I am trying hard to be flattered…

[James’ Reply: Yeah there’s a guy in South America who does that to me. He passes it off as his own blog. What is the motivation for that?]

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

I have both ISTQB/ISEB foundation and advanced level certifications AND a ” four year university degree”, and yes I am seriously comparing them. All they prove is that I passed the exam/gave the answers the examiner was looking for (the answers according to the syllabus). That’s the bottom line of any exam-based certification. To get my degree I just had to answer more questions, from a much larger/wider syllabus. [For completeness, my degree is in Aviation and also involved over 250 hours of practical flight experience and flight test up to Commercial level, including IRT, single and multi-engine. I also completed half of a BSc (Maths & Physics) before I switched to the BAv I ultimately completed]

[James’ Reply: Well, I think your judgment is impaired. The comparison is ridiculous. Insulting. And I also am a pilot. My flight training was profoundly deeper than anything that that tester certifiers do. So was yours.]

I’m not trying to promote ISTQB, but I from what I see it helps increase communication by providing a common language and gives inexperienced people some insight to the breadth and depth of testing by introducing them to techniques and concepts they may otherwise have not seen or considered.

[James’ Reply: Why do you say “common language?” Apart from the fact that it’s a language peculiar to their community, and not common to the field, it’s also a language that they don’t even speak. Most people who take the exam and pass it, and then come to my class, can’t even remember the definitions of the key words! It’s just a crock.]

Software Testing is both an art and a science.
Perhaps you feel that the teachings of some of the science spoils the art? I don’t disagree, but you have to start somewhere.

[James’ Reply: No, I think the ISTQB teaches neither science nor art. I think it teaches baloney. Our problem is not that we need to start somewhere. Our problem is that much has already started, and started long ago, but some people can’t accept the idea of studying all that has started, and so they pretend that nothing has started and that “you have to start somewhere.”]

Imagine teaching someone to paint who has never held a paintbrush before.. it’s not completely unreasonable to start with “paint by numbers” It introduces form, colour, shape & media in a simple way that is easily grasped and the student is able to quickly create a “good enough” painted image. Having completed the paint-by-numbers course, the student is not an expert and can’t create a masterpiece BUT with time and experience and exposure to other techniques he or she will get there - provided the spark of ‘art’ exists within them.

[James’ Reply: I think that’s the wrong model. I don’t think any art institute teaches art that way. See the book “Why Art Cannot Be Taught” for more on this.]

I see software testing in the same light, it is the masters of the *art* of software testing that are the most effective and create the most brilliant masterpieces, but the less artistic folks need to have a more structured mechanism with which to approach the task at hand, and they still add value in doing so.

[James’ Reply: I honestly don’t agree that you see software testing in any light at all. Anyway, this is not how I teach testing, and it’s not how testing needs to be taught.]

While ISTQB might be a too focussed on revenue gathering and too fundamental in it’s teaching of methods for your liking, it’s a start. Ignore the money gathering aspect as that is not something delivered to the Testing community. What is delivered is a paint by numbers introduction to testing. You’re saying that the paint-by-numbers course is being sold/marketed as a masterclass — that’s an ethical problem, but it doesn’t detract from what is actually ultimately delivered.

[James’ Reply: There is no paint by numbers in testing. That’s simply not testing. Just as there is no paint-by-numbers in aviation. You must develop skill to fly an aircraft. The procedural elements are far surpassed by the skill and judgment elements.]

It looks like you’re not actually anti-certification, as you mention “one certification program coming along that looks worthwhile” just anti ISTQB, and you have excellent defensible reasons that I’m not arguing against. I just question the appropriateness of attacking the entire product based on its advertising campaign.

[James’ Reply: I’m not attacking it solely based on its advertising campaign, but rather based on the fact that it is crap and an insidious form of mass bullying. I’m not opposed to certification in principle. I just think the programs out there are promoted by a combination of weak-minded and weak-hearted people. I’ve had my arguments, in person, with a lot of them. The best of them will at least apologize for it, even if they don’t have the wherewithal to stop propagating the garbage altogether.]

One of the biggest impediments that I see to the growth and development of testing, that holds up progress on projects and on industry recognition is the simple fact that there are “20″ different words (exageration for effect!) for any given thing.. from test documentation to test methods and test artefacts

(How many times have you been asked by a client to do “system testing”, only to discover that they wanted Acceptance Testing!! or asked for a “test plan” when they want a Test Procedure!!)

[James’ Reply: This is no impediment. It’s a resource. I’ve been a testing consultant, full-time, for about a decade. You’d think I would be most prone to confusion and concern about differing terminologies, since I’m at a different company nearly every other week. But no, it’s not a problem. I have no trouble negotiating the many terminologies and schools of testing and neither do you, I suspect. It’s irritating at times that people don’t immediately use the words I like to use, but that’s nothing compared to the value there is in each community taking responsibility for their own processes and education.

There is no accepted terminology for software testing. A group of process vultures who declare that their way is best does not a consensus build. Besides the ISTQB terminology is the work of incompetent hacks, in my opinion.]

The foundation level certifications seek to rectify and remedy this by providing some structure around terms.. there is no practical exam and no in depth discussion of methods/techniques. Nobody should interpret a foundation certificate as having any relationship to actual testing proficiency.

[James’ Reply: LOOK AT THE WAY IT IS MARKETED. The foundation level certification is no remedy. We don’t need “some structure” we need insightful, well researched, well founded ideas that reflect the diversity of the craft.]

Humans are no good at testing other humans. I can’t think of a single degree, dimploma ro certification that PROVES competence. At the end of the day all they prove is that you 1) passed the exam or 2) did your X hours of job experience (whether you were any good or not).

[James’ Reply: Are you seriously comparing a four year university degree with an ISTQB certification? Oh my god.]

James, this is a great idea, really. I would have to fall into the Self Decertified group, since early in my career I marched down the corporate path and got my CSTE from QAI. (Quick aside…I still consider that a positive experience, for myself in that context, and generally do not consider QAI to be the all out charlatans that some others are…they do not claim to make you an elite tester in a weekend. It just is what it is.)

However, as Matt points out, I let that certification lapse years ago, and neither I nor anyone I know of or work with much cares about it anymore.

I know we are looking for badges with quick, biting slogans, but I really liked these two suggestions from Brent Strange —

-A tester’s soul has no certification
-Certification cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.

Perhaps I can nominate them as subtitles under a more direct logo?

If you ask me what I have taken home from the ISTQB course then I will tell you “I brought back my future”. If the course is good for something, then for making people like me curious about this world of bugs.

Why?

[James’ Reply: RTFM, dude. Please see the articles on this site and the other entries on this blog.]