[jordanpg]

There is powerful opposition in our line of work to this type of thing, particularly the standardized tests. I don't fully understand it because I think that certification exams, etc. have clear, if limited value.

I think it stems from an intrinsic starting point among many developers that programming is a true meritocracy and that all hiring questions can be settled with a judicious study of what the person is truly capable of (eg. the fabled personal github account filled with side projects). And that anything other than "hacking on the code" is a waste of time.

Of course this isn't how the real world works. In fact almost no one has the time, energy, or inclination to do impressive side projects. Gauging skills on the basis on resumes and very short interviews is quite hard and time-consuming. Hiring decisions are made on the basis of essentially social interactions and personal references.

I do think there is room for an informal credentialing process in principle, but there are longstanding mental blocks that will need to be skirted. There will need to be leadership from the top to make this happen, ie. the best, most-respected programmers will need to take it seriously first.

[icebraining]

I don't know from where it stems for the majority of opponents. For me, it stems from a complete lack of faith that the system would be well designed and even relatively free from corruption, and therefore that it would not make things much worse, while not actually solving the problem it's supposed to solve.

Certification exams already exist, and employers are free to require them to avoid the "crap candidates". Other problems, like security flaws affecting the users, can be better solved by imposing real penalties on companies.

[pizzaman09]

Another solution is law. Establish a formal licensure body and then slowly make it necessary for things like government contracts, or even private contracts.