Proof of Skill vs Certifications

Because the thing being certified is usually completion, not capability. Most certification exams test recall of course material under multiple-choice conditions, which is a different activity from doing the work.

There is also an incentive problem. The organisation issuing the certificate is paid by the person taking it, and pass rates are a marketing asset. That is not a structure that produces a demanding bar, and hiring managers know it.

Four things, and all four are structural rather than promotional:

It is a real task, not a quiz — a messy brief with genuine trade-offs, scored on judgment.

The rubric is public before you start. You can read exactly what is being measured and argue with it.

The work is attached. An employer can click through to what you actually produced instead of trusting a badge.

It expires. Skills decay and fields move. A proof from four years ago is weighted lower, which a certificate never is.

In regulated fields where they are legally required, obviously yes. Where a specific platform certification is a stated procurement requirement, also yes.

For general capability signalling in software, product, data, and AI roles, they are weak. The clearest evidence is behavioural: employers hiring for these roles rarely ask about certifications and routinely ask to see work.

If you already have the skill, prove it — 90 minutes, once, portable. If you do not, learn it in whatever way suits you, then prove it. The learning route is your choice; a course is one legitimate option. The difference is what you show at the end: evidence of ability rather than evidence of attendance.