GitHub Certifications (Beta)(github.com)
github.com
GitHub Certifications (Beta)
https://github.com/certifications
128 comments
It is about git and Github so hopefully it will focus more things like digging out of rebase hell instead of the insanity Github actions.
Nope. From the study guide [1], rebase does not even appear to be mentioned, but "Define components of GitHub Actions workflows, including events that trigger workflows, workflow files, workflow runs, and jobs" and "Describe pricing for GitHub products, including GitHub Actions" are.
1: https://github.githubassets.com/images/modules/site/download...
1: https://github.githubassets.com/images/modules/site/download...
Wow, no rebase, that's egregious. This isn't a git certification, it's a vendor lock in marketing tool.
In fairness it is very clearly branded as a GitHub Certification, rather than a git certification, so its not like they're trying to hide it.
This is akin to Salesforce, Oracle and other certifications of their ilk.
Oh my. This is the first new thing that's very "Enterprise Microsoft" since they bought it, isn't it?
All the things that Github already had in the pipeline are done. Now it’s time for MS to start thinking up new ideas?
I think so! I don’t mind it though - it lets Microsoft try and make some extra money that supports the development of GitHub and it lets developers get some cheap signalling for their CV.
I got the same vibe.
[deleted]
This bullshit certification thing that is coming a global trend is going too far!
Look at the sample questions, they stuff your head with useless marketing crap and idiots will have to be thankful to have been brain washed...
Look at the sample questions, they stuff your head with useless marketing crap and idiots will have to be thankful to have been brain washed...
Becoming? If anything it was much worse in the 90s and 00s. People don't take certifications nearly as seriously now.
Ugh, this has Microsoft's playbook written all over it. Introduce a certification, thus increasing the gap between developers who (had their employee) pay Microsoft and developers that didn't. Conflate a generic concept (Git in this case) with Microsoft's specific implementation (Github), muddying the difference in managers' lexicons. Attempt to set Github as a standard to reach in everyone's mind.
I mean there's a certificaiton, so it has to be something we shouldn't miss out on, right?
I mean there's a certificaiton, so it has to be something we shouldn't miss out on, right?
> Introduce a certification, thus increasing the gap between developers who (had their employee) pay Microsoft and developers that didn't.
Did anyone ever take Microsoft's "Microsoft Certified Application Developer" or "Microsoft Certified Solutions Architect" titles seriously?
I was still in high-school when I heard about it. I asked some SWE friends of mine who told me that they didn't take it seriously due to the wide prevalence of _brain dumps_ all over the Internet. A few said having it on your resume may actually hurt their careers or job-seeking because potential employers who were on-the-ball took a dim view of them because they were so easy to obtain, so and automatically assumed anyone who advertised the fact they had one when they already had a degree in CS and/or good industrial experience at the very least had misplaced priorities (so I guess if you have it as a single line-item on your resume in 9pt text buried at the bottom that's okay, just don't make it a heading).
What's amusing to me is that after working at Microsoft in Redmond for a few years at the start of my career as an FTE SE in DevDiv - I didn't know anyone who had such a certificate. If no-one needed one to work at Microsoft on the very tools these certificates are for, what's the point?
Did anyone ever take Microsoft's "Microsoft Certified Application Developer" or "Microsoft Certified Solutions Architect" titles seriously?
I was still in high-school when I heard about it. I asked some SWE friends of mine who told me that they didn't take it seriously due to the wide prevalence of _brain dumps_ all over the Internet. A few said having it on your resume may actually hurt their careers or job-seeking because potential employers who were on-the-ball took a dim view of them because they were so easy to obtain, so and automatically assumed anyone who advertised the fact they had one when they already had a degree in CS and/or good industrial experience at the very least had misplaced priorities (so I guess if you have it as a single line-item on your resume in 9pt text buried at the bottom that's okay, just don't make it a heading).
What's amusing to me is that after working at Microsoft in Redmond for a few years at the start of my career as an FTE SE in DevDiv - I didn't know anyone who had such a certificate. If no-one needed one to work at Microsoft on the very tools these certificates are for, what's the point?
Did anyone ever take Microsoft's "Microsoft Certified Application Developer" or "Microsoft Certified Solutions Architect" titles seriously?
Most developers generally didn't, but certainly back in the early 2000s I heard lots of managers and other people responsible for hiring being impressed by it. To be blunt, if you where a mediocre developer with a mediocre resume, it was for a while a pretty efficient way to stand out among other mediocre developers.
Microsoft also used to offer some nice goodies and discounts to Microsoft Certified Professionals that could make it worth having, financially, if you where a freelance developer or worked for a smaller company.
Most developers generally didn't, but certainly back in the early 2000s I heard lots of managers and other people responsible for hiring being impressed by it. To be blunt, if you where a mediocre developer with a mediocre resume, it was for a while a pretty efficient way to stand out among other mediocre developers.
Microsoft also used to offer some nice goodies and discounts to Microsoft Certified Professionals that could make it worth having, financially, if you where a freelance developer or worked for a smaller company.
I got an MCAD once because my employer was offering it for free. This was so they could secure a "partner" status and get a license discount.
That's mostly why people bothered with it.
It was completely no use whatsoever. In fact looking back the contents were stupid and dangerous.
That's mostly why people bothered with it.
It was completely no use whatsoever. In fact looking back the contents were stupid and dangerous.
got an MCAD once because my employer was offering it for free. This was so they could secure a "partner" status and get a license discount.
Same here, but MCSE used to come with all sorts of goodies like a free TechNet subscription. That ceased long ago however.
Same here, but MCSE used to come with all sorts of goodies like a free TechNet subscription. That ceased long ago however.
Indeed. Although now I just fire up an instance in AWS for a bit if we need to play with something. But I rarely if ever touch windows now past using it as a shell for some electron apps and terminals :)
> dangerous
Curious to hear more.
Curious to hear more.
At one point they seemed to be bona fide certifications of actual high skill levels (or at least in-depth knowledge of related products). But then their value degraded, and quite rapidly.
Can't point you to dates and blog posts on this though, this all comes from my vague memories.
Can't point you to dates and blog posts on this though, this all comes from my vague memories.
The people that have it are Microsoft consultants, incl. Microsofts internal consulting crews. They like these certs, and take as many as possible and nowadays LinkedIn shows tons of Microsoft employees (outside internal engineering) who brag about the xth number of some random cert.
But Amazon is no different.
But Amazon is no different.
For some OEMs - access to purchasing, support, manuals, firmware images, configuration tools, etc. is gated behind "Certified Partner" programs. For an organization to be a Certified Partner at a certain tier, it must have some number of FTEs holding a specific cert.
A good certified partner won't hire you just because you have the cert, but it saves them the trouble of having to get it for you.
This kind of thing is uncommon in Github world, but very common in Microsoft/Azure world.
A good certified partner won't hire you just because you have the cert, but it saves them the trouble of having to get it for you.
This kind of thing is uncommon in Github world, but very common in Microsoft/Azure world.
> This kind of thing is uncommon in Github world, but very common in Microsoft/Azure world.
What exclusive materials or advantages do Microsoft "Partner" companies have thesedays? MS is very good at making available their documentation, and almost all of their modern stuff (.NET Core, etc) is developed openly on GitHub.
But other companies that aren't as engineering-driven like SAP, Oracle, yeah - I can see them doing that.
The only advantage I can think of is one of cross-promotion or referrals from Microsoft's own consulting division. (I'll admit I have no idea who MS's Consulting customers are - I thought everyone went with Accenture, IBM, Capita or Atos).
What exclusive materials or advantages do Microsoft "Partner" companies have thesedays? MS is very good at making available their documentation, and almost all of their modern stuff (.NET Core, etc) is developed openly on GitHub.
But other companies that aren't as engineering-driven like SAP, Oracle, yeah - I can see them doing that.
The only advantage I can think of is one of cross-promotion or referrals from Microsoft's own consulting division. (I'll admit I have no idea who MS's Consulting customers are - I thought everyone went with Accenture, IBM, Capita or Atos).
From cool place to institution. From fun to bureaucratic depression.
Reason I personally like GitHub as it is meeting point for like minded people, place where you play and learn while playing, without any judgment.
Certification obstruct that process of learn-play, it is like grownups coming to playground and saying to kids, now you have to play this way, you cannot play your own way... because erm... it help us to quantify you so we can exploit you better.
I heard somewhere "century of left brain domination over right brain"...
Reason I personally like GitHub as it is meeting point for like minded people, place where you play and learn while playing, without any judgment.
Certification obstruct that process of learn-play, it is like grownups coming to playground and saying to kids, now you have to play this way, you cannot play your own way... because erm... it help us to quantify you so we can exploit you better.
I heard somewhere "century of left brain domination over right brain"...
Thank god most of the non-corporate software industry regards certifications as a way to pad a non-impressive resume and not something actually valuable.
Why is it certificates are viewed this way and degrees are not? Is it a class thing? Or are there really just no good certificates.
Mostly a class thing but also a reflection of the fact that the exams are crammable without understanding. MCQs work that way unless you make the question back very large. A computer adaptive test could bypass this but it doesn’t feel like it assesses your knowledge the way even a test composed of short answer questions does. It’s not like anyone in the US who’s passed the bar exam holds it in particularly high esteem and for practical purposes doing that presupposes you have a JD.
There's a growing sentiment that degrees are the same; it's certainly not the prevailing view.
One part, in my view, is the exceptionally temporary nature of a certificate. A degree typically teaches things that are fairly static.
If you're a biologist, I would expect 90% of the things you learned in college to still be true, or mostly true, when you retire. A certificate, on the other hand, validates that you know this particular thing well, until the next version comes out. Depending on what "thing" is, and when the last version was released, it could be less than a year. So even if I accept that the certificate does mean you know this system really really well, it doesn't mean that's true for very long.
They're also an external validation of your skills, so people who aren't confident in their skills will often mention their certificate when they feel their skills are being challenged. I think this creates a bias in how we view certificate holders. I've noticed the same thing with people who have degrees from prestigious institutions. I've got a bad taste in my mouth from MIT because most of the people who went to MIT and I'm aware that they went to MIT like to bring it up when they don't feel confident. That's not to say everyone who went to MIT is like that; the rest just don't feel the need to constantly mention it, so I don't even know.
They're typically multiple choice as well, which are much easier to fake understanding on. "Which network architecture accommodates X best?" is probably going to be easier to answer than "You have a network with X servers that need Y bandwidth, etc, etc, explain what network architecture you would choose, and why."
And lastly, I think there's a certain sense of derision for certificates for things created in our lifetime. Things that came before us have a sense of tradition that gives them a sense of legitimacy. Of course your accountant needs a degree, they've always had degrees. New things don't have that, so you have to justify why a certification is necessary, and most don't meet the bar. Everyone managed to use GitHub just fine without a certification.
One part, in my view, is the exceptionally temporary nature of a certificate. A degree typically teaches things that are fairly static.
If you're a biologist, I would expect 90% of the things you learned in college to still be true, or mostly true, when you retire. A certificate, on the other hand, validates that you know this particular thing well, until the next version comes out. Depending on what "thing" is, and when the last version was released, it could be less than a year. So even if I accept that the certificate does mean you know this system really really well, it doesn't mean that's true for very long.
They're also an external validation of your skills, so people who aren't confident in their skills will often mention their certificate when they feel their skills are being challenged. I think this creates a bias in how we view certificate holders. I've noticed the same thing with people who have degrees from prestigious institutions. I've got a bad taste in my mouth from MIT because most of the people who went to MIT and I'm aware that they went to MIT like to bring it up when they don't feel confident. That's not to say everyone who went to MIT is like that; the rest just don't feel the need to constantly mention it, so I don't even know.
They're typically multiple choice as well, which are much easier to fake understanding on. "Which network architecture accommodates X best?" is probably going to be easier to answer than "You have a network with X servers that need Y bandwidth, etc, etc, explain what network architecture you would choose, and why."
And lastly, I think there's a certain sense of derision for certificates for things created in our lifetime. Things that came before us have a sense of tradition that gives them a sense of legitimacy. Of course your accountant needs a degree, they've always had degrees. New things don't have that, so you have to justify why a certification is necessary, and most don't meet the bar. Everyone managed to use GitHub just fine without a certification.
Honestly, what I look for when hiring is:
previous experience/internships at good companies that I know have solid engineering and/or CS/Engineering degree from a school I trust.
In my mind, bootcamps, certs and micro-degrees often signal someone was unable to enter the field due to a lack of qualifications. Most of them are pretty much rote memorization of commercial products, so fairly low value, or 'one trick ponies' where they know how to create a web app with one and only one tech stack (by copy-pasting templates!).
Really, I expect anyone with a good degree or previous experience to just be able to read git and GitHub's manuals and get it.
previous experience/internships at good companies that I know have solid engineering and/or CS/Engineering degree from a school I trust.
In my mind, bootcamps, certs and micro-degrees often signal someone was unable to enter the field due to a lack of qualifications. Most of them are pretty much rote memorization of commercial products, so fairly low value, or 'one trick ponies' where they know how to create a web app with one and only one tech stack (by copy-pasting templates!).
Really, I expect anyone with a good degree or previous experience to just be able to read git and GitHub's manuals and get it.
I think part of the reason is that when you choose to get a degree, you don't know any better, and it probably seems as good a way to get into the field as any (in lots of other fields, it's the only way in - e.g. bio-tech, so it's an easy assumption to make). By the time you get far enough in your career to get a certification, you're also far enough along to know that it's worthless, so it's more of a red flag to others if you choose to do so anyway.
> Conflate a generic concept (Git in this case) with Microsoft's specific implementation (Github)
Github has been intentionally conflating git with github for their own gain since way before Microsoft ever conceived of the notion of buying them.
A year or so before the acquisition, one of my Microsoft coworkers asked if I'd gotten approval to post our internal code on github. What I had actually done was put some of our testing code which was, for all intents and purposes, not under version control, into a git repo hosted by an internal platform.
Github has been intentionally conflating git with github for their own gain since way before Microsoft ever conceived of the notion of buying them.
A year or so before the acquisition, one of my Microsoft coworkers asked if I'd gotten approval to post our internal code on github. What I had actually done was put some of our testing code which was, for all intents and purposes, not under version control, into a git repo hosted by an internal platform.
It is a way to commoditize people, and MS has been selling their certifications on 2 markets since forever :
- Employees : show your value by these certs and increase your potential wage.
- Employers : now you can easily compare potential employees ( driving down their wage )
- Employees : show your value by these certs and increase your potential wage.
- Employers : now you can easily compare potential employees ( driving down their wage )
> Conflate a generic concept (Git in this case) with Microsoft's specific implementation (Github), muddying the difference in managers' lexicons. Attempt to set Github as a standard to reach in everyone's mind.
Both of those already happened years before Microsoft acquired GitHub.
Both of those already happened years before Microsoft acquired GitHub.
I think you're seeing non-existing intent. This seems like a straightforward way to monetize their acquisition without affecting the users (with paywalls or what not). Certifications are a gold mine for enterprise.
Also, I have yet to meet people taking certifications seriously on an individual level. The sole way I've seen them used is box-checking when choosing a contractor/vendor. Anyone got a different experience?
Also, I have yet to meet people taking certifications seriously on an individual level. The sole way I've seen them used is box-checking when choosing a contractor/vendor. Anyone got a different experience?
This seems like a very narrow view. I don't know where you live but in Asian countries, people care about certificates too much. It's also often used as a way to filter poor people without directly discriminating because certification costs time and money.
Serious question: In which Asian countries is it a problem to directly discriminate?
What type of discrimination?
In SEA I see "Male Only" on programmer jobs not that infrequently, plus very often age requirements explicitly stated for all sorts of jobs.
In SEA I see "Male Only" on programmer jobs not that infrequently, plus very often age requirements explicitly stated for all sorts of jobs.
> age requirements
I'm curious: minimum or maximum?
I'm curious: minimum or maximum?
Maximum, I saw a couple the other day -- 33 and 45. As a 32 year old I didn't feel too encouraged by that!
Personally I've found certifications are a good way to show you're good at passing certifications, and nothing else.
I have nothing against people who show up with their resumes filled with them, but it's not a valuable indicator in my opinion. I'd rather see what they've built. Show me some useful things on your github or blog. That I can see value in.
Obviously we're talking about software-related certs, not pilots licenses, etc...
I have nothing against people who show up with their resumes filled with them, but it's not a valuable indicator in my opinion. I'd rather see what they've built. Show me some useful things on your github or blog. That I can see value in.
Obviously we're talking about software-related certs, not pilots licenses, etc...
When recruiting, I usually take certifications as a token of the lack of skills rather than a demonstration of skills
Exactly. If someone wants to demonstrate that they can use Github the best way is for their personal Github to be full of well-structured projects.
This gets repeated every time, but it's worth repeating: You've just discounted many skilled people working at companies which don't allow public personal projects, and people who are not interested in working on personal projects. There's a significant number of them.
I should rephrase -- having stuff in your Github is the best way to show you know your way around Github.
Not discounting the fact that you may have lots of other skills and nothing in your Github.
In general if someone has enough other skills and worked at companies that have a high bar, it's likely they can pick up Github fast enough even if they haven't used it that it shouldn't be a hiring concern.
Like for example, if someone is fluent in C++ or some such, I wouldn't doubt their ability to learn how to use git.
Not discounting the fact that you may have lots of other skills and nothing in your Github.
In general if someone has enough other skills and worked at companies that have a high bar, it's likely they can pick up Github fast enough even if they haven't used it that it shouldn't be a hiring concern.
Like for example, if someone is fluent in C++ or some such, I wouldn't doubt their ability to learn how to use git.
What if you have both certifications and skills?
> Personally I've found certifications are a good way to show you're good at passing certifications, and nothing else.
Some are good. I did AWS Solution Architect Pro, and this one was tough, one needs years of hands on to pass. Anyone with this one will get an instant plus in my book. I did not bother renewing it though, after 3yrs expired :)
Some are good. I did AWS Solution Architect Pro, and this one was tough, one needs years of hands on to pass. Anyone with this one will get an instant plus in my book. I did not bother renewing it though, after 3yrs expired :)
Being difficult != good. It can take years to prep and pass a CCIE as well but it’s not really a good indicator of being a good network engineer, despite the esoteric protocol details you have to memorize.
> Being difficult != good.
I did not say that. I said some are good, and named one.
I did not say that. I said some are good, and named one.
I spent some time last year getting some "beginner" AWS certifications and those are definitely worth it; I spent a few dozen hours following online courses (A Cloud Guru is pretty good, and if you have the time you only need to subscribe for a month or so) and feel like I went from superficial knowledge (like sorta knowing what AWS, EC2, RDS etc are) to having err, certified superficial knowledge. TL;DR I know more about AWS now without actually having worked in it.
That said, I wouldn't go for any of the other certifications without actually working / having worked professionally in AWS. Or anything you can get certified for, for that matter.
I mean iirc I've got some cisco certifications as well but I and everyone else cheated on the exam and don't remember anything of it.
That said, I wouldn't go for any of the other certifications without actually working / having worked professionally in AWS. Or anything you can get certified for, for that matter.
I mean iirc I've got some cisco certifications as well but I and everyone else cheated on the exam and don't remember anything of it.
[deleted]
We'd have to review the contenu to be sure, but my initial reaction was the same as @breakingcups. That would fit with a push against gitlab's devops strategy, amongst other things ?
Going full enterprise.
Thanks for making us jump through unnecessary hoops to appease future management wankers, Microsoft.
I’m going to create a certification for an “ls” command.
Looking at the list of options: ABCFGHLOPRSTUW@abcdefghiklmnopqrstuwx1% ... I'd says it makes sense.
> I’m going to create a certification for an “ls” command.
Sounds like a sound business opportunity [pun intended].
Just call it a “microdegree” for better marketability.
Sounds like a sound business opportunity [pun intended].
Just call it a “microdegree” for better marketability.
Question one: what does the following command do?
Is -a-bash: Is: command not found
Made my day
[deleted]
I hope this dies. I've been around long enough to remember the hell of Java certifications in the late 90s.
We have AWS and Google cloud certifications though. I don't find those any less "enterprisy" than Microsoft to be honest. And they definitely remind me of the Java certificates of the 90s.
We will soon be able to hire github certified engineers. Thanks Microsoft, talent driven towards the skills our industry needs will make us all more productive:
https://youtu.be/rR4n-0KYeKQ
for the down voters, I'm pretty sure this is satire
[deleted]
LOL. Judging by all the comments here, maybe they shouldn't have branded it as "certification". I think "flare" or "badge" would have been better marketing.
Or something like... oh I am a level 99 Git wizard... This will definitely help me get dates.
Or something like... oh I am a level 99 Git wizard... This will definitely help me get dates.
[deleted]
The outline for the "certification" is like a sales manual for the business. It's like the exam for being an outbound call center marketeer.
Slightly off topic, but the url seems to be conflict with a user called "certifications". You can find that user using GitHub api or Mobile app, but you can't view his profile page on desktop.
It highlights that while vanity / "root" paths are cool, they also become a challenge later on.
They could either have gone with e.g. Reddit's scheme of having users under `/u/certifications`, or put extra GH pages under a subdomain (e.g. certification.github.com or pages.github.com/certification)
They could either have gone with e.g. Reddit's scheme of having users under `/u/certifications`, or put extra GH pages under a subdomain (e.g. certification.github.com or pages.github.com/certification)
>they also become a challenge later on
A challenge for the affected user, not for the platform itself.
A challenge for the affected user, not for the platform itself.
They seem to be the first result here https://github.com/search?q=type:user+certifications&type=us...
Their profile page is broken as you mentioned.
Their profile page is broken as you mentioned.
Came to say this, and also that the app user link hijacks the page link on iOS. I had to click the ellipsis, then share, them open in safari to even access the page...
The main problematic thing about this is that it can be used as a way for Microsoft to push their beliefs and agendas. It further centralizes git even more.
For example (extreme case to make a point), imagine if the questions were like:
1) Which is the most reliable git platform? (a) github (b) gitlab (c) gitweb
2) Which is the best license for new code? (a) MIT (b) GPLv3 (c) ALv2
3) Which is better for coding? (a) spaces (b) tabs (c) both
The point is that Microsoft shouldn't be the central authority for git things. Lets make the internet, the web, and development in general more decentralized.
For example (extreme case to make a point), imagine if the questions were like:
1) Which is the most reliable git platform? (a) github (b) gitlab (c) gitweb
2) Which is the best license for new code? (a) MIT (b) GPLv3 (c) ALv2
3) Which is better for coding? (a) spaces (b) tabs (c) both
The point is that Microsoft shouldn't be the central authority for git things. Lets make the internet, the web, and development in general more decentralized.
Taking a look at the sample questions provided (questions and correct answers):
Q4: Which licensing statement best describes a project to be truly open source?
* it is recommended to choose a license because without it, the default copyright laws apply
(technically correct but yeah)
Q5: Which statements are true about GitHub Marketplace?
* a digital catalog with hundreds of software listings from independent software vendors
* a place where apps and actions can be found to improve your workflow
(marketing/ad)
Q4: Which licensing statement best describes a project to be truly open source?
* it is recommended to choose a license because without it, the default copyright laws apply
(technically correct but yeah)
Q5: Which statements are true about GitHub Marketplace?
* a digital catalog with hundreds of software listings from independent software vendors
* a place where apps and actions can be found to improve your workflow
(marketing/ad)
Github recommended that you choose a license even before MS acquisition
Q4 seems to be ensuring that people are informed that source visible and open source are not the same thing. If you don't understand copyright, it's easy to think that you can just publish code without a license and have it be usable by everyone for any reason.
> it is recommended to choose a license because without it, the default copyright laws apply
I think this is something even the FSF will tell people.
I think this is something even the FSF will tell people.
I am so hoping ForgeFed to become widely available and adopted, maybe not by Github but by many other code forge implementations out there, knitting decentralized development together using the fabric of the Fediverse.
https://forgefed.peers.community/
https://forgefed.peers.community/
4) Which is the best editor for writing code? (a) VS Code (b) VS (c) Notepad (d) Wordpad
Emphasis on "can be"; nobody's stopping the competition for coming up with similar schemes, and while they have the biggest market / mindshare when it comes to git / open source hosting, they are definitely not the only one and the alternatives are great.
I can see how it's a bit like indoctrination though, but as another thread mentions, the AWS certification isn't that different; the first certification you can achieve there is pretty much learning the marketing message and talking points from AWS and cloud computing as a whole.
I can see how it's a bit like indoctrination though, but as another thread mentions, the AWS certification isn't that different; the first certification you can achieve there is pretty much learning the marketing message and talking points from AWS and cloud computing as a whole.
> I can see how it's a bit like indoctrination though, but as another thread mentions, the AWS certification isn't that different; the first certification you can achieve there is pretty much learning the marketing message and talking points from AWS and cloud computing as a whole.
In other words, AWS certifications suck too. I don't see how that excuses MS or GH.
In other words, AWS certifications suck too. I don't see how that excuses MS or GH.
Is it April 1st already?
[deleted]
Embrace git by acquiring GitHub.
Now extending by adding certification (& some manufactured market value).
Now extending by adding certification (& some manufactured market value).
[deleted]
While I agree with everyone this certification is probably useless (idk a single hiring manager in my company that told me oh hey the certifications on this candidate are really stellar) and that Microsoft CAN have some hidden agenda here...
I would disagree in saying that Microsoft is making Github shit. There have been so many good things Github released since Microsoft took over (Github sponsoring, Github actions, bunch of other things) IMO it's been a major benefit. I'm hoping they don't screw it up
I would disagree in saying that Microsoft is making Github shit. There have been so many good things Github released since Microsoft took over (Github sponsoring, Github actions, bunch of other things) IMO it's been a major benefit. I'm hoping they don't screw it up
I was hoping for some CA that hackers could use for stuff like IoT. Some semi-distributed point where you could handle individual or groups of devices.
One of the example questions is "Which statements are true about GitHub Marketplace?" Imagine failing to get certified by Github because, despite knowing how to use git and github well, you don't know enough about Github Marketplace. Worse than that, imagine not getting a job because you don't know enough about Github Marketplace to get the right certification. Wow.
what value I get for having this certification?
[deleted]
Second E nearing third E.
this is worse than MOOC certifications, mean nothing
Stupid shit
Whats next? bash certs?
When hiring, I ignore certifications at best and actively discount them at worst.
These things generally mean very little and seem designed to extract money from large corporations with an education budget.
These things generally mean very little and seem designed to extract money from large corporations with an education budget.
I hate these types of certifications if only for the fact that I get asked by people outside the development community if getting the cert will help them enter the community and get a job.
I always have to give them a deflationary speech about how software development is about the practice and not a one-time certification.
I always have to give them a deflationary speech about how software development is about the practice and not a one-time certification.
Dumb enterprisey 'certification' aside, I can see the free course being effectively used during onboarding (esp. intern/grads, but anyone can not have used GitHub or even git before, just because it's not what previous employer used) at which point being 'certified' becomes a handy 'get out of going through that again' card...
At least at the university I went to we had multiple classes that required using git and plenty of freshmen came in with at least a basic understanding.
Yeah of course, or one might have been contributing to the Linux kernel since age 12, had internships or worked on open source as a hobby.
But not everyone, and even if so, there might be value in ensuring a base level understanding of 'use of git & GitHub', especially if you happen to do it in the GitHub proscribed way.
I'm sure many organisations have worse/more obvious/less worthwhile-as-viewed-by-new-hire on-boarding to go through!
But not everyone, and even if so, there might be value in ensuring a base level understanding of 'use of git & GitHub', especially if you happen to do it in the GitHub proscribed way.
I'm sure many organisations have worse/more obvious/less worthwhile-as-viewed-by-new-hire on-boarding to go through!
Who is seriously looking for these things? If you are still hiring based upon what certificates a person has, I have some really shitty news for you.
If I wanted to know if someone could use GitHub, I would ask them to get on a Teams screenshare and tell them to set up a pull request for something quick, like the repo's README.md, link it to the issue and adjust labels. That would tell me in 60 seconds everything I needed to know about the experience level someone has with GitHub.
Anything beyond code, issues, labels and pull requests is just one-time configuration or occasional project management duty. Not really a whole lot of complex scary shit going on here. I don't really see the need to start credentialing people for operating within what is arguably the least risky domain for newcomers when it comes to software engineering. Absolutely worst case you just revert your prior commit or re-open the issue...
If I wanted to know if someone could use GitHub, I would ask them to get on a Teams screenshare and tell them to set up a pull request for something quick, like the repo's README.md, link it to the issue and adjust labels. That would tell me in 60 seconds everything I needed to know about the experience level someone has with GitHub.
Anything beyond code, issues, labels and pull requests is just one-time configuration or occasional project management duty. Not really a whole lot of complex scary shit going on here. I don't really see the need to start credentialing people for operating within what is arguably the least risky domain for newcomers when it comes to software engineering. Absolutely worst case you just revert your prior commit or re-open the issue...
> Who is seriously looking for these things?
The mass recruiters (or modern indenture owners) that import and place engineers by the bulk. They don't have the time to bother looking for actual practical skills.
The mass recruiters (or modern indenture owners) that import and place engineers by the bulk. They don't have the time to bother looking for actual practical skills.
I've seen those with AWS certifications be unable to put anything together on AWS and I've seen exceptional engineers with plenty of production AWS experience fail the certifications.
Security experts fail to get CISSP qualifications, while those who can barely use a computer pass. The security industry considers CISSP to be a bit of a joke for this reason.
This sort of certification is in my experience, sought out by those who don't have much else to show, and therefore is often correlated with not being very good. You can learn by rote and pass with no understanding to tick an easy box.
I think it's a shame GitHub is getting into this, but cynically it makes sense for them.
Security experts fail to get CISSP qualifications, while those who can barely use a computer pass. The security industry considers CISSP to be a bit of a joke for this reason.
This sort of certification is in my experience, sought out by those who don't have much else to show, and therefore is often correlated with not being very good. You can learn by rote and pass with no understanding to tick an easy box.
I think it's a shame GitHub is getting into this, but cynically it makes sense for them.
I personally dislike tests that are multiple choice. It loads the mind with (sometimes obviously) false data that must be rejected and the ability to pattern match on word usage or even guessing between answers that haven't been eliminated means that the instructor never really knows if the person actually knew the answer and neither does the student.
When I used to participate in math contests I'd go out of my way not to read the answers before attempting to solve the problem because it's much more gratifying that to reverse engineer the problem from the input. In the end, I'd resort to that or guessing if I couldn't crack the problem on my own, but then at least I knew which problems I really solved and which ones I didn't. And when I was invited to do more complex math contests than the ones that Waterloo was putting out I was astonished at how much harder just having to write in an exact answer was, since you missed out on the "not one of the options" feedback if you flubbed a number somewhere.
With these certification tests it's impossible to really do the same thing. It doesn't even feel like real thinking compared to writing software or prose. Also the pointless memorization of things like "what classes of MITM attacks are there?"[0] don't really get a person to learn the stuff. It's like memorizing the atomic weight of elements. That stuff never stuck for me until I was doing real chemistry and the basic act of looking up a weight each time slowly got me to memorize the elemental weight of the chemicals I was working on. Same goes for all those French words I was forced to learn in Canada. Once I started wanted to speak Russian I was amazed at my ability to actually be able to remember words.
I'm not saying these things should never be tested. I wouldn't trust a structural engineer that didn't know what lateral torsional buckling is[1] but the manner in which we test it should be as close the reality we would expect, and this is what we do in engineering school most of the time.
[0] Answer: Surveil, Fabricate, Modify, and Deny.
[1] Essentially the concept that a tall but thin beam can swing to the side, or "torsionally buckle" when loaded from the top (thus requiring bracing) unlike a beam rotated 90 degrees, which does not require bracing for this reason.
When I used to participate in math contests I'd go out of my way not to read the answers before attempting to solve the problem because it's much more gratifying that to reverse engineer the problem from the input. In the end, I'd resort to that or guessing if I couldn't crack the problem on my own, but then at least I knew which problems I really solved and which ones I didn't. And when I was invited to do more complex math contests than the ones that Waterloo was putting out I was astonished at how much harder just having to write in an exact answer was, since you missed out on the "not one of the options" feedback if you flubbed a number somewhere.
With these certification tests it's impossible to really do the same thing. It doesn't even feel like real thinking compared to writing software or prose. Also the pointless memorization of things like "what classes of MITM attacks are there?"[0] don't really get a person to learn the stuff. It's like memorizing the atomic weight of elements. That stuff never stuck for me until I was doing real chemistry and the basic act of looking up a weight each time slowly got me to memorize the elemental weight of the chemicals I was working on. Same goes for all those French words I was forced to learn in Canada. Once I started wanted to speak Russian I was amazed at my ability to actually be able to remember words.
I'm not saying these things should never be tested. I wouldn't trust a structural engineer that didn't know what lateral torsional buckling is[1] but the manner in which we test it should be as close the reality we would expect, and this is what we do in engineering school most of the time.
[0] Answer: Surveil, Fabricate, Modify, and Deny.
[1] Essentially the concept that a tall but thin beam can swing to the side, or "torsionally buckle" when loaded from the top (thus requiring bracing) unlike a beam rotated 90 degrees, which does not require bracing for this reason.
You're completely right, the testing method is likely very linked to why this is an ineffective way of deciding someone's qualification.
I think multiple choice exams can be a good way – a physics exam I took was multiple choice, and so because the examiners were "giving you the answers", they took it as an opportunity to ask really out-there questions. They would frequently take two wildly different aspects of the physics course and mash them up in a new way. I thought this was very effective at testing if the student understood the areas and could therefore combine understanding with intuitive leaps, or whether they had memorised the formulas necessary for the exam and could only repeat those on command in the exact form they knew.
This suggests to me that it's less multiple-choice, and more that this is a purely fact-based style of testing.
For a computer security course I took at university one of the exam questions was "Describe Stuxnet – 20 marks" (half the exam's marks). we had had a lecture dissecting the whole Stuxnet incident. For those simply memorising facts this question would be quite hard, but for those who had understood why certain things matter and could write an in-depth explanation of the security failings, it was great.
The problem is that marking this sort of question requires a significant amount of manual work, and that doesn't scale. Another example would be Phd vivas, which I've heard are generally a well respected way of determining ability, but which again take a significant amount of expert manual input.
I don't think we'll get good certifications for these sorts of things until we find better ways to examine like this.
I think multiple choice exams can be a good way – a physics exam I took was multiple choice, and so because the examiners were "giving you the answers", they took it as an opportunity to ask really out-there questions. They would frequently take two wildly different aspects of the physics course and mash them up in a new way. I thought this was very effective at testing if the student understood the areas and could therefore combine understanding with intuitive leaps, or whether they had memorised the formulas necessary for the exam and could only repeat those on command in the exact form they knew.
This suggests to me that it's less multiple-choice, and more that this is a purely fact-based style of testing.
For a computer security course I took at university one of the exam questions was "Describe Stuxnet – 20 marks" (half the exam's marks). we had had a lecture dissecting the whole Stuxnet incident. For those simply memorising facts this question would be quite hard, but for those who had understood why certain things matter and could write an in-depth explanation of the security failings, it was great.
The problem is that marking this sort of question requires a significant amount of manual work, and that doesn't scale. Another example would be Phd vivas, which I've heard are generally a well respected way of determining ability, but which again take a significant amount of expert manual input.
I don't think we'll get good certifications for these sorts of things until we find better ways to examine like this.
Long form answers (and college courses in general) are graded relative to your peers, whereas certificates aren't, which creates a huge difference. Even long form answers that aren't actually bell curved at the end, the person grading it has still read the best answers and the worst answers, and they're probably going to grade relative to that.
That precludes having studied "enough". "Enough" is measured relative to your peers, not to how hard the exam is. As long as someone else is studying, "enough" is a moving target. On a certification, I can check out how hard the exam is and study just enough to pass it. If I know for a fact that the exam isn't going to test comprehension, just recall, and that I'm not going to fail because someone else studied enough to comprehend, it makes sense to just memorize the recall portions.
Certifications would do better if they went the same way. For each group of people taking the test, curve the test so that some minimum, fixed percentage of them fail. Let's say it's 20%; so for every group of 100 people taking the test, at least 20 of them will fail (although it could be more if you set a floor on the lowest score you will allow to pass). Even if the exam doesn't test comprehension, I'm willing to bet that most people would pick it up just through studying.
That precludes having studied "enough". "Enough" is measured relative to your peers, not to how hard the exam is. As long as someone else is studying, "enough" is a moving target. On a certification, I can check out how hard the exam is and study just enough to pass it. If I know for a fact that the exam isn't going to test comprehension, just recall, and that I'm not going to fail because someone else studied enough to comprehend, it makes sense to just memorize the recall portions.
Certifications would do better if they went the same way. For each group of people taking the test, curve the test so that some minimum, fixed percentage of them fail. Let's say it's 20%; so for every group of 100 people taking the test, at least 20 of them will fail (although it could be more if you set a floor on the lowest score you will allow to pass). Even if the exam doesn't test comprehension, I'm willing to bet that most people would pick it up just through studying.
I've done one of the AWS certs a few years ago, found it was very much a memory test.
A lot of questions on easily Google-able things. I learned a lot from the training material, but don't think the exam itself really proves that much skill on the platform.
If I took the test again now, I doubt I would pass despite a lot more experience since I passed the first time around.
A lot of questions on easily Google-able things. I learned a lot from the training material, but don't think the exam itself really proves that much skill on the platform.
If I took the test again now, I doubt I would pass despite a lot more experience since I passed the first time around.
LOL! Advice to juniors: these "certifications" are considered a red flag at most companies you would want to work for. So unless you want to work for Durgasoft™, don't put them on your resume.
I bet a majority of critics here have a Github account and work actively on the platform. The good news is that we still have the freedom of choice, so, take a step back and resume the control of your code and data. At least think about it.
Pushing bureaucratic certification is a step back in history and paves the way towards corporate centralization & exploitation.
Look out for alternatives, you can live well without Github stars for prestige and I hope also without Github certificates for your career. After all, Git was made for decentralization, I do not want Microsoft to dictate the future well-being of (professional) developers.
Pushing bureaucratic certification is a step back in history and paves the way towards corporate centralization & exploitation.
Look out for alternatives, you can live well without Github stars for prestige and I hope also without Github certificates for your career. After all, Git was made for decentralization, I do not want Microsoft to dictate the future well-being of (professional) developers.
I really don't understand those certificate business on computer related skills. It changes too rapidly and certificate of last year doesn't guarantee the current skill.
Anyway, I quickly glanced the sample exam questions.
https://github.com/certifications
> Which statements are true about GitHub Marketplace?
Honestly, I have never heard about the term GitHub Marketplace at all. Frankly, I don't want to relies on random proprietary SaaS apps somebody selling on random software distribution platforms.
> What is a workflow?
I don't know. Isn't it possible to (indirectly)achieve every candidates by GitHub Actions? Also, the term is used vague even by GitHub itself. The GitHub documents refer to flow or actions or whatever.
> Which statements are true about organizational membership
I don't know. Is reciting this knowledge helps on any way meaningful?
> How does GitHub alert you for security vulnerabilities?
How do I suppose to know that without getting any alert previosuly? By reading every GitHub documents and committing it to the brain?
Anyway, I quickly glanced the sample exam questions.
https://github.com/certifications
> Which statements are true about GitHub Marketplace?
Honestly, I have never heard about the term GitHub Marketplace at all. Frankly, I don't want to relies on random proprietary SaaS apps somebody selling on random software distribution platforms.
> What is a workflow?
I don't know. Isn't it possible to (indirectly)achieve every candidates by GitHub Actions? Also, the term is used vague even by GitHub itself. The GitHub documents refer to flow or actions or whatever.
> Which statements are true about organizational membership
I don't know. Is reciting this knowledge helps on any way meaningful?
> How does GitHub alert you for security vulnerabilities?
How do I suppose to know that without getting any alert previosuly? By reading every GitHub documents and committing it to the brain?
>How do I suppose to know that without getting any alert previosuly? By reading every GitHub documents and committing it to the brain?
Isn't that how one normally prepares for an exam?
Isn't that how one normally prepares for an exam?
It is. Does that knowledge help to use git/GitHub in any way? If you can have a certificate without practically using git/GitHub while people who use git/GitHub every day failed to get one because they don't bother to flash card GitHub trivia, is that certificate worth something?
I don't think too much of their certificate, because it looks like typical marketing bullshit from a huge corporation. But I think you can use pointless stuff like this to your advantage: to demonstrate that you can be up the job, that you can handle situations like this professionally.
> It changes too rapidly and certificate of last year doesn't guarantee the current skill.
What product is there which both has a certificate and changes each year enough that the difference can't be covered in less than an hour of reading about the new features?
What product is there which both has a certificate and changes each year enough that the difference can't be covered in less than an hour of reading about the new features?
Tf. I have avoided employers that required certifications and will continue to do so.
My disappointment is immeasurable. This is going to cause a worse Github culture to emerge.
No, thanks. Github was dead to me after they held "diversity" conferences telling people that "tech is not for white folks to lead" and the MS acquisition just sealed the deal. This just reaffirms it again, I will never drive any business or money towards Github.
There's the Microsoft I know. What an absolutely terrible idea.
It's funny how we as an industry don't like certifications, yet we all agree that our interviewing process is fundamentally broken. So what's it to be for the future of hiring?