[firstplacelast]

Big companies and small need to agree on some standards and create qualifying exams that they will actually accept as proof of competence. Degrees somehow don't prove anything, experience doesn't, blah blah blah. It's exhausting to have to prove to interviewers that I'm not mentally disabled at every turn and it's a waste of time for everyone.

Create certifications that actually count for something and aren't just a blip on a resume that may tick a box, but will actually move you past technical trivia questions. I know some people have a deep repulsion to this and I think it would be fine to have a technical interview gauntlet for those that choose not to engage with any type of certification and a simplified interview format for those that have passed the prerequisite tests.

I don't care how long, rigorous, or ridiculous the tests are. Just agree on some effing standard.

[creer]

Watch out for what you ask for. Plenty of big vendors have certification programs. ... And for some combinations of field and vendor, they are red flags - rather than pre-validation. That is, far too many applicants have the certification but do not have the grounding knowledge without which the certification is sort of useless - potentially more dangerous than validating.

[firstplacelast]

That's exactly what I mean though, agree on something that actually means something. Not certs that are just a checkbox and you still get grilled bc many people don't believe they much value or others believe are a negative signal.

Develop something that actually has weight to it.

[wyclif]

Licensure. You're talking about licensure, not certifications. Other industries do it. Why doesn't software engineering?