[SSJPython]

I understand that companies need some sort of SAT/ACT-like method to rank candidates. I completely understand that part since there aren't really licenses in software engineering like other engineering fields. But I feel like a better way would be to present candidates with questions and problems actually related to the job. For example, if the job requires an understanding of Pandas, perhaps giving candidates actual tasks in Pandas would be better than asking them to traverse a binary tree.

[storafrid]

They don't want to hire someone who knows Pandas specifically. They want someone who can identify this technology, learn it and then possibly implement it. And more importantly - someone who can do the same when the situation calls for some other technology. This is the crux imo.

[jandrewrogers]

The licenses associated with other engineering fields are optional and largely unrelated to the skill and expertise of the engineer.

[TheNewsIsHere]

There are many fields of engineering where practicing without a license is against the law, with licensing exams directly related to education and skill.

Technology has more or less co-opted the term but it used to be that “engineer” was fairly synonymous with licensed professions.

[jandrewrogers]

Where is this? My experience is in the US and my background is physical engineering. A license does not confer competency. Competency is not testable except at the most rudimentary levels. I wouldn't trust an engineer with anything important because they were licensed. Licensing is about liability, not competency.

It would be useful if we could devise a filter for engineers in software but it hasn't proven effective in any other engineering discipline in my experience. Software is even more prone to cargo-culting fashions than more traditional engineering disciplines and I would hate to see them enforced as "best practice" with the force of law.