Y Dmitry Yarygin Tech
← Back to home

May 29, 2026

What No One Tells You About Training Test Engineers

A personal look at teaching QA, why generic testing courses often fail, and why real mentorship, practice, and readiness matter more than certificates.

I used to work as a Software Test Engineer in different tech companies. At some point, I realized something simple: I did not want to only apply my knowledge inside daily work anymore. I wanted to share it.

So I started teaching people who wanted to become test engineers. And the longer I did it, the more I understood that teaching QA is not just about explaining test cases, bug reports, and automation frameworks.

It is much more personal than that.

This article is a collection of things I learned while helping students move toward software testing and engineering.

A Test Engineer Is More Than Someone Who Tests Software

A lot of people imagine QA as one clear path. You learn manual testing, write test cases, report bugs, maybe automate something with Selenium, and then you are done.

But real testing is not that simple.

Every student has a different starting point, and every test engineer can eventually move into a different direction. Some people enjoy manual exploration. Some want automation. Some are more interested in security, mobile, backend, hardware, or performance.

A test engineer can grow into many areas:

And these areas are not isolated. They overlap all the time.

For example, mobile testing can lead into automation, network traffic analysis, security testing, or reverse engineering. Web testing can lead into accessibility, API testing, CI pipelines, or performance work.

That is why I do not like treating QA as one fixed career ladder. It is more like a map with many possible routes.

Most Testing Courses Are Too Generic

The typical software testing course usually prepares a typical junior tester.

The student learns something about:

There is nothing wrong with this foundation. The problem is that it often stops there.

Many courses do not explain how software is actually built. They barely touch the development cycle, architecture, security, reverse engineering, traffic analysis, CI/CD, or how testing fits into a real engineering process.

And the worst part is that course content gets old very quickly.

Tools change. Frameworks change. Mobile platforms change. Browsers change. CI systems change. Even the expectations for junior engineers change.

So when a course is built like a fixed package and never updated properly, it starts losing value fast.

1:1 Mentorship Works Better Than a Factory Course

Everyone starts from a different place.

Some students are almost beginners with computers. They need time, structure, repetition, and simple explanations. If you throw too many technical terms at them too early, they will not become stronger. They will just get overloaded.

Other students are already technical. They may understand Linux, programming, networking, or mobile devices before they even start learning QA. These people need a completely different approach. They do not need slow theory. They need direction, practice, and more complex tasks.

That is why individual mentorship often works better than a generic course.

A mentor can adapt the path. A mentor can see what the student actually understands and what is only copied from a tutorial. A mentor can notice when someone is stuck, bored, rushing, or pretending that everything is clear.

That part is hard to automate.

A good course gives structure. A good mentor gives direction.

Most Content Is Already Available for Free

Here is the uncomfortable truth: most technical content is already available online.

You can learn manual testing, automation, API testing, Linux basics, Git, SQL, Docker, CI/CD, mobile testing, and even security basics without paying for a course.

The information exists. The problem is not access. The problem is navigation.

Most beginners do not know what to learn first, what to ignore, what is outdated, and what actually matters in real work.

That is why I think paying for raw information is usually a bad deal. You should pay only when you get something more valuable than public content:

People often pay for strange things online: game mods, small custom tools, private communities, niche tutorials, and very specific modifications. So it is not always rational.

But in testing and engineering, paying just to watch recorded lessons is not enough anymore. The internet already has too much free material.

The value is in guidance.

Experience Matters More Than Certificates

Certificates can be useful, but only to a point.

They may help you pass an HR filter. They may show that you studied a topic. They may look nice on LinkedIn.

But they do not prove that you can work.

Real proof is different.

Can you test a small application properly?

Can you find bugs that are not obvious?

Can you write a clear bug report?

Can you automate a realistic workflow?

Can you explain why a test failed?

Can you work with logs, network traffic, test data, and unstable environments?

Can you think like an engineer instead of just following a checklist?

That matters more than a PDF certificate.

I do not hate certificates. I see them as a signal that someone focused on a topic and completed something. But they are not a replacement for practice.

If I had to choose between a person with five certificates and no real practice, or a person with one small tested project, automation examples, and good bug reports, I would take the second person every time.

Teaching Only Works When the Student Is Ready

This is the part people do not like to hear.

A teacher cannot create motivation from nothing.

A mentor can explain, guide, support, review, push, and organize the learning process. But if the student is not ready to put in the work, nothing serious will happen.

Some people say they want to become test engineers, but in reality they are not sure yet. They may want a better job, a remote lifestyle, a higher salary, or just a way into IT. That is understandable. But wanting the result is not the same as wanting the process.

Testing requires patience. Engineering requires curiosity. Automation requires dealing with frustration. Mobile testing requires debugging weird device issues. Security testing requires even more persistence.

If a person is not ready for that, even the best course will not save them.

A good teacher can help someone move in the right direction. But the student still has to walk.

The Best Training Is Built Around Real Work

The most useful training is not abstract.

Students need real tasks. Not necessarily enterprise-level projects, but something practical enough to make them think.

For example:

This is where learning becomes real.

A student can watch ten hours of theory and still not understand testing. But give them a broken app, unclear requirements, logs, and a deadline — and suddenly the real learning begins.

That is also where a mentor becomes useful. Not as a person who simply gives answers, but as someone who helps the student build a working mindset.

Conclusion

No course, teacher, or certificate can replace personal readiness.

If a student is ready, even free resources can take them far. A mentor can make the path clearer, faster, and less chaotic.

If a student is not ready, even the best teacher will not make much difference.

Real progress starts when a person stops passively consuming information and starts doing the work: testing real things, writing reports, breaking apps, automating flows, reading logs, and thinking like an engineer.

That is what training test engineers is really about.

Not just teaching tools. Teaching the mindset.