Of course it’s much too late: the certification industry is far beyond recovery.

Like, how far could you get with, ‘no more recruiters!’

Therefore since its a fruitless endeavor, but not completely pointless, let’s go for the top!

How about ‘Uncertifiable’?

Or, confusingly, ‘Deniably Certifiable’?

Maybe, ‘Certified Brain Dead!’? (kind of a medical bracelet thingamabob)

And, don’t forget, ‘We don’t need no stinkin’ Certifications!’

Then there’s my personal favorite, ‘Wup your Certification dogmeat!’

Now that’s de-certification for ya!

I think we need a song, maybe a banner…. no, that means we need a slogan… and that would be kind of recursive, wouldn’t it?

One can have a certificate for what reason ever (even ISTQB). The perpetration is to think you are capable because of that. I also have one but I’m not proud of it, neither do I feel ashamed. I just have it. I will use it wherever it helps (CV, interviews, etc.) but on a normal day I put it back in the box and rely on what I can do.

My suggestions for badges:
…for the ones who are proudly uncertified, I like this sapient uncertified.
…for the ones who ARE certified without thinking they are, “Just be it”

But somehow i was bit lazy in reading that big book. So i didn’t applied for CSTE for about 2 years. In mean time i was involved in few good products and projects for testing. And i think i did a good job. After these real time experiences i was much aware about the process, strategies, risk, test plan, test coverage, test cases, automation etc so called testing standards.

In mean time in my organization people started to clear the certification. So i also thought i should apply and appear for the CSTE. You won’t believe in first attempt i could not pass the paper in which we need to select one option out of 4 given. But i could pass their theoretical paper with good enough marks. I feel the answers for optional question should match the book material. But in few question my opinion was bit different for that. So I could not pass that paper. But still i believe i was really good enough as a tester. Now i made my situation bit more complex for myself. As others in the organization will feel that i will not be the good enough tester. So it became externally important for me to appear for the next attempt and pass the exam. It actually became do or die situation for me.

I still remember those days. I just read that book so many time so that i do not miss anything. Eventually in second attempt i was able to pass that exam. For me it was like a long breath at that time. As well as an answers to my unnecessary critics.

But now when i think regarding the need of certificaton, I feel certifications might be good for the bingers who are new to software testing and want to read more, want to know more about testing. Other then that I will completely deny that if a person is not certified then a person do not have a capability to do testing.

I feel testing requires few basic qualities like a person should be good at analysis, a person should be good on grasping new things quick, good at communication, a person should be able to think out of the box etc. If these basic qualities are present in a person then he/she can spend more time on this field and can become and expert in testing.

Having been doing this stuff for about 10 years within various industries, only to find it difficult to get an interview because I didn’t have those all important ISEB and Prince 2 etc. qualifications. It was a bit of a kick in the nuts for all those years learning my trade and generally working hard. Until the last year I’ve not had any certificates and it never made me any worse at what I do.

It has unfortunately turned into an evil that we seem to need to embrace. Employers do not read CV’s unless they meet certain criteria - the criteria these days seems to be the damn certificates.

You are right James, but even we testing people have to tow the line at some point.

[James' Reply: You can pick what lines to toe. You can make new lines to toe. That's what I do. And anyway we don't need no stinking glossaries. We have the English language itself. It works fine.]

I have just been illustrating to my team the confluence of late requirements, with the cost of mitigating defects and the liklihood of those defects escaping to production. Some good numbers from Capers Jones, FP Brooks, Carmine Mangione, Bohm and Basili and my own tracking of S curves and Root Cause Analysis.
I can pretty much predict when the brown sticky substance will hit the whirlygig, but I don’t have my ISTQB so all is dust.

[James' Reply: I don't find any of that stuff from Caper Jones, et al, useful, I'm afraid. It's a lot of daydreams and pixie glitter, to me. It's not scientific.]

GURT PS I really do hate ISTQB

You mention AST more times than is healthy for just a passing remark. So I looked up AST and not quite sure if you are referring to aspartate aminotransferase (AST) test or Airborne Surveillance Test (which you might do in getting your wings) or you belong to the Academy of Safe Therapies (most unlikely as I have seen one of your presentations). So could you please help out a senior citizen and tell me what you are referring to? I promise not to join if it has links to ISTQB….

GURT

Genuine Uncertified Real Tester

PS you too can be a GURT!

[James' Reply: What's wrong with GUTS? Genuinely Uncertified Tester of Software.

AST stands for the Association for Software Testing.]

I can look up a “testing glossary” for free if I want too. I can even try to impose such a glossary on my colleagues if (and that’s a pretty big “if”), I want to…

This seems to be the primary thrust of the current certification program.

I am pretty sure that this would be less useful however, than my current approach, which is to actually go and talk to the different people involved in the testing that I am currently doing - and find a way of communicating with them that works for everybody.

So I will be holding on to my cash for now!

And now that I have your attention, let me qualify that statement.
I think ISTQB is a shining example of how a bad education of bad (or incorrectly portrayed) static principles and techniques can undermine an intelligent and constantly evolving practice.
Expecting testers to use what they are taught in ISTQB to perform good testing, is like expecting Da Vinci to reproduce the Mona Lisa with a cracked canvas, broken brushes and rainwater for paint!

I’ve been lucky enough to have completed both the ISTQB course and Mr Bach’s Rapid Software Testing course.
I can say I was lucky to have completed both these courses because now when people say “are you ISTQB certified?” I can say “Yes I am, but I wish I never had been, and let me tell you why…”

The ISTQB course taught me that I still have the skills I learnt in High School, to learn and parrot for an exam even completely useless information. Other than this, the only thing I got from ISTQB was a depressing view of testing as a boring, over structured, no autonomy discipline that could be performed by trained monkeys with a computer and a project manager.
I was lucky enough that shortly after doing this ‘course’ I was seconded into a high level helpdesk role that broke me out of the funk that trying to apply the ISTQB ‘rules’ to my testing had put me in.
The Rapid Software Testing course had the opposite effect. It provided me with a versatile, positive and proactive view of testing that allows me to use my brain to provide the best testing I can, even if it doesn’t fit into a prescribed ‘model’.

This seems to have turned into more of a testimonial than a comment on the original topic, so sorry about that.
As a badge idea though, I like to say “I was certified but I’m recovering well”

See, the point of training in art is NOT to be able to complete a “good enough” painted image. I can do that with a photocopier. Or a scanner. Or whatever. Reproducing images is virtually costless nowadays - and, that being the case, making a “good enough” reproduction is of pretty much zero value, too. The point of learning to paint or draw is that you are learning to look at what’s there in front of you. Not what you think ought to be there in front of you, not what other people tell you ought to be there, or what you’ve seen other people reproducing, but what is actually there when you open your eyes and really look at it. Very few people actually *really* look at things. Most of the time we skate through on assumptions. But if you want to do an honest drawing, you need to *look*. (What you put on paper after that is up to you).

Come to think of it, I use a lot of the discipline trained into me when learning to sketch when I’m testing. It’s a way of looking at the world.

So - yes, it is completely and utterly unreasonable to start with paint by numbers, because that immediately divorces the student from the real world, and once you’ve done that, you’ve lost the whole point of the whole exercise. But it’s a really helpful analogy - I’m starting to understand a bit better why James is so adamant about ISTQB/ISEB etc being a harmful exercise now.

I’m not sure that I’m fully convinced yet - I have not yet done the certification, but am being strongly encouraged to do so by my employers (and I have to admi
t that actually, the debate is making me more curious about doing the ISEB not l
ess!) - but this analogy for me, is the most powerful argument I’ve seen against
it.

(Note: I should point out that I have no formal art certifications, given the topic. I wouldn’t swap the training I did have for any certification you would care to give me though. It taught me how to think.)

[James' Reply: See "Why Art Cannot Be Taught" for an interesting look at the history of art certification. Today you do not need to be certified to do art, but in the Middle Ages, there was a certification system. It mirrors some of the problem I have with certifications today.]

They look great on my CV. Large organisations who use HR people to hire testers feel more comfortable when you have a list of courses a mile long to back up your experience.

However, the only item in the list above that I actually found worthwile was the conference. It gave me an opportunity to meet with my peers, listen to and learn from my elders in the testing world, and participate in interesting discussions. As someone who’s been there and done that (and has the certificates to prove it) I completely agree with you, ISTQB is not the way. I could start talking about what they’re doing with the “Advanced” certification, breaking it into 3 parts so you have to pay for 3 courses and making the exams multiple choice to it’s easier to franchise, but I won’t because it makes me angry.

As a Test Manager I hire alot of testers. I choose attitude, aptitude and experience over certification every time.

P.S. I attended your presentation to the Test Professionals Network on Monday, thanks for the 64k, 32k, 16k example - I’ll be using it with my project manager tomorrow