 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / February 2007Java Certification Exam Query
Hi friends, This is my first post in a newsgroup. I am planning to appear for the SCJP exam for Java 5 in mid-march. I wish to know about the industry recognition for the same. As I donot have any traditional workexperience will it be useful in establishing my proficiency. kind regards AK -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org >I am planning to appear for the SCJP exam for Java 5 in mid-march. > I wish to know about the industry recognition for the same. This exam series, along with the Cisco networking certifications, are just about the only industry accreditations that have much recognition or any respect at all. They're certainly in a league above MCSE or CIW. Andy, Thanks a lot for your reply. But I came to know that there is no distinction between the candidates who clear the exam (as in a person securing 85% and the one sceuring 58% are on the same level). kind regards AK >> I am planning to appear for the SCJP exam for Java 5 in mid-march. >> I wish to know about the industry recognition for the same. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or any respect at all. They're certainly in a league above MCSE or > CIW. -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > Andy, > Thanks a lot for your reply. But I came to know that there is no [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > kuch...@freeshell.org > SDF Public Access UNIX System -http://sdf.lonestar.org Hi, You are right, there is no distinction between the person who gets 85% and 58%. The test is planned in such a way...if u r able to clear the exam with minimum pass percentage 52% means...then u r eligible to work in java... Certification will not have that much impact ....i will explain this with my personal experience..i am scjp, brainbench, OCA...guy...these certification helps my cv to be shortlisted in interviews.....even though i have certification...they conducted tech interviews but in a different way...they didnt asked me any stupid questions on java like size of double, what is encapsulation, what is oops......rather than they asked me some practical q's like structure of JVM, algorithm and working of JVM, why we are going for OOPS rather than strucutured/ procedure language..diff between JDK, JRE,and so on.. Certifications will help u in the final selection in considering u to be the right person for the job... say two people came to the interview...one has got 2+ exp and certifications, other guy got 2.5+ and no certification.... if both person did the tech interview well and package is also some wat similar..then the candidate precendence will increase for certified person..company will consider the certified guy bcoz they think that person is ready to allocate some time for his own development.......that will make the difference Thanks moin Hi AK, Just one thing i want to say to you that you must look at once the java specification tutorial before appearing in the exam. You can get it from http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition. Because it will tell you a lot of things that you may not be knowing. For an example just tell the output of the following program :- class Super { Super() { printThree(); } void printThree() { System.out.println("three"); } } class Test extends Super { int three = (int)Math.PI; // That is, 3 public static void main(String[] args){ Test t = new Test(); t.printThree(); } void printThree() { System.out.println(three); } } > Date: 6 Feb 2007 01:28:58 -0800 > From: "dagarwal82@gmail.com" <dagarwal82@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You can get it from http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition. > Because it will tell you a lot of things that you may not be knowing. Thanks Agarwal, Will definitely go through that. For an example just tell the output of the following program :- class Super { Super() { printThree(); } void printThree() { System.out.println("three"); } } class Test extends Super { int three = (int)Math.PI; // That is, 3 public static void main(String[] args){ Test t = new Test(); t.printThree(); } void printThree() { System.out.println(three); } } This question sure seems to be a toughie. Let me go ahead reasoning rather than jumping to answers. The object t is calling the function prinThree(). In a normal case the subclass function function is called and the value 3 is printed. but here the object for the superclass is first created and hence its cosntructor is called which inturn calls its own printThree() function. So first "three" is printed first and then ater the object is created the subclasses' function is called. the output should be "three" 3 correct me if I am wrong kind regards AK -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > > Date: 6 Feb 2007 01:28:58 -0800 > > From: "dagarwa...@gmail.com" <dagarwa...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > kuch...@freeshell.org > SDF Public Access UNIX System -http://sdf.lonestar.org Close.. Super's constructor calls printThree(), so this happens instead: "new Test()" first allocates memory for Test, then calls the constructor Super's constructor is called first, so it calls printThree. printThree is overridden, so it is Test.printThree that is called. It prints the contents of the int field three, which at this point is 0; Super's constructor is now finished, and so the Test portion of the object is initialized. three is set to (int)Math.PI; // 3 t.printThree will call Tests printThree, which will print the field three (with the value of 3) So, the output of this is: 0 3 dagarwal82@gmail.com wrote: > For an example just tell the output of the following program :- > class Super { [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > void printThree() { System.out.println(three); } > } > the output should be > "three" > 3 > > correct me if I am wrong Juwt three not 3 There is no way to call the "same" method twice; only one version is invoked. - Lew dagarwal82@gmail.com wrote: >> For an example just tell the output of the following program :- >> class Super { [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> void printThree() { System.out.println(three); } >> } AK wrote: >> the output should be >> "three" >> 3 >> >> correct me if I am wrong > Juwt > three [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is no way to call the "same" method twice; only one version is > invoked. Oops, I missed the second call. AK was right (except that the quotes won't appear). - Lew dagarwal82@gmail.com wrote: >>> For an example just tell the output of the following program :- >>> class Super { [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> void printThree() { System.out.println(three); } >>> } AK and I were both wrong. dagarwal82@gmail.com is right. The constructor call to the "printThree()" method goes through the child-class method regardless. The child class "int three" member has not yet been initialized to "3", so the call prints "0". After construction, the call to the child-class method prints "3". - Lew > AK and I were both wrong. dagarwal82@gmail.com is right. Yup!..I too missed the first one -- the child-class method being called. -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org Lew wrote: >> AK and I were both wrong. dagarwal82@gmail.com is right. > Yup!..I too missed the first one -- the child-class method being called. I finally broke down and did what I should've done in the first place and ran the durn thing. - Lew > Lew wrote: > >> AK and I were both wrong. dagarwa...@gmail.com is right. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Lew Hi Lew, I didnt know this group is working professionally...In future, there wont be any informal communication.. Thanks... Moin >> Lew wrote: >>>> AK and I were both wrong. dagarwa...@gmail.com is right. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks... > Moin I do not follow. This was a thread about calling subclass methods from a superclass constructors. - Lew Moin, Thanks a lot for the insight. Now I am clearly understand the value of the SCJP. kind regards AK -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > ... u r ... u r ... i ... i ... q's ... u ... u ... 2+ exp ... bcoz ... Informal communications as here are one thing, but in one's professional writing one should be sure to eschew "txt-speak" execrations. Taking the care to communicate well will enhance one's career. The English language is a lovely thing and is not improved by uncessarily telegraphic communication. - Lew > Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:01:28 -0500 > From: Lew <lew@nospam.lewscanon.com> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > - Lew Lew, I do agree with your point of view that one should refrain from using the SMS-CHAT lingo of i,ur,coz etc but at the same time I feel one should not force ones opinions opinions on ohters.We live in a democratic world and USENET is an example of that. And the only thing thats permanent in life is change. If the majority of the people want the language to change,adapt and improve with time; who are we to dictate terms. kind regards AK -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > If the majority of the people want the language to change,adapt > and improve with time; who are we to dictate terms. The implicit suggestion that txt-speakers are in the majority /in this community/ is more than a little unconvincing. And to answer your final question (note how I refrain from criticising your omission of the "?" ;-) we are the /readers/ -- and if people wish to communicate with us then (a) they are well-advised to consider our tastes and prejudices (even if, after consideration, they decide to ignore them), and (b) we can help them do (a) if we /tell/ them what those tastes and prejudices are. Personally I can't read txt-speke without considerable difficulty (it changes the "gestalt" of the written word, which my word recognition wetware depends on), so I hardly ever bother. So, if there's anyone who would like a share of /my/ attention, they had better use real words... -- chris > who are we to dictate terms. _We're_ the people recruiting and interviewing for the jobs. U ask me plz for L33T jbex and you're straight in the reject pile. >> who are we to dictate terms. > _We're_ the people recruiting and interviewing for the jobs. That's too bad (you'll end up with people no better than you deserve ;-) regards.  SignatureThomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net AK <kuch...@freeshell.org> wrote: >>> who are we to dictate terms. Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote: >> _We're_ the people recruiting and interviewing for the jobs. > That's too bad (you'll end up with people no better than you deserve ;-) But more to the point, Andy's policy will prevent him from ending up with people worse than he deserves. My suggesting did not "dictate terms". AK wrote: > I do agree with your point of view that one should refrain from using the SMS-CHAT lingo of i,ur,coz etc but at the same time I feel one should not force ones opinions opinions on ohters.We live in a democratic world and USENET is an example of that. And the only thing thats permanent in life is change. If the majority of the people want the language to change,adapt and improve with time; who are we to dictate terms. > kind regards How did I "force" an "opinion" on anyone? I suggested a theory supportable by evidence that in business communication "txt-speak" would hurt a person's career, and offered the /helpful/ advice that use of a more formal style helps one's professional advancement. I do not force anyone to use better English, to agree with me, or to advance in their career. If you want to sound like an illiterate, barely-mentating boob I will strongly support your right to do so, but still suggest that your own self-interest lies elsewhere. - Lew Andy,Thomas & Lew, I completely agree with what you have to say. The only point I was trying to make was that people have the right to commit mistakes and learn the *hard* way. cheers AK -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > Andy,Thomas & Lew, > I completely agree with what you have to say. The only point I was > trying to make was that people have the right to commit mistakes and > learn the *hard* way. I agree that people have the right to learn the hard way, but I see no reason to require that they do so. Passing along information to make it possible to avoid mistakes and learn the easy way is my goal. - Lew > I agree that people have the right to learn the hard way, but I see no > reason to require that they do so. Passing along information to make it > possible to avoid mistakes and learn the easy way is my goal. One (partial) definition of communication: learning from other people's mistakes... -- chris >> I agree that people have the right to learn the hard way, but I see no >> reason to require that they do so. Passing along information to make it >> possible to avoid mistakes and learn the easy way is my goal. > One (partial) definition of communication: learning from other people's > mistakes... People generally don't learn that way - they learn by solving small problems... (Big ones don't get solved ;-) SignatureThomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net > Thanks a lot for your reply. But I came to know that there is no > distinction between the candidates who clear the exam (as in a person > securing 85% and the one sceuring 58% are on the same level). Moin said it well. You only get "certified", not "highly certified". It doesn't distinguish good Java people, it distinguishes the average and keen from the bad and from the average but less keen. Recruiting is hard work. One easy way to filter out the poor candidates is to simply paper-sort the certified from the non- certified. I know this will probably lose my best candidates (they don't feel any need to get certified) but it also filters out the huge number of applicants who don't know Unix from eunuchs. This saves me, as a manager, an awful lot of effort! Until you've done recruitment yourself, you wouldn't believe the high proportion of clueless idiots who apply anyway. Most of "recruitment" is sadly about avoiding idiots in favour of the acceptably competent, not about selecting the very best people. For "best" I'd only trust long personal experience of that one candidate, or similar experience of colleagues who'd worked with them before. If I were putting a start-up together, then I'd want the very best people (not many of them) and I'd recruit solely by personal recommendation of who was really good. If I'm trying to find 3 more warm bodies for a gas-bill shop, then I'd just only recruit certified programmers. If I'm being interviewed and I have some relevant certification, I _never_ mention it. > Moin said it well. You only get "certified", not "highly certified". > It doesn't distinguish good Java people, it distinguishes the average > and keen from the bad and from the average but less keen. Yup!..Both of you have put it nicely. It will prove a point and may be help in filtering resumes but nothing more than that. The example of recruiter and the flood of applications was indeed quite good. Now I get it. > If I were putting a start-up together, then I'd want the very best > people (not many of them) and I'd recruit solely by personal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If I'm being interviewed and I have some relevant certification, I > _never_ mention it. :-P -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > Most of "recruitment" is sadly about avoiding > idiots in favour of the acceptably competent, not about selecting the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > warm bodies for a gas-bill shop, then I'd just only recruit certified > programmers. I would never hire someone who used "txt-speak" in their employment application paperwork. - Lew >>I am planning to appear for the SCJP exam for Java 5 in mid-march. >> I wish to know about the industry recognition for the same. > This exam series, along with the Cisco networking certifications, are > just about the only industry accreditations that have much recognition > or any respect at all. They're certainly in a league above MCSE or > CIW. That might be true, but it would be interesting to see some objective comparison, e.g., a survey with some numbers. Newsgroup postings tend to lack that (and it's indisputable that he would get a different answer by posting in a different newsgroup). SignatureThomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net > That might be true, but it would be interesting to see some objective > comparison, e.g., a survey with some numbers. For a sample of one, my employer's policy is to buy team drinks and "a sliding scale of meal venues: Mc Donalds for /SCJP up to Michelin 3 Star for /SCEA " for Java, but nothing for MCSE. > For a sample of one, my employer's policy is to buy team drinks and "a > sliding scale of meal venues: Mc Donalds for /SCJP up to Michelin 3 > Star for /SCEA " for Java, but nothing for MCSE. thats was quite a witty way of proving the point. -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org >> For a sample of one, my employer's policy is to buy team drinks and "a >> sliding scale of meal venues: Mc Donalds for /SCJP up to Michelin 3 >> Star for /SCEA " for Java, but nothing for MCSE. > thats was quite a witty way of proving the point. Not really. It was obviously intended as a topic-killer (no reason to followup). SignatureThomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net By the way the answer to my code snippet is :- 0 3 > Date: 6 Feb 2007 03:29:25 -0800 > From: "dagarwal82@gmail.com" <dagarwal82@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 0 > 3 I had posted the answer as : "three" 3 Can you lease go through my earlier post and point out where i might have gone wrong. kind regards AK -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > Not really. It was obviously intended as a topic-killer That would be why I copied-and-pasted it from our HR policies wiki. This is a genuine policy here! certification is an added advantage.It will be always useful . > Date: 6 Feb 2007 01:23:37 -0800 > From: arun <karun07@gmail.com> > Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer > Subject: Re: Java Certification Exam Query > > certification is an added advantage.It will be always useful . thats a valid point. its always to have something rather than npothing. but my query was if it was really worth the effort and time. and the unanimous answer has been YES. :-) -- kuchcha@freeshell.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org > thats a valid point. its always to have something rather than npothing. > but my query was if it was really worth the effort and time. and the > unanimous answer has been YES. Not quite unanimous. I have helped train dozens of people to get their SJCP but never tried for it myself. It hasn't been necessary for me. - Lew > certification is an added advantage.It will be always useful . Anyone who tells me that they have MCSD and that they still think that it's actually meaningful goes straight in the reject pile (I used to teach the courses for it, so yes I have a good idea of exactly what's involved in it). I hope that I never interview anyone with CIW and that I would have taken them at the paper-sort stage first. If I interviewed someone with A+, I ought to fail myself! > If I interviewed someone with A+, I ought to fail myself! quite likely: since A+ is a certification for technicians, and you probably don't qualify. SignatureThomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.