In software, it would not be enough just to require a degree. We'd have to also have some auditing entity that ensured the software written in practice conformed with the standards of professional engineering. And as the industry stands today, that applies to 0% of software created in a professional setting, never mind that very few corporations would be cool with auditors poking around in their code, at least without strict NDAs.
Not that I'm arguing that we should go this way. I for one embrace the wild west era of software for as long as it lasts. But if we were to give accreditation any weight, it would have to come accompanied with a standardized method to verify the accreditation is actually meaningful.
Auditing and forensics does seem to get applied more frequently in cryptocurrency projects, but as you said, that sort of accreditation still has to be meaningful.
A dr would not do a quick surgery and a power plant engineer won’t build “just a quick test reactor” because they have credentials and the hiring bodies trust those creds.
In software is the problem that we don’t trust what the resume implies? Where does the deep distrust come from? Why don’t we have an equivalent to a medical, legal, or engineering accreditation?
(I’ll state the obvious ghosting was wrong)