John Reynolds's Blog

Certification or indoctrination?

I've never taken any of the Java exams. I've looked them over and taken the practice exams, but I've never expended the effort to buckle down and get serious.

One of the factors that has stalled my commitment is my perception that studying for some of the exams (J2EE architect for example) is more like learning the catachism of a church rather then honing true architectural skills.

For all intents and purposes, a Certified J2EE Architect is really just a Certified EJB Architect. Dogma dictates that "real" J2EE designs must incorporate EJBs.

Enterprise Java Beans are an implementation of a concept, and many would argue that they aren't the best implementation. Gaining certification in EJBs leaves me cold. Even if I were a big EJB fan, the technology is in a state of flux. The EJB 2 minutiae that was soooo important last year will be replaced by EJB 3 minutiae next year.

I know that it's totally impractical, but I'd like to see a Java Architect exam that laid out the requirements for a project, and let the architect choose the tools.

Comments

• laid out the requirements for a project, and let the architect choose the tools

  But wouldn't that be how the real world operates?

  At least as much as I've heard professionals describe software development as an art, I've witnessed efforts to turn its training into vocational school. I'm sure business managers, vendors, specification authors, and whoever grades these exams would prefer it that way. Perhaps then we're all as measurable and readily interchangable as the components we're supposed to be building for them.

  I perceive the spectrum of solutions to any sizable information systems problem space to be unbounded. I don't know of a time my career got any more rewarding by rotely following a vendor's textbook example, and there hasn't been much I've seen on a programming certification exam that's had a halflife exceeding 5 years. The irony is that I've always been attracted to things like Java, *nix, and web protocols because of the persistent value in knowing about their fundamentals.

  A few years back I generated jeers and static when I questioned the preeminance of EJBs on web forums. Here's hoping the Java community is more thoughtful about alternate approaches, particularly where they are not incompatible.

  Posted by: mentata on January 19, 2005 at 11:15 AM

• But wouldn't that be how the real world operates
  No, that's how an ideal world operates. The real world operates more often like this: CEO reads about a glowing new tech called EJB and sends down a memo that everything should be changed to use them.
  Techies grumble but, fearing for their jobs, do it anyway despite knowing better.
  2 years down the line (or earlier) the project fails to deliver. An objective analysis would show that the use of EJB is the culprit.
  CEO fires the architect and a few designers and replaces them with new ones.

  
  I agree with John that J2EE certification is brainwashing to the EJB everywhere motto Sun has adopted.
  But J2EE certification isn't the only path you can take. Especially SCJP, SCJD, and SCWCD seem to be more ballanced (though the insistence on heavy design processes and techniques in SCJD worries me somewhat).

  Posted by: jwenting on January 20, 2005 at 03:02 AM

• One of the factors that has stalled my commitment is my perception that studying for some of the exams (J2EE architect for example) is more like learning the catachism of a church rather then honing true architectural skills.

  OK, lets apply this same logic to two fighter pilots that will each pilot a stealth bomber. Both pilots have ten years flying experience. The pilots have never set foot in a real stealth bomber, but one pilot is certified in flying stealth bombers; the other pilot is not certified in flying a stealth bomber.

  Which pilot do you think will fly better? Who would you want to run an important bombing mission that will cost over $2 million dollars to execute? If you were calling the shots, would you like to be the one to report to management that the bombing run failed based on a decision to go with the uncertified pilot because you personally liked them better?

  Ever go to a prometric testing center that's at an airport? I have. There's a reason some testing centers are at airports...pilots take tests on the same computers us Java technical folk do! This isn't a far-fetched example...and I hope it conveyed how certification IS important. An individual who has memorized basics has a better chance at success than an individual that has memorized nothing.

  Posted by: phlogistic on January 20, 2005 at 10:16 AM

• No, that's how an ideal world operates.While it's true sometimes a CEO will specify something like EJB as an explicit requirement, it's usually the same type of CEO that forgets what EJB means as they fix on some new hot topic a month or two later. Most people I've met who carry the business requirements (and risk) have little knowledge about the methods you use to implement them... and care even less (assuming you as an architect have some modicum of their trust and confidence). They just want it done as cheaply and effectively as you can do it. I have to admit, I've become accustomed to the role of contractor, where I deal with non-technical leaders directly and can't simply be moved like a pawn. Perhaps that is an ideal world. Apparently we both agree with the point of the original post: the training is geared towards the wrong criteria for a good architect.An individual who has memorized basics has a better chance at success than an individual that has memorized nothing.Yes, but a pilot who has memorized AFR 35-10, the second verse to the Star-Spangled banner, and the Honor Code does not necessarily have the edge. The point made is the content of some certification processes is inappropriate, not that training or certification is inherently without value. If I were calling the shots, I'd want to see candidates fly planes rather than take unscrutinized paper exams.

  Posted by: mentata on January 20, 2005 at 12:47 PM

• I agree with Phlogistic's point that certification can be important, but it is equally important that we understand what the person has really been certified to do.

  Using the "Stealth Bomber Certification" as an example, what if the Air Force called this the "Master Pilot Certification"?

  I need a really good pilot to fly my piper cub. Two pilots are available, one of whom has the "Master Pilot Certification". Gee whiz, I guess I will hire the one who's certified to be a master pilot.

  Having a certification for EJB Architect is fine, but call it that.

  Posted by: johnreynolds on January 20, 2005 at 03:15 PM

• For all intents and purposes, a Certified J2EE Architect is really just a Certified EJB Architect.

  I have taken the certification in the last month (but haven't received the score for Parts II and III yet) and at any point it's stated that you must use EJB. In fact, the instuctions for the project says:

  Remember the most important requirement of all: it must be J2EE

  Even the Case Study described at Cade's book, which is a good reference for Part II, makes light use of EJBs.

  -- Felipe

  Posted by: felipeal on January 21, 2005 at 01:58 AM

• I'm sorry Felipe, but I cannot quite parse your reply. Did you mean to say that the instructions for the exam don't require you to use EJBs?

  I'm also curious to know how what the official definition of J2EE is with regards to the exam.

  Thanks

  Posted by: johnreynolds on January 21, 2005 at 08:51 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.