This document is intended to reach multiple, different readers. It presents arguments which address the particular complaints commonly received. This argument is leapt into without introduction. For a more thorough, linear introduction to official Python Training and Certification, please read the PCP.
''"I think the certification is inherently bad. Anyone doing it should be caught and given a stern talking to."''
A lot of people are opposed to certification as a matter of principle. "It can become something which only has value when sorting resumes, a conveyor of false information and a means to provide recognition to those who cannot achieve it on their own merits. The PSF should fight against certification in order to prevent it become a means to exclude people, not a means for recognition of quality."
Well, I think we can all agree that ''bad'' certification does this. If the certificati is based on poor training and simple targets, it then becomes easier to gain Python Certification than it is to actually become good at Python programming. This is to be avoided. But, is it necessarily so? Will certification '''always''' punish good programmers and reward the mediocre? Can certification be used to enhance ones own skills? Can it become a real badge of honour? If it can do good things, should we in fact do it? It seems to me that it is deserving of consideration that a certification scheme ''could'' be used to advance positive goals, if done properly.
Let's suppose that it is an open question that certification may be able to advance positive goals. What are the positive goals which might be advanced through certification? Are they important enough to take a risk with a certification scheme? Do they outweigh the possible downsides? I will start with a list of the possible downsides, not least to convince the readers that these objections have, in fact, been considered during the construction of the certification PCP.
'''Downside Risks from Certification'''
1. The certification scheme may reward mediocrity 1. Good programmers may be excluded because it will cost money 1. Contribution to the Python community and language may be valued less than certified programmers 1. It may cost a lot of money to implement 1. It may cost a lot of time to implement 1. It may distract from other, more important, PSF activities 1. Commercial goals may be placed ahead of community goals
Not that we have established that we recognise, and need to respond to, these downside risks, it would be appreciated if readers would take the time to consider with an open mind these upside possibilities: '''Upside Possibilities from Certification'''
1. The certification scheme will encourage programmers to better themselves 1. Good programmers will be formally recognised under the scheme 1. Certification can be used to strengthen the connections within the Python community, through recognition of community activities 1. Certification may be profitable for the PSF 1. Commercial goals and community goals may be linked sustainably 1. Certification will help establish Python as a significant part of the commercial world
So, how can we possibly evaluate the alternatives? Is certification a black box with uncertain outcomes, a risky a dangerous undertaking? Or can we look under the hood and draw conclusions about the likelihood of achieving a good result? Let us first look to some other objections...