>Dave