Conscientious Uncertification
I’m thinking of having badges made which say “Conscientiously Uncertified.” It’s for those of us who want to resist the dumbing down of our craft by cynical consultants promoting bogus tester certification programs.
For me, when I see that someone is certified as CSTE, ISEB, ISTQB, or CSTQE, I immediately think “there goes someone who was bullied into compliance.”
Any suggestions for what the badge would say?
Here are some options:
- Conscientiously Uncertified
- Certification Objector
- Uncertifiable
- No Bullies
- Proud to Be Uncertified
I should have a logo made, so like-minded freedom fighters can post it on their blogs. By refusing to give in to the thugs of certification, a tester shows he can follow a more difficult and more admirable path: self-education and self-certification.
Side Note: There is one certification program coming along that looks worthwhile, to me: the AST BBST certification. It will be difficult to obtain, based on demanding online coursework. It will not claim to be anything more than a certification that the tester has successfully made it through the course(s). Some of it is already available through the AST. The rest is coming. So far, the courses are free to AST members.
I will probably not be able to get this certification (I’m too disruptive in class), but at least I helped create it.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:58 am
my suggestions:
1. freedom testers
2. testers not caged
3. testers without boundaries
4. evolving testers
5. kinetic testers
testers cannot be measured by static text book references, and i strongly disagree any question will have only “one” correct answer in testing context.
[James’ Reply: I like Freedom Testers.]
May 8th, 2008 at 10:20 am
But who would wear these badges? How would one distinguish between “Conscientiously Uncertified” and someone who doesn’t know a thing about testing (or knows very little)?
(Don’t get me wrong I’d love to have one of those badges, unfortunately I already have a certification. Any ideas on how to get UNcertified?
)
[James’ Reply: People can wear them even if they are certified, if they wish to signal their repudiation of it. In fact, there should be a special badge for you “Self-Decertified.” A badge of honor!]
May 8th, 2008 at 10:40 am
How about “Certainly Uncertified” or “Self Certified”
[James’ Reply: I like Certainly Uncertified.]
May 8th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I am now conscientiously uncertified but I was glad that I was certified when my small company got bought by a large company who moved the testing 3000 miles to corporate headquarters.
You are on the right track but as usual, are way ahead of the curve. If everyone takes this advice, we all win but if only a few do, they would probably be disadvantaged if they found themselves looking for employment.
James, you are good at educating testers; how do we educate the hiring managers?
[James’ Reply: If you see the goal as getting any testing job easily, then it may be that certification is a good thing for you. Especially if you are junior and haven’t been able to create a portfolio for yourself. In that respect, certification can be seen as a wonderful way to fool employers into believing you know something about testing. But what if you would rather not get a job by preying on the ignorance of employers? What if you want to feel competent instead of merely employed?
I’m an example of how anyone can develop their own brand name as a tester and win employment. Yes, there are many people who won’t hire me, but there are enough who will that I can make a good living. Of course, I don’t do much testing any more, because I’m too expensive and my schedule is very chopped up. When I test it’s usually a court case or a very quick project to mentor others.
It is harder to get a testing job without certification, but I would argue that the job will be more satisfying. And if at least some of us band together and give a name to our movement, then you’ll have some top cover.]
May 8th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Certifications aren’t necessarily an entirely bad thing, generally.
There are three ways to increase your knowledge: doing, training, and learning. Doing is experience -> building tacit knowledge of your immediate problem domain. Training is certification -> absorbing explicit procedures designed for a specific purpose. Learning is education -> going to school and learning (more generally) what the problem domain *is* for whatever you’re studying.
I’ve seen lots of people with lots of experience and no certification and no education who were excellent IT people (programmers, systems administrators, whatever). I’ve seen people with lots of experience and no certification and no education who were *horrible* IT people. They knew how to get stuff done, but building entirely off of direct experience, they knew only how to get it done in one way, and that way was frighteningly wrong.
If I look at someone’s resume and see an alphabet soup of certifications with a bachelor’s degree and 5 year’s experience, that tells me something alarming -> they’re pursuing the certifications to pad their resume. There is no real reason to get more than a couple of certifications. Nobody needs to memorize that many procedures, that’s why Man invented the Internet. You can’t keep that much procedural knowledge in your active memory anyway… if you don’t use it, it’s going to atrophy. On the other hand, if I want someone to be a router programmer, having a couple of Cisco certifications and 5 year’s experience in programming routers is a good sign.
On the other hand, seeing someone with 10 year’s experience and no degree and no certifications tells me something else (that may or may not be alarming) -> this person is not interested in doing anything other than what he’s doing currently. This might be a very good thing. It might be a very bad thing. It does immediately raise a question, however… if they’re not interested in advancement, why did they leave whatever job that they had before this one? There are lots of good reasons, but I’d want to know what they are.
In the specific example of programming and testing, though, I’d have a tendency to agree with you. I’d rather see someone with a good grounding in basic engineering principles and 5 years’ experience coding than anyone with a certification.
[James’ Reply: A worthwhile testing certification is possible. I have written about that. Just so happens that a worthwhile testing certification doesn’t yet exist. The main reason it doesn’t exist is that it doesn’t pay for the certifiers, whereas bullshit certifications are cheap and easy to give out. The profit margin on them is wonderful. I hear Rex Black charges $2000 a seat for his certification classes. This is about double what I can charge, and my classes are highly regarded. So, folks I could double my fees if I promised certification at the end of it. If only I could part with my self-respect, I could have more money!
Some things are more important than money. I once left a job after only six months over a matter of ethics– and was forced to pay back a $30,000 sign-on bonus for leaving so soon (took me six years to pay it off). But I console myself by being able to say that when I was tempted to sell clients services they didn’t need, I refused. I couldn’t afford to refuse, but I refused anyway. My close colleagues know the specific circumstances I suffered through, and part of my reward for preserving my integrity is that I got lots of referrals from those colleagues in the early critical years of being an independent consultant. Jonathan Kohl did something similar and now I refer all the business I can to him.
Testers can spice up their resume with lots of things other than certifications. It’s only lack of imagination and excess of fear that drives testers to get certified.]
May 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I rather like the sound of “uncertifiable”
May 8th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Certificate and Certification: Though the two words look almost identical, I highly prefer the first one because it is doesn’t imply superiority. I can go to a number of universities and get a certificate in almost any subject, but earning it does not certify me to do any particular job.
It’s the difference between bragging “I’m a certified chicken plucker” and “I passed some chicken plucking classes.”
May 8th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
How about Self Certified?
In Michael Bolton’s presentation he mentioned his qualifications as being published and the credibility he has within the testing community. The label would be Peer Certified.
Maybe you could use your terminology and combine it with the well known Intel logo: Sapient Inside
[James’ Reply: Peer Certified! Sapient Inside!!! Wow!]
May 9th, 2008 at 2:02 am
How about Open Cert?
As far as terms to talk about skill, we have the term Jedi on the development side that peers give to each other.
Or you could use the Apprentice - Journeyman - Master approach.
[James’ Reply: I’m not sure what “open cert” means.]
May 9th, 2008 at 2:25 am
I like Uncertifiable or Self Certified. I am more than willing to add it my site! Instead of Sapient Inside rather have Sentient Inside to get people to stop thinking that we are no more than data inputters with a little technical knowledge.*feels rant coming on again*
Your post and Alan’s post got me into a bit of rant about ISEB/ISTQB on my own blog. You can have a read of it at http://blog.theautomatedtester.co.uk/2008/05/isebistqb-is-it-really-worth-it.html
May 9th, 2008 at 5:09 am
The term peer certified twigs me to http://wevouchfor.org/.
-adam
[James’ Reply: That’s an interesting site. Of course, it’s an unnecessary site. Anyone who wants to recommend someone else can already do so on their blogs, websites, or privately by serving as a reference. There’s a whole differently sociology associated with a public interchange type of site.
Another issue is how do people unrecommend other people? The only method for social anti-certification on that site is, apparently, silence. I notice that Brian Marick hasn’t “certified” Cem Kaner or me as knowing anything about testing. Not surprising, since we had a falling out several years ago. And I’ve had to retract my own certification of Brian, since he ceased studying testing seriously and decided to treat it as the poor little stepsister of coding. This is the basic problem with systematic social certification– the reluctance people have to tell the whole truth about each other in public. That’s why I prefer ad hoc (traditional) social certification.]
May 10th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Both of “Certified Uncertified” has a certain paradoxical appeal to me
May 11th, 2008 at 2:09 am
I Bach Certification!