1. Works that potentially affect public security need to be approved by licensed Proffessional Engineers.
2. Therefore, businesses and managers need to be hire Professional Engineers, or be punished by law.
3. Professional Engineers are held to an ethical code of conduct, else they lose their license.
There are some important additional steps, in that mgmt can't just hire any bum off the street to be a fall guy psuedo-P.E.. There is a mutually accepted and understood system where the very boring and static profession can be verified by mere years of experience (all jobs being similar) and a test no one seriously argues about based on what everyone agrees is very typical work for a P.E.
I can't even begin to imagine the sheer flamewar load even thinking about a "professional programmer" certification would cause.
I always liked the idea of an apprenticeship - journeyman - master system. It sidesteps the theoretical definition of what is a masters work by simply having existing masters vote to see if you make the cut, or not. Master level work in the field seems like it should be inherently different in the center of the CRUD app universe vs the center of the financial universe vs the center of the aerospace universe, for example.
In Canada, the test required to be passed to obtain the PE license does not have a single question concerning actual matters or competency. Rather, it concerns the legal framework, the deontology, the ethics and the responsibilities of the profession.
The obligation of competency is part of the Deontological Code. Or at least, so it is in Quebec. The Engineer (note that Engineer is a legally reserved title in Quebec, rather than "Professional Engineer" in most other places) is obligated to perform mandates only if he is competent do to them. It is his own resposibility to make sure he's competent.
If he is later shown to have performed work for which he was incompetent, he is liable to fines and/or to have his license revoked temporarily or permanently.
The PE licensing system here also requires a certain period (3 years) under which the EIT (or jr engineer in QC) must work under the direct supervision and direction of a licensed PE, before applying to obtain his PE license. This is similar to the apprenticeship system you propose, from what I understand.
You're entirely correct that today'd global economy is one of the many imperfections of the system I alluded to in my original post.
It's mostly easy to constrain for civil works, once again. You design a bridge in a given province, you have to be licensed in that province (state, country, what have you).
It's much harder, say, for an automotive engineer, who works in Canada, using designs from German engineers for cars sold in the US and manufactured in Mexico.
Yes, but in the case of the auto industry, there are very clear and objective standards under which the final product is held up, and there are real liability concerns if the company in question or its engineers fail to live up to those standards.
If you started being held legally liable for the code you write I bet the tune would change really quickly for a lot of people.
