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.
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.