A reason not to put all certs on resume...

ITHokie

Somnipotent wrote: »

one should remove most entry level certifications from their resume (with the exception of CCNA-most HR folk still don't know that a CCNA is prereq for CCNP/CCIE and the core CompTIA certs if you're applying to a DoD contractor). Why clutter up your resume with excess mess.

It's not just the CCNA. HR is generally ignorant of prerequisites, so it's in our best interest to assume they don't, for example, know that an MCSA is a prereq for an MCSE. If a resume doesn't make it past the gatekeepers (HR), we'll never even have the opportunity to interview. We should never misrepresent our skills, but I certainly wouldn't leave a meaningful industry cert off my resume thinking that HR personnel should know all the certification hierarchies.

Is there a place I would draw the line for meaninful certs? Probably. I don't really know anything about the CIW certs, but it doesn't seem like they have much a market value and they don't generate a lot of knowledge/skills, so if they are cause for headaches, it's probably best to leave them off.

On the other hand, I agree with an earlier post that showing all your core certificates demonstrates a continual learning progression. The HR types I've asked about it always love the cert section of my resume ordered and listed with year obtained.

One other thing I would point out is that there is nothing wrong with feeling a little uncomfortable during an interview. We all have different personalities, and I know some people feel a lot of anxiety during interviews, but we all need to be able to operate under pressure. Again, I'm not saying to be dishonest on the resume. Don't ever do that. But we need to be able to dig deep sometimes. Even on subjects that we think we're experts on, it's possible to get a question on one small aspect that we don't know very well or just plain draw a blank. It happens.

ajs1976

I will be removing Linux+ from my resume and probably a couple of others. Linux+ got me into an awkward situation. Interviewer had preconceived notion about Linux+ being higher level then it actually is and it had been years since I had my linux class and passed the test.

Balantine

That manager is a doof.

Obviously "Javascript Specialist" is "more specialized" than "management."

It can be said, however, that the ideal employee (rationally speaking) is a skeptical generalist.

Haunt

As a WGU student that has earned those CIW certs, I'm glad I saw this thread. I was going to re-do my resume to include all of my certs but will probably leave off the CIW ones now. I'm not going to be applying for web development related jobs anyway, so I don't see why they would help.

But I pose another question to you all. I'm taking the Windows 7 exam very soon and will hopefully pass first try so I can add the cert to my resume. Afterwards, I'm moving onto studying for the MCITP/MCSA: Server 2008 cert. Is it a bad idea to list the MCITP/MCSA: Server 2008 cert on my resume but have it listed as IN PROGRESS?

I don't want to misrepresent myself and fluff my resume, but on the other hand I kind of think it's fair to list it as it shows prospective employers that I'm actively working towards learning the material and obtaining the certification.

What do you guys think?

ptilsen

I don't like to see In Progress on associate-level certs, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. As long as it is clear you don't have the cert already, that's fine.

ajs1976

I don't think think in progress is a good idea, but if you do it, I would suggest waiting until you have completed at least one of the exams and don't have more then one certification track listed as in progress.

NotHackingYou

While we're on the subject, what about expired certs?

--chris--

CarlSaiyed wrote: »

While we're on the subject, what about expired certs?

Leave them off, but don't shy away from the fact you were once certified during the interview. Explain why you let it lapse, and if you are willing to re-certify let them know.

ptilsen

I wouldn't include an expired cert unless I had a compelling reason. At that, pretty much the only reason I would include an expired cert would be that I still felt very comfortable with the material or technology in question, but didn't feel the need to recertify (which, in many cases, is understandable).

As an example, if I had an expired CCNA (I don't), I (as in me, personally, literally, not the royal, hypothetical I) would probably list it, because I'm still comfortable, event proficient with the majority of the CCNA material, even though I originally learned in five years ago (and never sat for the cert, at that). Similarly, if my A+ were the type to expire, I would still list it, because I haven't suddenly forgotten the basics of PC hardware or a significant amount of the important material on the A+. (Although, to this example, I might not list even my non-expired A+ because it's too entry-level and only barely, tangentially relevant to my career goals).

charlemagne

YFZblu wrote: »

REMOVED UNNECESSARY QUOTED REPLY FROM PREVIOUS POST

I think this post misses the point - The individual doing the hiring was perplexed as to why an entry-level certification included the word 'specialist' in the name. Your post makes it sound like the OP was grilled about the cert and wasn't able to describe it effectively; that's not the case

So, using this logic, the CWTS (Certified Wireless Technology Specialist) should be left off due to it having the word "specialist" in it even though we all know it is entry-level for those in wireless technology. I'm no fan of CIW but the official books are used in community college courses and continuing education courses around the country. The problem is, with WGU, the CIW material isn't "taught" but rather left to students to find material and pass. IF those that need foundational training AND take a course that utilize the official CIW books, do the labs, read the chapters, take tests, and certify if you wish, then you can learn what the objectives state. You get out of it what you put into it.
If some goofy HR person is too dumb to realize that the applicant didn't just create and insert the word "specialist" in a certification's title but rather the organization that offers said certification, then it's their own ignorance.

charlemagne

Psoasman wrote: »

^^Good points above.

CIW certs will not likely grace the page of my resume. My main reason being is they state "specialist" When I hear that, I think someone's main work is doing what the cert states. After passing the Web Design cert, I would hardly call myself a web design specialist. It was a cert I was required to do and that's it. I think those "specialist" certs would be better if named JavaScript Foundations or Database foundations.

So, in your opinion, anyone with the CWTS (wireless entry-level) should be removed from a resume because it has "specialist" in the title? I think the folks at CWNP would have a fine answer to why they chose to use "specialist" for the CWTS certification.

--chris--

charlemagne wrote: »

So, using this logic, the CWTS (Certified Wireless Technology Specialist) should be left off due to it having the word "specialist" in it even though we all know it is entry-level for those in wireless technology.

Its all in the name. CWTS implies you are knowledgeable in the filed of wireless technology. It doesn't imply expert knowledge, but that you have special knowledge in wireless technology. Its the general term (IMO) that makes it different. Where as the Javascript specialist implies you have special knowledge of JS above and beyond what a normal javascript programmer would have. It implies you know JS at a level above entry/beginner when (from what I gather) it does not provide that level of education during the exam prep.

I could be off, but thats my take on it.

ptilsen

The issue is not that the word specialist is bad for entry-level so much as it is that CIW's "specialist" certs are below entry-level. They are beginner level, and don't correlate with enough skill to possibly lead to gainful employment or be especially useful in said employment. What it can do is not unreasonably give HR or a hiring manager the impression that the applicant actually has a professionally useful level of knowledge, which is not the case and exactly why it doesn't belong on a resume. By contrast, CWTS (admittedly, this is my impression of it, and I'm not deeply familiar with its material) actually represents a professionally useful level of skill, and would be appropriate to include on a resume, in my opinion. With respect to CWTS specifically, I actually don't feel it has much value, but I might at least consider it resume-worthy in some situations, unlike the majority of CIW certifications, and more importantly I don't think it misrepresents itself in its name.

So, Psoasman's point, as I took it, was not that "specialist" is a dirty word — even in the context of an entry-level cert — but that CIW's certs even in using that word implicitly exaggerate the skill level they purport to represent.

To a more relevant point, regardless of whether the above logic makes sense or is agreeable, virtually no employers are looking for CIW certifications on candidate's resumes, and (in my opinion) no one with any knowledge of CIW would ascribe any value to them (nor would many without any level of knowledge of CIW ascribe any value to them, of course). As such, other content or even no content is a better fit for a resume.

Again, on this specific, I have to stress the same point about CWTS. It is probably not resume-worthy unless applying to a job specifically looking for it or at least calling out wireless, and I can find exactly four distinct US job ads mentioning it across the major sites.

Contrast these with Cisco ASA Specialist. This is certainly a valuable "specialist" title that represents an appropriate level of skill relative to its nomenclature. It indicates a significant amount of skill on a specific in-demand technology, and overall it is not a bad certification to have and put on a resume.

charlemagne

CIW's updated web site states that their Web Foundation is just a step above the IC3 digital literacy program (offered through Certiport) and for various reasons they have over the years developed connections with community colleges and workforce development programs in many states (and in Europe). They also state that their certifications (including Java script) validate "knowledge of" the topic and is meant to prepare one for additional training. There is a huge difference between exams testing on "knowledge of" a subject as compared to a skills based exams which usually means prior experience required.
They now state their new "Web Development Series" prepares one for MTA level credentials.
I think that by stating clearly that some of their certs are meant as prep for MTA level (why one needs it is beyond me but anyway....) is pretty self-explanatory as to the what audience these certs are designed for. Also, CIW certs were meant to be earned after taking a class based on their books (some are good for newbies) and many community colleges do this using the CIW books. If taught in this manner, a beginner can learn a lot. They aren't being deceptive. I see no reason why WGU forces people to take their exams since they aren't teaching the topics on the exams at WGU.
If I recall, it was CompTIA that came to CIW to form the CTP+ (now retired) exam. Just a side note.

I have no interest in CIW exams but if they were just a meaningless entity then even CompTIA would have stayed away. If you know you have to pass one of their exams being a WGU student, it would serve one better to take the initiative and get their books and study it and learn it and forget about how easy or hard an exam is. CIW is, like anything, what you make out of it. It's geared for those that really are needing the fundamentals.
If some HR drone doesn't know what something is then enlighten them. No one has to go to WGU nor take a CIW exam. I wouldn't do either. But, if you're going to plan for WGU, then take it and move on. To each their own.

ptilsen

The nomenclature is inherently deceptive; "specialist" implies a considerable level of working knowledge with the topic at hand. I would not expect someone with a CIW Web Design or Database specialist title to have anything beyond basic knowledge of web design and relational databases. As such, I wouldn't look for it on applicants' resumes, and wouldn't really consider it very strongly, if at all, in assessing the applicants. The aggregate view of employers appears to match mine, from what evidence I've had. Nothing you've said invalidates any of this, even though it may all well be true.

FWIW, I don't view CompTIA overall as much better than CIW, but they provide some certifications which represent some meaning; that employers look for; and for which there are no alternatives. I don't know if I'd say that of CIW.

Also, just Google "CIW Web Design Specialist." The first result is titled "CIW | Web Design Specialists Are Experts in Web Site Design." I think it's fair to say actual experts in web site design would find that humorous, at best. I'm no web design expert, but from what I've seen of the material and from people who have had to take if for WGU, it's certainly a deceptive claim. Furthermore, if you look at CIW's certifications, they actually have an associate level below the specialist level, and the specialist levels are just subsets of professional levels. If we were comparing to Microsoft based on this structure and nomenclature, this would make a CIW "specialist" relatively equivalent to an MCTS. From everything I've seen from CIW, this is simply not the case.

Now I will add, I think there is a theoretical need for some of CIW's certifications. Where core infrastructure technologies generally have pretty clear and usable certification paths, web design, development, and security do not. And maybe, just maybe some of the CIW material is really good for these needs. Unfortunately, everything I've seen is that the industry doesn't agree. Job ads ask for specific skills, experience, education, and sometimes certs, but almost never CIW. Employers issue their own questions or tests and even check portfolios to ensure competency. No one seems to be taking CIW for what it's theoretical providing, especially compared to some of the more ubiquitous infrastructure certifications (A+, CCNA, MCSE, etc.). I don't know if there are any specific reasons why this is the case, but it seems to clearly be the case.

Getting back to the real point of the thread topic, regardless of any contention over whether or to what extent CIW is deceptive in its nomenclature or what value it's material has (make no mistake, it may well have lots of good educational value), the bottom line is that very, very, very few employers are actually looking for CIW certifications, and based on my conversations with colleagues (between here, my professional life, and LinkedIn, this is not insignificant), almost no one takes them altogether that seriously, at least at the specialist level and below. As such, they probably do not belong on a resume in the vast majority of circumstances for WGU grads who have them.

N2IT

I always error on the side of caution when it comes to resume fodder. If time has eroded my knowledge in a particular area or skill I leave it off. I find it to add more risk than take away. At this point I list my MOS certifications, RMP, CAPM, ITIL and my degrees. Im at the point now where I only list ITIL V3 certified. I don't list the intermediate certifications it just ends up confusing them. Of course if the position directly ask for them I will break them out. I think one or two well placed certifications look SOOOOOOOOOO much better on a resume than a **** of every cert you ever had. I have the CompTIA trifecta and never list it. I have some process certifications I never list either.

Nemowolf

I list my certificates in progress under my education section where i list my bachelors degree is in progress as well.

As noted throughout, i don't value the CIW certs as the material doesn't cover the breadth of material with enough depth to truly say you learned much at all. Having said that, I currently use this to show my prospective employers that I am working on enriching myself well beyond a classroom education and focusing on the IT aspect. Several managers over the years have done the mentoring thing and asked me what i wanted to do with my career and this is a great way for me to explore options. I can honestly say that having done the classes that I have NO interest in ever doing web development but i did the work to learn that.

If during an interview anyone questions me, I will gladly tell them that it was part of my educational requirements and that while i did pass the class and get certified it is not something that i have actively worked on since nor used enough to retain information. I would note that with some time to refresh my knowledge i could brush up on the skills if absolutely required because I would do that for a good employer.

LarryDaMan

This is not directed towards any specific post, but this thread really hits on the importance of experience. If interviewers made it a point to ask real-world practical questions about the certifications in the resumes, I think a lot of people would be in trouble. A certification is supposed to certify knowledge or skills, not certify that you can pass a test. Imagine having a paper tiger medical doctor or lawyer (might be possible).

Mike-Mike

Whoa, Necro thread came back to life...


funny story.. back in June of 2012, I started this thread saying I was going to take CIW off.. i never did....


better story.. when I was interviewed for my current job (which I love, and pays more), having the CIW on there played a small part in me getting hired...

they didn't need a programmer or coding expert, just familiarity, which those certs provided