But this is idle wishing: the current system likely has to much inertia for real change at this point.
Just pretend you went to law school and have to make monthly loan repayments each month. Put that money in bank account and you will have more than enough savings to take off work for a month every few years.
Median wage for programmers is nearly double the US median household income and has few barriers to entry. If the only downside is having to take a month off work every few years, I’m not complaining.
Edit to add: In general, I don't think our system has to be worse than all others for it to be worthwhile to consider what might be better.
It's a rigorous exam, but to me, this is so preferable to a 5 hour interview on differential equations, stats, and linear algebra every time you interview. And that's pretty much what we do in software, it's the equivalent of asking a senior actuary to do an integration by parts or a complex derivative at the whiteboard during an interview.
What I also like about this approach is that we'd avoid that situation where a cartel like the law schools can put a 150k, 3 year degree in between talented people and the profession they'd like to enter.
Another thing is that tech exams are very capricious - you can end up with a totally unqualified interviewer, there's really no quality control on the questions or how the exams are administered. A more formal exam could have a lot of benefits, though I do agree that a required long degree program that is $$ would do more harm than good.
EDIT: There's is something that causes me to question some of what I wrote above - I have grown wary of many of the people who want to regulate software as a profession. I'm still stinging a from my collisions with the test-driven development crowd dating back over the last decade. They really were saying that to merely question the value of the methodology should render you un-hireable. Imagine if they got control over formal licensing. I do shudder at the thought. When I think of that possibility, the Wild West approach, unsavory as it may be, seems more appealing.
It is a very different set of trade offs than what we have in CS, where companies are more than willing to take a chance on bright people with non traditional backgrounds, including people that never went to college or dropped out. As a lifelong self-learner, I’ve certainly appreciated the lack of “credentialism” at tech companies.
The one part of the PE thing that I would like to see borrowed is the exams. If all companies are just running everyone through the same kinds of general CS problems anyway, might as well save everyone time and improve consistency by making a standardized test.
A month off? I completed an MSCS (including a thesis) while working full time with two young children at home (my daughter was born in between my first and second year). I can't imagine educational/licensing requirements that would be more difficult than that; you can continue your education without dropping out entirely.
As for government work, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I did government work for 14 years and never needed any certifications. If I had, the company would have paid for it and it would have been on company time.