Certification = Mastery?

[textile] I received an interesting email a while ago about certifications. It was from someone overseas who recently decided to enter the software field and wanted to find work as a software tester in the United States. They emailed me for advice. The following is an excerpt of that email (I will supply the actual email on request, but am protecting the author of the email in this post.) I made one change to the quote: I removed a company name.

"...I decided the first thing i would do was to educate myself better about computers . I did an ICDL (international computer driiving license) course . This taught me about word,excel,access etc.

After that I decided to do the British computer society ISEB software testing certification foundation level . Although it is recommended (as i am sure you know) that you have some practical experience before attempting this course however I did my own self study . I did not do any formal course . Having studied for about 2 months I took the exam with an independent company called [removed] and scored 83% out of 100 ."

I replied to the email the best I could, wished the author luck, and thought nothing of it until a recent article in Software Test and Performance magazine titled Certified and Savvy. This might actually not have offended me if it didn't make certifications out to be much more then they actually are, playing on my fears to sell their product. If you want a certification, fine. More power to you. But don't make it something it's not. For example, three quotes:

"ISTQB-certified testers know how to do these things and more because they've mastered the topics laid out in one or more of the ISTQB syllabi."

"For the test professional, programmer, manager, and other examinee, an ISTQB certificate demonstrates mastery of the best practices and key concepts in the field. [...] In addition, by distinguishing yourself from the mass of lesser-qualified test practitioners, holding one or more ISTQB certificates can create opportunities in a competitive, outsourced and increasingly commoditized job market."

"At each level, the ISTQB asserts that people claiming to be test professionals should have a particular amount of practical, hands-on experience as well as knowledge and ability to apply particular key ideas."

Read the email quote above again. The person who sent me this email had just learned how to use a computer. With no work experience at all, very little computer experience, and with as little as two months of self study, they were able to obtain a certification that claims "ISTQB certificate demonstrates mastery of the best practices and key concepts in the field." In case you don't remember the definition of mastery I looked it up; according to Merriam-Webster, mastery means: "possession or display of great skill or technique" or "skill or knowledge that makes one master of a subject" With two months of study, absolutely no experience, and a basic training class on Microsoft Office, you too can be a master. Remember that certifications help you "...distinguishing yourself from the mass of lesser-qualified test practitioners, holding one or more ISTQB certificates can create opportunities in a competitive, outsourced and increasingly commoditized job market." Being non-certified does not make you "lesser-qualified." I'm not certified (other than my undergraduate degree). Many other testers I know who write about testing and speak at testing conferences are not certified. Are they less qualified then someone with a certification? I don't think so. Isn't certification exactly what makes our market more commoditized? What does it tell a manager that someone with no experience and two months of study can become a "master" software tester? Don't forget that email above came from someone overseas. That person is above the "lesser-qualified" masses according to the ISTQB. Perhaps it's exactly that marketing that leads to outsourcing to begin with. If skill and experience aren't an actual qualification for certification, then why not send the work overseas to the software testing "masters" who just learned Microsoft Office? I've heard several good reasons, from testers that I consider my friends, for getting certified. If it's right for you, that's fine. In fact, I'm working towards three certifications right now myself. I soon hope to become BCRIT certified (Bach Certified Rapid Tester) as well as obtain an MBA. One is a skills-based testing certification, completely subjective and based on James Bach's opinion of what makes a good Rapid Tester, requiring days of observed testing one-on-one with James Bach where he questions, comments on, and critiques my testing non-stop. The other is a 48 semester credit hour certification from a university where I spend hours in a classroom working with numerous professors solving problems, taking tests, writing papers, and discussing context. How exactly does a single multiple choice test stack up against either of those? I'm also involved in a community working towards open certification for testers. We will be a multiple choice exam as well, but we won't claim to be anything we aren't. We will proudly tell you we are just a multiple choice exam. And we will be open and free, available for employers to administer on demand, and we will have (hopefully) a full set of comments on each question/answer combination so you can see how people in the industry disagree on different problems. We would hate for anyone to think that there is consensus in software testing - there isn't (just read Lessons Learned in Software Testing for examples). Email me (mike@michaeldkelly.com) if you are interested in helping. Don't sell your certification as something it's not. If it has a place in the marketplace, tell me what it is and leave it at that. If it makes sense for me, I'll get one. If it's a multiple choice test, then odds are it won't hold much value for me as a practitioner unless I can use it as a hiring manager to see what potential candidates know. If however, it requires a skills-based evaluation from a specific person whom I respect as a tester (and there are people involved in ISTQB and other certifications who I do respect as testers) who offers me specific feedback about my testing and honestly evaluates my work in terms of the context of the problem; then I'm all in. If you know of any other certifications with a requirement that someone actually watches me test real software, on a computer, while evaluating my coverage of the product, my ability to perform risk assessment, my testing techniques, and my ability to evaluate the context, then let me know about it. It's a certification that I feel will probably help me grow as a tester. [/textile]