Shitty plumbers are licensed. Shitty electricians are licensed. Shitty hair stylists are licensed. A license says nothing about current competence. It says the person demonstrated some minimal level of competence at one point, fills out their paperwork every year, and hasn't fucked up royally enough yet to have it revoked.
Every time this subject comes up someone inevitably points to licensure as some sort of panacea. Licensure does not replace skills or competency assessments.
Because a license/certification test is the exact definition of "skills/competency assessment". If the licensing test doesn't meet those needs, that's not the fault of licenses in general, that's a fault in the test and can be fixed.
That is not at all what I said. I was addressing how licensure does very little to prove competence for the three trades specified in the post.
> Couldn't it just be that a "programming license" has regular testing and re-certification?
How many licenses require recertification? Why do you think a programming one would? Continuing education requirements do not count for this, as they are mere completion measures.
> Because a license/certification test is the exact definition of "skills/competency assessment".
Yes, and this test needs to be passed once. The longer ago it was, the less it says about the person now.
Because it doesn’t exist yet, and my hypothetical is just as good as yours.
It's also why I pivoted to certification.
There is no panacea, nor is the status quo sustainable. So where's the disruption? Where's the innovation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietitian#United_States
--edit: I think you might be talking about a nutritionist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritionist) which is not regulated in any way and is not a medical job. These are the people who will talk to you about essential oils and homeopathy and Herbalife.
That's 4+ years of study right there, that we did to prove that we could do the job, but no, fuck that, some of those people freeze up during an interview and a handful of those people we brought couldn't demonstrate their programming skill, so we decided we can't trust that for ANYONE.
Sorry, go invent some new way to certify yourself. How about 2-4 years of intense study and a new test, like a bar exam that lawyers take! Or just get your PhD! Just study for half your life, go waaaaay into debt, and take the exact same salaries we are offering now, because we don't reeeaaaaally want to pay you as much as we're paying now, so we're sure as hell not going to offer to pay more for that extra effort.
If you thought a day long test was too annoying, then your only alternative is spend even more time and get something we're just going to ignore again the instant we make a bad hire with someone with that license!
(For the record, if I could take a single certification test and skip all this interview bullshit for the rest of my career, I would have done that years ago. I hate going through the technical interview gauntlet, and I'm one of the good programmers, at least once I'm on the job).
How often do you hire some one based on certificates?
Working for nothing __is__ obnoxious.
Not to belittle anyone but...a plumber is licensed. An electrician is licensed. Even a hair stylist is licensed. Perhaps licensing a programmer / developer / engineer would be over doing it. (Read: Yes, it would be. But the examples do help.) That said, can't there be a formal certification(s)?
If the time from these "take home test" was invested in a more universal certification process, wouldn't that be to everyone's benefit? A recruiter with value add, if you will
The employee gets a clear picture (read: context) of where his/her skill set stands, or doesn't.
The employers get to mitigate risk and fear.
All parties gets to reduce friction and time.
Clearly, no one is happy with the status quo. That's a problem. It's also an opportunity. Hint. Hint. ;)