The problem I see with this plan is that the state of the art in CS moves profoundly faster than the pace of careers, certifications, curriculum development, &c

The problem I see with this plan is that the state of the art in CS moves profoundly faster than the pace of careers, certifications, curriculum development, &c. Imagine, if you will, the practices that would have been taught to the "By the book" computer engineers who graduated in 2000. Would you think it happy to have those practices dominant, by regulation, today? Would you want to have the task of lobbying the professional standards committees to update the curriculum so that a decade from now the thing you think is important would be accepted practice? I think that the difficulty we have updating e.g. language versions or crypto practices is a good model for how well our field responds when we do things more formally. Imagine how long python 2 would be around if it had been the basis for professional credentials for decades!