Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!pacbell!att-ih!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: A Cynic's Guide, part 1 Message-ID: <2331@bsu-cs.UUCP> Date: 11 Mar 88 14:37:18 GMT References: <5313@utah-cs.UUCP> <302@buckaroo.SW.MCC.COM> <5321@utah-cs.UUCP> <1692@desint.UUCP> <5335@utah-cs.UUCP> <5411@well.UUCP> <5340@utah-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) Distribution: na Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana Lines: 27 In article <5340@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) writes: >Is there any reason why software engineers >should be exempt from the sort of licensing requirements found in other fields? Yes indeed. Licensing prevents employers from hiring the people *they* believe are the best, instead of being forced to hire people that *somebody else* considers competent. If an employer would really rather let somebody else make his hiring decisions, he can always specify that job applicants be certified (e.g. CDP, CCP). Clearly most employers don't feel this way, because most don't require certification. I see no reason to believe that a certificate or license is a more reliable indicator of competence than evidence of education or achievement at work. I would be happy to see a licensing agency put its money where its mouth is, by accepting all liability for the failures of those that it licenses as competent. Until that happens, and the ABA accepts liability for all legal malpractice by its licensees, and the AMA accepts liability for all medical malpractice, and so on, I will refuse to believe that licensing is anything other than an attempt to simply keep wages artificially high. Political follow-ups should probably be emailed or sent to talk.politics.misc (where I won't see them). -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: !{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi