SCJA & SCJP Questions
Hi all, I would like to clear out a few points/questions if possible.
First -
I'm a C++ programmer but want to extend my knowledge in learning Java therefore im thinking of taking the Sun Certifications, which would start from SCJA. Now, would the SCJA study guide be appropriate to achieve this certification or would I need addional training software, like the bundle set "Java Entry Level Certification Solution (CDJ-JAVA-NOV)" provided by Sun itself.
Second -
Considering the fact im rather new to Java and its technology, ive been reading about Java 6.. would it be ideal to wait a little and study the 'new' version before moving into the Java 5 certifications.. just to be with the 'latest' technology or is Java 6 just a small extension/upgrade upon Java 5 ?
Third -
As my main aim is to reach the SCMAD Certification level, I would like to know what good books are available for the SCJP certification exams, as stated in the main question (SCJA and SCJP both rely in the Java SE technology) , the bundle set kinda covers the Java SE aspects and was wondering if its feasible enough to just purchase that training kit to study that course material or if there is any other relevant/suitable material instead that I should go with.
Many thanks and really appreciate your help.
[1341 byte] By [
GiNOa] at [2007-11-26 21:05:03]
Most of your resources are online. Take mock exams to see if you're ready. I'd focus on Java 1.5. Just my 2 cents.It should be noted that Java certs are very tough, unlike many certs in the industry. Make sure you're ready!
Thanks for your response, appreciate your feedback. I agree they are tough and will start my way slowly from SCJA. The reason I asked for course material was as id rather read a book and have it beside me or take it around with me rather than reading off the screen, also which could guide me off from a starting point to a reasonable stage where I could move on alone by means of research etc.
GiNOa at 2007-7-10 2:38:25 >
SCJA is recognised by most as being aimed at people incapable of passing SCJP which is required for most other certs so why not go for SCJP directly?
SCJA and SCJP are also generally recognised as being too easy rather than quite hard, and many people who have passed it (myself including) consider it to be of relatively little value in itself because of that (it's possible to pass it without a real understanding of the subject matter, by just cramming some books into your head over a few days or weeks).
As to your idea of waiting for a new version, I suspect you can wait a long time as I don't think there will ever be a 1.6 version of the exam.
The changes in the language from 1.5 to 1.6 are too minor to warrant such an investment.
hehe thanks, that kinda summarises up all I needed to know. Many thanks :)
GiNOa at 2007-7-10 2:38:25 >
> SCJA and SCJP are also generally recognised as being
> too easy rather than quite hard
I'm glad you're a genius and it's "too easy" for you. However, I know people that have been using Java since day 1 (including people that write code for Sun) and still can't pass the exam. It's not easy and it's much tougher than most certs out there. That said, having the cert doesn't mean you're a great developer. It means you understand the language and fundamentals.
if people can pass the exam after an introductory course and reading a single book who never used Java before I seriously doubt that people who've been using Java professionally for a decade should be unable to pass it easily.
> if people can pass the exam after an introductory
> course and reading a single book who never used Java
> before I seriously doubt that people who've been
> using Java professionally for a decade should be
> unable to pass it easily.
No offense, but you are completely misinformed. Only a person with photographic memory could possibly do that. Nobody, I repeat NOBODY (with a normal or above normal intelligence) has a chance of passing this exam under the conditions you've given.
> > SCJA and SCJP are also generally recognised as
> being
> > too easy rather than quite hard
>
> I'm glad you're a genius and it's "too easy" for you.
> However, I know people that have been using Java
> since day 1 (including people that write code for
> Sun) and still can't pass the exam. It's not easy and
> it's much tougher than most certs out there. That
> said, having the cert doesn't mean you're a great
> developer. It means you understand the language and
> fundamentals.
on the contrary, it means you can memorize facts. no understanding is implied
As far as study guides go for SCJA, the Sun Certified Java Associate study guide from http://www.scja.com is a good start. It covers all the objectives, although in itself, it is not a learn from the ground up Java introduction. For that, you should look at Head First Java.
As far as sample questions and mock exams, check out these mock exam questions:
http://studyguides.scja.com/ExamScam/sunjavacertifiedtutorialsandmockexams.jsp?link=mockexams
Good luck on your studies!
-Cameron McKenzie
> on the contrary, it means you can memorize facts. no
> understanding is implied
Not even close to true. The test is filled with questions that present code and questions that ask if the code will it break at compile time, runtime, or run just fine, etc. What will the output be, etc. Aside from memorizing data types, you must be able to compile and run code in your brain. To me this implies and understanding. And as most people are reliant upon compilers and runtime errors to write solid code, it's not easy. I think you should really have a look at the exam and let's see how well you do.
> > on the contrary, it means you can memorize facts.
> no
> > understanding is implied
>
> Not even close to true. The test is filled with
> questions that present code and questions that ask if
> the code will it break at compile time, runtime, or
> run just fine, etc. What will the output be, etc.
> Aside from memorizing data types, you must be able to
> compile and run code in your brain. To me this
> implies and understanding. And as most people are
> reliant upon compilers and runtime errors to write
> solid code, it's not easy. I think you should really
> have a look at the exam and let's see how well you do.
I'm not saying it's easy, and by "no understanding is implied" I mean understanding of writing software, not the mechanics of the language. my point is that SCJP et al are meaningless in terms of deciding someone's employability, since what they test is largely academic. as you say, people have compilers and tools to lean on for details such as syntax errors, so what use is testing that knowledge manually? a wide vocabulary is no indicator of a good author, a good story-teller, is it? show me the engine in your car, and I can tell you what most components are called, what they do and how they work. ask me to actually fix something in there, and I'm completely lost. the understanding of the mechanics is not enough
like it or not, knowing the syntax of the language, and the rules about what will and won't compile, etcetera, is just memorizing facts. being able to produce working complex software is a different skill, which these exams do not examine. nothing wrong with that in itself, but the danger comes because so many employers don't understand this, and see SCJP/whichever as proof that the person holding it is competent. it isn't, and I've met enough java cert'd people to know this
Your right and that is why the SCJP exam should be followed up by the SCJD exam which tests your coding skills. The only reason SCJP is separated SCJD is the fact that SCJP encompasses knowledge that is also required in the SCWCD and SCBCD exams. It would be pointless to include the same questions in 3 different exams and would make them all easier (know the one and have a large chunk of what is needed to pass the others) and therefore devaluate them.
What do you think of reading the "Head First Java" book in preparatino for the SCJP Certification exam? Its written by the same author that wrote "SCJP Sun Certified Programmer for Java 5 Study Guide". So I assume the contents/layout should be similar?
