Majority of the companies right now are keen to applicants who has the certificate.
I am not against with it, but, why do companies look after to it? And, lots and lots, out there in the market offers different kinds of certificate titles, with their “owned” definition so called “Testing Body of Knowledge”.
I was in the thinking of; why don’t the Quality Boards out there create a memorandum that all Bachelor of IT who’s concentration is on Quality Assurance needs to take a board exam to become a “Registered Software Quality Assurance”.
When you have certification in certain field that means you are certfied to do work in that particular field, since you have cleared the exam so now you are familar with the things at that certification level and you can perform the things.
For e.g. ISTQB foundation level certification means you are familar with basic level of things related to software testing and you can perform things which are required at starting level.
Similarly advanced level certification means you have good grasp of test scenarios and strategies because it’s questions more of real life based scenarios.
So when you are certified it gives you an edge over other candidates as you can showcase the certification.
But two things matter-
Company - at some company it matters and at some company it doesnot. I have seen people who were not AWS certified because of certification cost but they present their sample test result and company ask question based on that and they were selected. So it depends to which company you are applying and how much actually certification is important for them, some actually shortlist the candidates based on this certification.
Certification- People now a days mention udemy certificate in resume and call themselves certified. Udemy. Coursera type of certificate are not for showcase but instead they are for learning, learn through the courses and build projects and showcase that on resume. Certification from organization like AWS , ISTQB, ASTQB, Scrum are actually helpful.
They have been trying to do this for decades in software testing, unfortunately many of the certifications went to base level mass market angle and rather than advance testing forward it has likely held it back.
Some of those testing certifications are big amber flags both for the way the company asking for them approaches testing and for individual flagging the certification that their fundamental thinking about testing is at that base mass market level.
Some specific risks may suit certification though, when its specific rather than base generalizations this may allow things to go deeper. Take security risk as an example, something like “burp suite certified practitioner” would stand out on a CV for me, yes its tool related but importantly it does seem to factor in
“Demonstrate a deep knowledge of the latest vulnerability classes and how to exploit them.”
If more testing certifications were really associated with that ability to demonstrate deep knowledge through practice then they would get better recognition.
This mostly comes from organizations which don’t have QA people in house and also from companies who’s QA people are not involved into the recruitment process. Meaning, no communication between HR and QA and only via PM saying " I need another QA"
Not just the HR that do not have a basic understanding of testing, a number of first round interviewers are neither trained in interviewing nor testing.
Sticking ISTQB in there as a requirement for example can often just be a lazy act from the company or worse an actual reflection of their testing model that would demotivate a lot of good testers.
I think we all agree that a certificate doesn’t make a tester great. But if you need a certain set of knowledge (one that the certificate ensures) looking for certified testers might make sense. Additionally, if you do not trust a “I’m a good tester, I basically l know everything about testing”, asking for certified knowledge might be a solution (if you do not have a clue of your own, as stated above).
With or without ISTQB certificates, as long as your read their document you would definitely have a grasp and idea, and implementing them to your job would be a great indicator of being a “good starter qa”. However, ISTQB’s documentation is not that enough, there are better books out there that defines well and further about QA Management.
Upon my observation, if you will search QA certification lots of websites offering it and showing their partners that recognizes the certification they offered.
But anyhow, having or not having a Certificate shouldn’t be a big deal. Having a good resume and outputs is big plus.
I would like to add a point, that people think manual testing doesnot need any skills and anyone can do it. And because of that people from different streams who were not having basic idea of testing apply for the jobs and it becomes hectic task for HR to filter out the deserving candidates resume.
In automation testing people usually mention familarity with programming language or framework but for manual testing profile, recruiters usually post familarity with testing process and testing strategies ,etc which attracts large number of application.
So in such case recruiters look for certification as it will not only help them to filter out candidates who are aware with basics of testing but also narrow down the candidates list.
The longer I’m in this job, the more I believe that while anybody can assume the role of “tester” in a team or a process, “real testing” requires a “testing mindset”. And having a certificate could at least provide a hint that you were willing to sit down and have the course, the energy to read/learn the material and the nerves to for example brave the strange questions of an ISTQB exam. Again, this doesn’t make you a great tester but at least provide a hint that you care about the background of the job.
A lot of the time, it’s just an easy way to filter people out, especially when there are so many people looking for work right now. Speaking as a former IT recruiter, a lot of recruiters don’t actually know anything about the jobs they hire for. So they lean on things like degree, certifications, and technologies used because they don’t really know how else to spot a qualified candidate.
In testing, the most asked-for certification I see is some form of ISTQB. I don’t think this has anything to do with the certification itself, but rather it’s the only testing certification the vast majority have heard of, if any.
You got a big point here, “Having Certification is an indication of keeping yourself intelligent and knowledgeable about testing fundamentals” which is I totally agree. But I doubt it that the companies think the same way as you/we are.
If you’re a quick learner and have the ability to pick up new skills while working, you don’t need a certificate to prove your worth. Your resume and achievements should speak for themselves. I don’t have a single certificate or a LinkedIn page, yet I work as a Testing Consultant for two companies, earning $20,000 AUD per month. I’ve worked on over 50 projects, developed over 100 reports and tested more than 100 reports. I can test the work of four developers at a time and still have time to take on BA tasks for the project.
Do you really need to waste money on certificates that will be obsolete in a few months? In most case, you’ll likely need to learn new tools or languages for the next project anyway.
Your job market is asking for it, regardless of any testing value at all you may need that certificate.
Your manager wants you to have it so they feel they can manage and control you better through the use of basic common terms. Progress is dependent on that manager so get the certificate.
Its a common mainstream certification, the one most people will know so I’ll get that one for my own self development.
The challenge with all of the above can potentially be the absence of research into other options.
If your certification ends up narrowing your thinking around testing or pushing your thinking around testing so far into the certificates own model it can end up being harmful.
ISTQB may be one that is potentially harmful even though it fits the reasons for doing above, I’ve felt interviewing candidates with this certification that rather than an in indication of intelligence, knowledge or testing fundamentals that its an indication of a need to reverse engineer what they learned and replace with more open views on testing.
to become a “Registered Software Quality Assurance”.