Theodoren

I am a big supporter to official certification systems dedicated to affinity. I understand that mostly all the members of this forum are graphics and designers, and like it was pointed out, to convince a client to start a specific job, it is more useful showing a good portfolio than some kind of certification. But, there are jobs where this isn't right, and instead showing a certification is preferred to showing a good portfolio ( as strange as it may appear ). This is what happens in selections for schools and universities. I teach at the university and in this environment, while being good in your own right is always appreciated, for many positions the main interest is that the one who applies know very well specific software. In this case having certain certification is a huge boost, because the main goal is not to produce something for clients, but to be able to use very well specific tools and also to be able to teach them to the studens. I understand that a good portfolio is fantastic, but not always a good portfolio is also a good evidence of a deep mastery of a certain software or specific workflow. To produce good art it's not mandatory to know every little detail of a software. I know people who did graphics for 20 years and still don't know the math behind the blending modes; but when you teach it, I think that knowing as much as possibile of everything ( even at the cost of possessing a less exciting personal portfolio ) is way better. Ones students will not necessarily do the same works as their teachers, and they deserve to be supported as much as possible to find their own path in the industry, and this often means that the teacher needs to be able to know a bit of everything, answer different kinds of questions or at leat guide the students to a proper answer though other means ( books, megazines, other professors, internet sources and so on ). Certification usually evaluate this fact, not that one person is particulary good at some specific operations, but that overall he can move in the software environment, and also has a decent grasp over different theoretical aspects of it. It is not a final goal to say "I know graphics. I know everything", but a starting point to say "ok I have a solid foundation, and I also have a proof". From this point one can show more proofs like personal projects and more, acquiring more credibility as a teacher. Also I think that concerning this the more the merrier, and even if affinity may be perceived as less famous than others, it could still increase the "points" of a particular curricula. Also if teachers starts to teach affinity in schools and universities more often, this could also increase the user base over time.

I completely agree with this reasoning. As a teacher to promote a certain type of software over others I need to present as much evidence as possible not only that the software is valid, but also that I have a certificated level of mastery over it. Without certifications, the judgment of administrations becomes hard to make. I too would like to teach more about affinity to my students, and official certifications would be a nice help to promote the switch.