Python certification

[Terry Reedy]

Eric Wertman wrote:
>> Given the way that medical/legal licensing is used to stifle competition,
>> prevent innovation, and keep people from earning a living delivering simple
>> services that people need at prices they can afford, 'more like' would have
>> to be done very carefully.
> 
> To draw an analogy... imagine, if you will, a system where
> pharmaceutical companies are the leading source of doctor
> certifications.  While I'm sure there are many valid arguments that
> would show today's system is far from perfect, I'm thinking that would
> be a worse horror by some order of magnitude.

If pharmaceutical companies had more influence on licensing people to 
make drug suggestions/prescriptions, I suspect they would give more 
power to nurses and pharmacists to make such suggestions, to the 
improvement of health care in America.  America's legal care system is 
*way* far from perfect, especially in the civil sphere, though I read it 
is even more wretched elsewhere.

I would hate to live in a world where you had to have three years of 
graduate professional training to write a for-loop for pay, or where 
scientists and mathematicians were prohibited from writing code 
(practicing software) without a license.  Or where someone who just 
wanted to practice Python had to first master assembly.

I would be interested to hear if you know something about medical/legal 
exams, quite aside from there use as legal cudgels, that would 
contribute to (carefully) improving voluntary computer training and exams.