Which is more important -
Certifications
Real time experience
In a interview if you have to select a candidate from a list of 2 candidates then whom would you select
Please advice
Real experience! All a certification means is that someone managed to pass a test. Real experience means they can actually get work done. That's not to say that someone with a certification is automatically bad, but the way I see it, a certification doesn't actually mean anything useful.
For anyone considering a certification, they do seem to help get your resume seen in certain types of organizations. They are like a buzzword that HR departments can use to help filter the piles of applications that come through the door, if you are in to that kind of thing.
I've met plenty of people over the years with certifications galore and as many letters after their name as in their name. And then when they sit down at a keyboard, they can't do anything. One guy didn't realize you could use the Home key to go to the beginning of the line, but his acronym list was sure impressive.
Experience carries a lot of weight even before walking in the door, it seems. Most positions will recommend [x] years of experience in areas similar to what you are applying for. Granted, I don't know in practice myself since I 'fell into' my programming role in the business, but certifications are only part of the equation.
Anyone who has actually been involved in hiring programmers will tell you that, all other things being equal, work experience is far more valuable than certifications. Certifications seem to carry more weight on the IT/Network side. Not so much for programmers.
But in an interview situation, if you've got these candidates in a room, get them to write some code on a whiteboard and have that be your ultimate guide. Regardless of experience and certifications, you want to hire the programmer who can concretely demonstrate ability to solve a problem.
a certificate is the proof that you do have knowledge about a certain subject, since you passed the test but you can have lots of knowledge, but zero skills (real experience)
Real real experience! Too many people exaggerate, "stretch the truth", our out-right lie in the resume. It is important to drill down deep and ask the candidate what they actual did!
It's a matter of trust, really. Certificates are provided by organisations that put a lot of money into building trust with they methods and brand. Real life experience is basically only exposed through CVs and statements from former employers, which requires that you somewhat blindly trust those sources. Neither certificates, former employer statements or CVs will tell you if the candidate meets your requirements. So; always do some coding questions in the interviews. These questions can be more or less abstract, but you want to get a feel of the quality of thought-processes in the interviewee. The Joel on software guide to interviewing is an obvious starting point.
Do you have to decide from the interview alone? Interviewing only provides a very limited view of a candidate.
Let the two candidates work on a real problem for a week (or longer) if possible. Observe how they perform and fit into your company. If you like what you see and can afford it, keep both, otherwise let go the person(s) not fulfilling the requirement.
Overall, I tend to lean more toward real experience, but it might be bad experience. A number of years is about as helpful an indication as certification names.
Experience is definitely more important. Certification means that a person has undergone some fixed procedure. Do you hire him for doing the same in your company? If not, certifications are not what you're looking for.
While I'll agree that real world experience is more useful than a certification, real world experience is much easier to fake. At least with my own SCJP and Microsoft Certifications, certifications can be verified with the organization issuing the certification.
Also, my experience is that certification tests can be quite difficult; to the point that it would be nearly impossible to get a certification without some real world experience. Not completely impossible, but nearly.
So I'm going to have the unpopular opinion that certifications are better simply because they are more verifiable. Downvote away!
That said, neither criteria is as important as their ability to answer code questions in an interview. If they can't solve problems, then any amount of experience or certification, real or faked, is irrelevant.
I would never hire anyone with alot of certifications and no experience. In all my years of dealing with rookie "certified" consultants I find most of them pretty useless is most cases. The ones that are good are the ones that have alot of experience.
Dont judge candidates based on certificates alone. In your case pick the guy with the 4 years experience. No doubt in that.
Certificates are useful for
Cheers
Ramesh Vel
I will prefer Real time experience because a person may have lot of Certifications but it doesn't mean that he has enough skills in that field. Whereas a person having hands on experience is the preferable one.
If a person has real time experience and certifications both then he must be judged as per experience first, then need to consider the certifications.
I would say that it depends on the job and what it is you are trying to do. I have a lot of friends who work as system administrators that wouldn't have gotten their jobs without some of the Microsoft certifications. On the other hand, if you are looking to get a job where you will just be a cookie cutter programmer or in a development chop shop, than yeah, you might stand a better chance at getting noticed with the certs, because as mentioned previously, they are often used as keywords by HR.
The job I am working now could care less about the Sun certifications. I work on Java enterprise projects and they care more about experience, as there are many problems that come up that reading a book will never answer, but experience will.