From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Professionalism Document
Message-ID: <831@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Dec-85 14:26:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.831
Posted: Mon Dec  2 14:26:05 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 05:20:53 EST
References: <851202020417.324184@HI-MULTICS.ARPA>
Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady)
Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

An article by James Fallows in the December _Atlantic_ might be of
interest to those debating the merits of a system for licensing
programmers.  Fallows notes that creating a closed "guild" system often
leads to an enforced mediocrity that puts emphasis on input (years of
education, passing an entrance exam, perhaps some "continuing
education" requirement) rather than output (being able to do the job).

There is some justification for licensing those serving the general
public when the public would otherwise have trouble evaluating
qualifications and when a mistake could be disastrous, as in law and
medicine.  I am prepared to argue that the current licensing schemes in
those professions are better than nothing, but not much.  In the case of
programmers, however, those hiring are in a better position to judge
individual qualifications than the public.  Professional licenses for
programmers?  I say it's spinach, and to hell with it.
-- 
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary