As a statistician working for a bank, this is good news. I was doing some self-study to become proficient in JavaScript (I already know a bit of programming in C, Haskell, Java and JavaScript) - and this looks like it could lend some stamp of credibility to a prospective employer or client. While I am sure this is not enough, and should be backed up with open source contributions, this is definitely a good start.
So, we are just calling certifications by different names now?
I opened the iOS nanodegree page:
--
The core courses will bring you from zero to hero in developing industry-quality iOS apps using Apple's innovative programming language, Swift
.
.
.
* 7-8 months if you can commit 10 hours per week
* 3-4 months if you can commit 20 hours per week
--
So assuming one spends 40 hours a week (normal work week) in 1.5-2.0 months you will be a 'accredited' iOS developer.
Sorry, I wouldn't hire you, and I can't remember a place I worked at that would.
They will just be like the MCTS or whatever from Microsoft, but without at least a 'governing' body that issues the requirements. Just something to add to your resume to work at a place that doesn't know how to do hiring.
A degree/certificate/certification is a signal based on reputation of granting institution, requisite work, and quality of others possessing the signal.
I am a huge fan of udacity, so I personally would take a udacity nano degree at higher value than an average certificate. I think their pedagogical approach delivers 2-5x the average course hour worth of knowledge per udacity hour. (1 he udacity ~= 2-5 hrs normal course).
Right now there's an enormous pool of self taught developers who can only point to portfolios to demonstrate their competence, and a portfolio is heavily, heavily bias able with a little bit of sales and marketing talent.
In the long run, the question is: how much do you have to know to get the nano degree?
I wouldn't vote to hire a candidate solely because of a nanodegree from Udacity but I would consider it a positive signal; not as strong as an MS in CS from Stanford or a long list of published apps, but evidence of a desire for self-improvement and the discipline to act on that.
Even an online CS degree from Stanford (if one existed) could not compete with their regular CS degree. I think this is more appropriate for "average" developers to put a stamp on their resume, and demonstrate to a prospective employer that they have taken the time and effort to complete a course. It is possible that you do not hire average developers, but then you are a minority.
I've taken CS courses at Stanford both through SCPD and on-campus. They're literally the same classes. Lectures are videorecorded and online. Tests and assignments are exactly the same.
There are minor advantages to being on campus: asking questions after class; sitting around your TA's office in Palantir bean-bag chairs while someone sketches sparse autoencoder on the dry-erase board; Axe burgers; but really, remote is okay too.
I think that's a little harsh. Vendor-specific certifications have earned a bad rep, some more than others, but that doesn't mean there's no advantage in any educational recognition short of a degree from an accredited university.
I wonder if the Udacity, in a few years, will be an accredited university capable of granting degrees?
