Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!ginosko!uunet!mdcbbs!system
From: jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com ((JM Ivler) MDC - Douglas Aircraft Co. Long Beach, CA.)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Programmer Licensing? (/add="NO WAY!!")
Message-ID: <442.2544760b@devsim.mdcbbs.com>
Date: 24 Oct 89 14:47:39 GMT
References: <39400056@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <242@cherry5.UUCP> <1989Oct19.210055.2770@mentor.com> <89293.124011UH2@PSUVM.BITNET>
Organization: McDonnell Douglas M&E, Cypress CA
Lines: 69

In article <89293.124011UH2@PSUVM.BITNET>, UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes:
> The CACM occasionally publishes items they call "self tests".  Some guy
> develops a sort of outline of some topic in the form of questions.  If you
> can answer all the questions, then you are good at that topic.  Here might be
> a mini-example:
> 
	[sample questions -omited-]
> 
> Now, I don't claim this is a good test, just that it is an example of the
> kinds of questions that might appear on one.  The curious thing about these
> tests, is that there doesn't really have to be a rght or wrong answer to each
> question.  

Gee, do they use tests like these for "structural engineers"? I sure hope the
guys checking out San Francisco got more "right" than "wrong"

> One measure of the test taker's expertise is merely the proportion
> of the questions that they feel they can answer.  These all happen to be
> questions that I feel that I can answer, but you probably have questions that
> you think *ANY* software designer ought to be able to answer, which I
> couldn't.

Which is why I feel this entire discussion should be trashed. 

> 
> In short, there doesn't have to be an agreed method for software engineering
> before a reasonable software engineering test could be  constructeded.

$ set on /flame/intens=high

I couldn't disagree more with this sort of thinking. I am about to repeat an
argument I have given before on DECUServe, but it still is valid.

I went to interview for a company in the LA area, the job was on DEC VAX
machines under VMS. I was asked a programming question in regards to what type
of sort would I use to sort ASCII data from a HOL. I responded that I would use
the SORT system services provided by VMS. This was *not* the answer that the
person interviewing me wanted. He wanted to hear me say something like "I would
use an insertion sort algorithm." I, of course, didn't get the job. If someone
is going to perform testing of software engineers, they had best have a board
that *knows* all the possible answers.

As a lead, I do not want someone wasting time writting code instead of making
use of the runtime libraries and system services that a manufacture makes
available. I have a 15 page series of questions and answers that I ask when I
interview. These run the gambit from "personality" questions to engineering.
The interview process I run is designed to meet *my* needs. Just because
someone has a degree in CS is no reason to assume that they know what they are
doing and I feel that any additional certification will supply no additional
data. Cripes, some of the best designers/engineers I know don't even have a
degree.

The old adage "you can't tell a book by its cover" is very true here. All that
additional certification will do is provide those who are already insecure
about thier abilities an additional cover to hide behind! 

$ set noon /flame/intens=none

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    |          J.M. Ivler         | INTERNET:  JMI@DEVSIM.MDCBBS.COM      |
    |    McDonnell Douglas Corp.  | UUCP Bang: UUCP!DEVSIM.MDCBBS.COM!JMI |
    |     Douglas Aircraft Co.    |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    |     3855 Lakewood Blvd      | VOICE:     (213) 496-8727             |
    |       Mail-stop 36-49       |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    |    Long Beach, CA  90846    | DECUServe and DCS available  (IVLER)  |
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    | DECUS - L&T SIG/ CASE and Tools Integration Working Group Chair     |
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Toolsmith (n) - a specialist in the manufacture of support software