To start with, I have been thinking to get this certification (SCEA) since 2003. I was very serious at that time, purchased exam voucher/study guide and started preparing for the first test. Due to several reasons, not to mention here, I could not proceed any further. Now, again I am planning to take this exam - not just for the certificate but also to gain additional knowledge that might add-up to my 6 years of software development experience. I am quite lucky this time, my company will sponsor for all the certification expenses. I have to still put lots of effort from my end as well to get through it. I am not sure how much is SCEA certification worth in the current market. I would really appreciate if any of you can point me to some kind of research data or statistics on the web showing the advantages of having SCEA certification. I am a SUN certified developer with 92% back in 2000. None of the recruiting companies gave any preference for having this certification at that time. On the other hand Brain Bench was more popular. Is SCEA certification really worth taking? Will it really add up to the career growth?
I would really appreciate any additional information that might help me to take the right step.
Originally posted by Darya Akbari: Having the certificate is better than not having it.
I don't agree with you. The certificate does not worth if you don't have experience.
Joined: Aug 21, 2004
what is experience? Can you elaborate a little bit here? Experience in what?
In Germany we have a nice saying: "Der Weg ist das Ziel". In English it should be something like: "The journey is the goal"
So, in other words, the preparation for SCEA is making you a big step forward in becoming a good architect, not the certificate by itself.
I'm not saying that after the certificate you are an architect. But you are much better prepared to become an architect, than others with lot of experience. Unfortunately these other's experience is most often a collection of personal preferences which is also not making you a good architect.
When we are talking of becoming a J2EE architect, then of course you should have knowledge about J2EE technologies which is also a learning process. I know lot of people who have lot of experience in J2EE and still only know 10% of J2EE.
With 10% knowledge but lot of experience you earn nothing. It's only the preparation or better the studying process that brings you forward. Just learning by experience is too less and a waste of your potential, because on the job you will never have to concern about the whole J2EE.
Now whom do you think a company prefers when choosing between two people with the same level of experience?
A: The one with SCEA certificate B: Or the one without SCEA certificate
I opt for A and this is the reason why I say having the certifcate is better, than not having it
Originally posted by Darya Akbari: So, in other words, the preparation for SCEA is making you a big step forward in becoming a good architect, not the certificate by itself.
I agree. Getting the SCEA does not make you an architect, but it puts you on the right track towards becoming one. Experience is of course a key. I myself wouldn't trust to hire an architect with just a few years of development experience and holding an SCEA (who would?). Of course, you would be probably be biased toward the Sun Java technologies with the SCEA.
There are several roles of architect: enterprise architect, domain architect, solution (or application) architect in USA. The first two architects focus on IT governence and strategy, and the solution architect focus on project level component design. If the component is designed with J2EE solution, J2EE architect is the best role. I would say that most of mid-range companies prefer J2EE architects (or .NET architect). The enterprise companies started to outsoruce the projects in USA. [ August 08, 2006: Message edited by: tony clare ]
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Regarding the experience, I would say that a good architect not only deliver the design document but also has ability to drive it for implementation. He/she should know how to deal with the compete developers and how to get the authority to force the development in the architectural direction. The computer system architecture is similar to the construction industry architecture, but is too younger which needs more standard procedures like the engineers can read the architecture blueprint and bulid the house. UML is a visual language but not accurate enought to descript a system. One picture worths a thousand of words. But description with a thousand of words are more accurate than a picture. My point is that an architect needs to execise the communication skills. That is the experience.