DCFC, you make a reasonable request for explanation, and one which I will honor.In general, industry certificates are not worth more than the 3 to 4 letters that are expended on a resume to note them. However, they do indeed help to tip the scales from "toss" to "chat" when a candidate is borderline on paper and the recruiter selling them to me is unable to push my magic buttons and peak my interest. In my experience, there are two reasons why a candidate is borderline on paper: 1) s/he is borderline, skill-wise; and 2) s/he has a hard time selling him/herself. Neither of these are great, from an employment perspective, admittedly; but sometimes we must overlook some marketing deficiencies when examining a candidate who will be performing quantitative analysis and trading system development work. If I have a star player who can program circles around most of my developers, out-quant most of my dedicated quants, and out-trade most of my traders, I don't care if that person has two heads and one of them is constantly singing at the top of its lungs. We'll just put them in a sound-proof room and let 'em rip.Finding people with broad enough and deep enough knowledge in the three areas that this CTSD thing seems to test is very difficult. Like a prospector kneeling in a Western Wyoming stream, I sift a lot of mud before I see that gold nugget. Any improvement to my equipment is a good thing.Is this particular certification an improvement to my prospecting equipment? I don't know. No one does, since it's only just now getting rolling. All I am saying is that we shouldn't shoot it down without even looking at its requirements. Give it some time. Let it certify a few folks. If you are as big a player in this small industry as you claim to be, you will undoubtedly have opportunities to evaluate one or more of its alumni in the course of your daily business. If you find them to be more capable than the random group of misfits one finds at a resume churn-and-burn house, then the developers of this CTSD thing will have achieved their goal. If not, then please by all means blow the whistle and shoot it down. But until then, let's remember that ignorance of an idea does not necessarily imply it is a bad idea.I am loosely acquainted with some of the people involved in the body of knowledge development, and it is clear to me that their motives are pure: they want to create a system whereby they improve the industry as a whole, and help the best students and practitioners they come in contact with to succinctly state their capability contexts. They have no intention of limiting this designation to IIT grads. On the contrary, they hope to convince the best and brightest from all similar programs to participate so that cross-comparisons are more meaningful.With all due respect, however, convincing recruiters (or pimps, as you like to colorfully call them) of the value of this or another course is not high on my priority list. If I am looking for a particular designation or achievement on a resume, I expect the recruiter I am working with to limit the resumes I review to those containing that designation or achievement. Failure to work with me appropriately on that is very easily rectified with a single phonecall. In my experience, recruiters do not do the appropriate homework when looking at candidates or when attempting to grasp my hiring needs. They look for keywords and make snap judgements based on what they've seen before. Your statement "I admit freely I haven't looked at the body of the course," after you've already done quite a bit of judging in your previous posts, tends to kind of prove my point. Tags like this help catch the eye of uninformed and ignorant recruiters who are scanning for keywords. Hell, maybe in a year or two I'll be able to simply google for it.But I'll agree with you on the TraderDNA stuff. No idea what that requirement is all about.Enough rambling. I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from.