4 ms·

There's a big difference between IT and the other licensed fields is that they are mature professions where change is slow and a university education and a lice

There's a big difference between IT and the other licensed fields is that they are mature professions where change is slow and a university education and a license actually means competence, and the expectations of their clients are sane and bounded. IT is an immature profession, change is rapid, best practice are constantly changing, client expectations are insane and unbounded, and there are many, many people in the industry with a university degree that can't program their way out of a cardboard box, while there are people with no formal education and a few years of experience that are better than most veterans. The skill of a programmer depends too much on creativity, so a license can only guarantee half of the skillset, not the entire skillset, and therefore it's worthless.

waitwhat 15y ago
The degree issue is a bit of a red herring, to be honest: it is not obvious that a particular degree would be either necessary or sufficient for certification (either in general, or the specific case of Malaysia.) For example, in the UK a three-year accounting degree only shaves ~6 months off the time needed to become professionally qualified, and many accountants studied something else at university anyway.
- tref 15y ago
  Having a particular degree is less important than understanding the basics. Unfortunately, it is possible to advance quite far as a developer without understanding the basics. And although true incompetents are quickly weeded out, there is another aspect: maintenence. Often people move from job to job, producing working, but sub-optimal solutions, and leave an enormous maintenence burden behind. At my first job after graduating we had a self-taught architect/god/guru who never bothered with primary keys. One of our systems started slowing to a crawl. I added primary keys, and some indexes and suddenly I was a whizz kid. Another time I went for a job interview with an architect who was an actual architect (i.e. he studied designing buildings, not software systems). He didn't understand the concept of database normalization. Needless to say, I didn't take the offer. Some of the best, and worst developers I've worked with had no degrees. On the other hand, CS majors were generally a "safe pair of hands", especially after they got a few years experience behind them.. If credentialling guaranteed a basic level of competence, with, or without a degree, I think it's a great idea.
- henrikschroder 15y ago
  Fair enough, but if a degree doesn't guarantee competence, how could a license? CS programmes everywhere are getting blasted by the industry for not "producing" graduates that meet their requirements, therefore it's reasonable to assume that a certification process would suffer the same fate. How could such a process meet the demands of a rapidly changing industry where different players have completely different requirements, where the language-du-jour is constantly changing, where best practices are outdated in a few years, and where the only way to survive is to constantly educate yourself? I don't see how an IT license could lead to anything but a sort of tax on corporate IT companies that wish to do business with the government.
twelvechairs 15y ago
As an architect (buildings, not software) I can say that there are both many highly capable people who are not licensed, and many poor practitioners who are licensed architects. I couldn't be sure if this was the same for lawyers/doctors/engineers etc. My guess is that it is probably similar for lawyers but less true for others.... I believe in private accreditation (in computers this is already common for some jobs, through accreditors like Microsoft, Cisco, etc.) and letting end clients make their own judgements as to whether private accreditation is necessary for their choice of professional. I do not believe in public accreditation, which is often a single-system for diverse fields (eg. architecture) and actually limits people from calling themselves by a commonly known job title (eg. you cant call yourself an 'architect' unless you pass this single [often poor] accreditation procedure).
bad_user 15y ago
There are licensed medics out there that can't perform CPR (I've seen one). My government is filled with licensed incompetents that get paid for sitting on their asses from 9 to 5, with a launch break in between. Usually when people see incompetence in action, trying to do the right thing, they'll just throw their hands in the air waiting for a solution from the government. But licenses encourage bribery, nepotism and other means of gaming the system. The effects are quite contrary to what people want. Instead, grant these licenses by default without fees or limits, then let the employer decide if a candidate is good enough. Let the market decide if the employer is good enough. And if people's lives are threatened because of somebody's incompetence, then invalidate his license for a couple of months or permanently. If people's lives are lost because of incompetence, then throw that somebody in jail. This is a system based on meritocracy and punishment in case of big failures. It works a lot better than a government imposed barrier to entry.

waitwhat 15y ago

The degree issue is a bit of a red herring, to be honest: it is not obvious that a particular degree would be either necessary or sufficient for certification (either in general, or the specific case of Malaysia.) For example, in the UK a three-year accounting degree only shaves ~6 months off the time needed to become professionally qualified, and many accountants studied something else at university anyway.

tref 15y ago
Having a particular degree is less important than understanding the basics. Unfortunately, it is possible to advance quite far as a developer without understanding the basics. And although true incompetents are quickly weeded out, there is another aspect: maintenence. Often people move from job to job, producing working, but sub-optimal solutions, and leave an enormous maintenence burden behind. At my first job after graduating we had a self-taught architect/god/guru who never bothered with primary keys. One of our systems started slowing to a crawl. I added primary keys, and some indexes and suddenly I was a whizz kid. Another time I went for a job interview with an architect who was an actual architect (i.e. he studied designing buildings, not software systems). He didn't understand the concept of database normalization. Needless to say, I didn't take the offer. Some of the best, and worst developers I've worked with had no degrees. On the other hand, CS majors were generally a "safe pair of hands", especially after they got a few years experience behind them.. If credentialling guaranteed a basic level of competence, with, or without a degree, I think it's a great idea.
henrikschroder 15y ago
Fair enough, but if a degree doesn't guarantee competence, how could a license? CS programmes everywhere are getting blasted by the industry for not "producing" graduates that meet their requirements, therefore it's reasonable to assume that a certification process would suffer the same fate. How could such a process meet the demands of a rapidly changing industry where different players have completely different requirements, where the language-du-jour is constantly changing, where best practices are outdated in a few years, and where the only way to survive is to constantly educate yourself? I don't see how an IT license could lead to anything but a sort of tax on corporate IT companies that wish to do business with the government.

twelvechairs 15y ago

As an architect (buildings, not software) I can say that there are both many highly capable people who are not licensed, and many poor practitioners who are licensed architects. I couldn't be sure if this was the same for lawyers/doctors/engineers etc. My guess is that it is probably similar for lawyers but less true for others.... I believe in private accreditation (in computers this is already common for some jobs, through accreditors like Microsoft, Cisco, etc.) and letting end clients make their own judgements as to whether private accreditation is necessary for their choice of professional. I do not believe in public accreditation, which is often a single-system for diverse fields (eg. architecture) and actually limits people from calling themselves by a commonly known job title (eg. you cant call yourself an 'architect' unless you pass this single [often poor] accreditation procedure).

bad_user 15y ago

There are licensed medics out there that can't perform CPR (I've seen one). My government is filled with licensed incompetents that get paid for sitting on their asses from 9 to 5, with a launch break in between. Usually when people see incompetence in action, trying to do the right thing, they'll just throw their hands in the air waiting for a solution from the government. But licenses encourage bribery, nepotism and other means of gaming the system. The effects are quite contrary to what people want. Instead, grant these licenses by default without fees or limits, then let the employer decide if a candidate is good enough. Let the market decide if the employer is good enough. And if people's lives are threatened because of somebody's incompetence, then invalidate his license for a couple of months or permanently. If people's lives are lost because of incompetence, then throw that somebody in jail. This is a system based on meritocracy and punishment in case of big failures. It works a lot better than a government imposed barrier to entry.