4 ms·

In recent years I have definitely found my career history as technical tester to be a bit of a wart on my CV. Having originally come from scrappy fast-moving co

In recent years I have definitely found my career history as technical tester to be a bit of a wart on my CV. Having originally come from scrappy fast-moving companies where the line between Dev/QA and even Ops to some degree get blurry, it's been a little bit of culture shock find that in many companies such roles are expected to operate in less-technical silos, and where even trying to have important technical discussions outside of the silo are often met with skepticism at best or outright dismissal at worst. I have also seen a strong trend towards outsourcing this kind of work, often further intensifying the silos. My awareness of this whole implicit sort of caste system has made me want to give up on my career in testing altogether and just try to climb the hill of selling myself as a traditional software engineer instead, even if testing/testability/test infra are still my passion and area of expertise. It's a tough call to make because I'm opinionated enough about how testing should be done that I also don't want to end up working as a software engineer in a company that treats QA like drones either.

e1g 4y ago
A tester with opinions on development goes against a mostly unidirectional SDLC flow. A developer with a penchant for testability is a multi-skilled asset as they help the org to shift left on quality. The sooner you switch roles, the sooner you will align with the more powerful part in the value chain. Developers’ jobs, on average, are more difficult and more valuable. It’s easier to take a median developer and turn them into a good tester than it is to take a median tester and turn them into a good developer. Similarly, if we consider a bright college graduate, it would take them less time to become competitive as a tester than as a developer. Secondly, the difference in business impact of a “good enough” tester versus a “world class” tester is negligible (rarely more than 1-5 FTE), while the difference between a “good enough” developer and a “world class” developer is uncapped. The economic treatment of these two groups, and therefore their relative power in the workplace, merely reflects the expected replaceability and value of these professionals.
blitz_skull 4y ago
I recently had an interesting experience where a recruiter told me I should re-brand my title for a role based on my description. I had a lot of "big data" experience, though my title was "Software Engineer". He told me at the end of the day, it only matters if I can actually do the skills that people would mentally associate with the title—which I very much could do. So I've begun to recently think about how I could "brand" my skillset regardless of my ACTUAL title. Since employers almost never give a shit what your exact title was. Happy to hear counterpoints, but my experience is that you could definitely re-frame your experience with different / compound titles in order to get better looks from other companies.

e1g 4y ago

A tester with opinions on development goes against a mostly unidirectional SDLC flow. A developer with a penchant for testability is a multi-skilled asset as they help the org to shift left on quality. The sooner you switch roles, the sooner you will align with the more powerful part in the value chain. Developers’ jobs, on average, are more difficult and more valuable. It’s easier to take a median developer and turn them into a good tester than it is to take a median tester and turn them into a good developer. Similarly, if we consider a bright college graduate, it would take them less time to become competitive as a tester than as a developer. Secondly, the difference in business impact of a “good enough” tester versus a “world class” tester is negligible (rarely more than 1-5 FTE), while the difference between a “good enough” developer and a “world class” developer is uncapped. The economic treatment of these two groups, and therefore their relative power in the workplace, merely reflects the expected replaceability and value of these professionals.

blitz_skull 4y ago

I recently had an interesting experience where a recruiter told me I should re-brand my title for a role based on my description. I had a lot of "big data" experience, though my title was "Software Engineer". He told me at the end of the day, it only matters if I can actually do the skills that people would mentally associate with the title—which I very much could do. So I've begun to recently think about how I could "brand" my skillset regardless of my ACTUAL title. Since employers almost never give a shit what your exact title was. Happy to hear counterpoints, but my experience is that you could definitely re-frame your experience with different / compound titles in order to get better looks from other companies.