I found this on James Bach’s blog…


  1. Certification is a community phenomenon. Certification is simply a clarification of community membership. Nothing wrong with that, except when the certifying agency does not actually represent the community.
  2. I imagine, for some occupations, there are well-established and internationally recognized organizations that speak for those occupations. Not so with software testing.
  3. There are many communities within the testing industry. These communities have different ideas about testing; differing values and vocabularies. Some people say there is a consensus about “good practice” in testing. There isn’t. There is no to determine consensus. There has never even been a serious attempt to form such a consensus. (A few friends getting together to agree on practices hardly counts as an industry consensus.)
  4. Most people who do testing for a living don’t take classes or read books. They don’t go to conferences. They are not community activists. (This impression is based on the informal polls I take in my corporate onsite testing classes and by my conversations with people who create certification programs.) Yet they may well be able to test software effectively. There is little outreach to such testers by the testing activists. The experience and creativity of most testers is therefore not being harnessed in any systematic way by people making up certification programs.
  5. Sometimes people tell me that there is no real controversy among testing thinkers about the true basics of testing. Then I argue with them for an hour and see what happens. I am a living existence proof of controversy, since my rapid testing methodology rejects much of traditional testing folklore. How people react to me reveals how they define their community: those who dismiss my ideas are telling me I’m not a Citizen of Testing, and thus they preserve their consensus by banishing those who do not give consent. Through the liberal banishment of anyone who disagrees, consensus can be achieved on any topic whatsoever.
  6. Although certifying agencies can speak only for their own organizers, their ideas are too often taken seriously by people who don’t know any better. This distorts the great conversation and debate about what testing is and should be. People who are not testing afficiandos don’t know that the testing industry is fragmented. They don’t know that certification programs don’t represent consensus. Because they don’t know, they tend to assume that all the tester certification programs are pretty much the same, and that the certifying agencies are authoritative, and that people who are not certified must not know much about testing.
  7. An excellent certification program would have to be based on a comprehensive study (not just a survey or opinion poll) of testers in the field and in a variety of technology sectors.
  8. I cannot support a tester certification program unless it identifies its community, studies its community, and acknowledges the existence of other communities. That’s why I call myself a member of the Context-Driven School of testing and that’s why I give names like Factory School or Quality School to other factions in the testing world who have refused to name themselves.

Here is the link

We can discuss in case some1 has doubts over this….