State Licensing for Programmers

Question

In the U.S should programmers be licensed to practice much like electricians must be licensed to practice in the state they are in?

Personally I would be opposed to such an idea due to feasibility and political issues but I am curious what others think.

Thoughts...

I could see some merit to the concept and with software being a mission critical component for so many systems I see the social need for some sort of consumer protection.

I have also discussions with non-programmers about a lack of a programmer "code" (usually in the context of explaining why programmers are not interchangeable commodities)... for example, to my knowledge, electricians need to wire to code and it appears to be fairly easy for another electrician to follow up on a previous electricians work. The same is not true, in my experience, with programmers.

Is there enough peer policing of the industry? Should there be more sites like The Daily WTF?

Does vendor certification provide enough consumer protection?

Answer 1

This might seem like a good idea, but I cannot imagine how it could be efficiently and practically implemented. Also, programmers generally don't have the immediate risk of causing bodily harm, as is the case of electricians and doctors.

Answer 2

@JesperE: Engineers mostly aren't in immediate risk of causing bodily harm. neither are accountants, notaries, lawyers, etc. For those professions, in many countries state exams are mandatory to gain employment.

Even London black cab drivers have to pass the exam on 'the knowledge' and have to study really hard for that.

EDIT: added link to the cab wiki page.

Answer 3

Wouldn't such an action simply be a veiled attempt to stop outsourcing.

So you get licensed by the state or province in which you live. Suddenly to work as a developer there you need to pass their test like the bar exam. This would do more harm than good. Often for unique skills you have to look beyond your city or state because the person with the best skill at what you need might be on the other side of the world. Such an attempt would come at great expense and would harm people who need to hire software services. It would also be a pain for developers because of the need to re-certify etc.

Answer 4

I have never seen a certification certificate that truly indicated that someone was competent at the task described by the certificate. Certificates usually just indicate the person can pass a test.

Testing programming ability is not easy. This is because programming is not measurable. If programming were a measurable quantity, project schedules would rarely slip. Projects would rarely fail. In practice, projects fail and schedules slip all the time.

The difference between programming and those other fields (medicine, accounting, civil engineering) is that in most of those fields there is an underlying mathematical or scientific reality that is constant. In contrast, programming has the halting problem. No matter how much apply scientific methods to a programming task, when you attempt to run your program, you cannot know it will complete successfully until you actually run it.

The only thing licensing does for programming is put licensing fees into your state treasury and testing fees into the pockets of your state politician's friends who win the contract to administer the tests.

Answer 5

Ignoring all the guild type problems the problem with a generic "computer" test would be how can you?

Alot of items in the computer world are art based where you can easy make the case for a different correct way. With electricians you have a bunch of set principles, laws of nature and laws of the state/city that apply and can be tested. In the long ago past, before every vendor stated doing certification, you had some organizations trying to do this and all thier tests came down to requiring you to use their authorized language(s) and being tested on usage and best practices for that language nothing of a generic test that would be required for a pass this or you cannot work.

Answer 6

This is a bad idea. Programming should be fun! For some projects, like space shuttles, the employer should require special certification. But disallow kids to make their own web sites and games, no.

Anyway, profession-wide certification will have such low standards that it means nothing.

Answer 7

this industry changes constantly, and undergoes radical changes every year or two. no bureaucracy could ever keep up with modern standards, and in fact they would not even try, they would simply drag down the pace of progress, stifle competition, and in general be a disaster. State licensing is primarily a barrier to competition, often hiding behind a 'safety' facade [this is not to say that safety codes are a bad thing, but who says you have to be licensed to follow a safety code?]

taken to extremes, we might see FDA-style licensing for all new 'approved' techniques (while people die waiting for 'experimental' treatments to be approved that have been used successfully for years in other countries)

remember two things:

1. government is the least-efficient solution for any problem; government is force, not reason, and should be avoided in all rational endeavours
2. the First Law of Bureaucracy guarantees that any 'licensing agency' will exceed its original intent and become a hindrance within a very short time span

Answer 8

Is not a computer science or software engineering degree, a pre-requisite for most of programming jobs, a license itself to write software professionally? I am afraid you are comparing software engineers with more skilled workforce. A better comparison would be with electronic or mechanical engineers.

Answer 9

Think of it this way: if there was a "programmer's competency test" in 1960, the entire industry would have been stillborn as only COBOL and FORTRAN experts would have been considered "competent" enough to contribute. Those who had "other ideas" may well have been shut down by agents of the state enforcing the standards created by the COBOL cabal.

Answer 10

I vote no. Consumer "protection"? More like consumer control. The exercise of power for the sake of it, to generate more opportunities to exercise power.

"Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C. S. Lewis

I also vote no for licensing electricians. Where I live, it's getting to the stage where I'm not going to be allowed to replace a light bulb by myself without paying either a fine or buying an electrician's license.

I smell a scam - or possibly scamola.

Answer 11

No offense to anyone who has responded previously, but IMHO the problem with this kind of discussion is that there are different concepts of "programming" underlying different positions. I am all in favor of higher education, good job interview practices, and students / hobbyists being able to pursue their avocations and self-eduction, however...

Consider an analogy with many trades, from barber and beautician to plumber and electrician, where the standards are different depending on whether one is a "do-it-yourself-er" or "hangs out a shingle" and offers services to the general public. (Of course a similar pattern applies to the professional level, as in e.g. accountants (CPA) or engineers (PE).)

If you are engaging in the task for fun, or for the sake of learning, the severity of consequences are typically lower, and you are the one who will suffer them (e.g. your Christmas lights don't win the contest, etc. Of course in the extreme you can burn your own house down...) But if you offer services to the public, there is typically a greater range of damage that may occur, it will occur to someone else, and that party may not be able to assess your skill level realistically.

So, if you want to change your own oil, by all means please go ahead. But if you offer to overhaul my transmission, I need to see some credentials. Likewise, if you want to put up your own hobby web site, have fun! But if you are going to work on mission-critical information systems, you have the potential of causing economic (or, in some fields, even physical) harm to others. Most professionals I know personally engaged in such work have no problem with providing evidence of their skills and experience. Professional certification would simply be another such credential.

Answer 12

Vendor-sponsored certification is primarily for the vendor to earn more money by selling expensive training and exam fees. It doesn't have much to do with whether the holder of a certification is a competent software developer. Besides, the developer could be capable of doing great work, but on a given project, he may cut corners (perhaps due to a client's demands).

For example, I might know better than to store passwords in plaintext, but if my client insists that users can request a password reminder, I may be required to store passwords to support this.

Adding state regulations to license programmers has the same problem as vendor certification -- it doesn't show quality in any given project. We're forced to assume that a worker who holds a license always does his best work.

Instead, software projects that have safety requirements should be subject to independent safety inspections. Software that runs finance, medical applications, air traffic control, voting systems, etc. would each have to prove their quality. But projects that have low requirements for safety would be exempt.

We already do have quality process standards that can be applied to software development, such as ISO 9000, Six Sigma, and others. If developers of critical software were to follow some verifiable quality process and allow independent inspection of the process and the product, that would probably be more effective than licensing or certification.

Open-source is another means to allow transparency of software quality.

Answer 13

Socialism is wrong in principle and has never worked in practice. This is true both in general and as applied to one profession at a time. The application of socialism to the field of computer programming will only retard the growth of the profession and, if the degree of socialism is large enough, will actively destroy the profession.

Answer 14

I think programming licenses should exist. Only a small minority of programmers would need them, though.

Languages would have nothing to do with it, the issue is fail-safe design.

I would require a detailed code review/signoff by such a licensee for any code with safety implications. The issue is not ensuring it's bug-free, that could never be done. The issue is ensuring the code is written to minimize the possibility of failure and to minimize the consequences of failure.

Answer 15

Licensing is an immoral and criminal way of protecting entrenched interests and has detrimental effects for civilization.

The proof is completely out of scope for Stack Overflow, being firmly grounded in economics and ethics, but if you want to start studying it, start here and move on to:

• here(PDF) (audio)
• here(HTML) (audio), and
• here(HTML)

(If you'd like a kindler, gentler introduction to economics before digging into the harder stuff toward the end of this list, you can try this textbook. All of these are also available for sale in hardback from the store on the same website where these free versions are available.)

If you think licensing is great, then you should market yourself as licensed and/or your licensing program, demonstrating the value to people and persuading them that they should accept someone licensed/certified over someone unlicensed/uncertified. If you can't persuade people of that in a peaceful way, then using the force of law to require them to hire only licensed people is nothing more than being a bully. In the end you are taking people's liberty away at the point of a gun.

I close with a quote: "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." People who haven't studied this kind of information ought not to have the power to make these kinds of decisions. In other words, the general public is ignorant and shouldn't have the power to force crazy ideas like licensing onto others, taking away their freedom and prosperity.

Answer 16

For safety-critical applications, ABSOLUTELY. Otherwise, it's not the best of ideas.

Answer 17

My wife is a licensed professional in a field that changes much less rapidly than programming. From what she and I can tell, professional licensure is just a means of restricting competition---there are special courses for the licensing exam, these courses cost hundreds or sometimes thousands of dollars, and the questions have nothing to do with what you actually need to know to be a successful practitioner. Considering what I know about other standardized tests in computing (AP exam, GRE subject test), I'm terrified at the very thought of state licensing exams for programmers.

Answer 18

Can we make VB coders wear stars? :P

Answer 19

To me, telling someone they'd have to get certification to program is like telling someone they have to get certification to draw or write. Whether you want to call it a skill or a talent, I find it more akin to an art-form than anything else. It's something you can reasonable learn to do from top to bottom on your own if you have the aptitude. Certifications would only serve to slow down or stop people.

I find it unlikely that requiring certification would get rid of bad programmers either. Being able to answer arbitrary questions on a test is in no way indicitive of how you will perform on a day to day basis in various types of projects.

Answer 20

No. Licensing would lead to the formation of unions, and I do not see development as something that should be a union job. I do not want to have to give anyone any more of my paycheck than I already do.

If there is some sort of niche market where it makes sense based upon the industry, than that should fall as a responsibility with that industry to decide. I do not think an "across the board" sort of approach to this is either feasible, or productive. I already have a hard enough time getting rid of dead weight. If you license them, and potentially make them unionized dead weight, I could see being stuck with sub-par employees out of fear of union retribution.

Answer 21

I know the bridge analogy is really worn out, but bear with me for a moment here...

Civil engineering has the concept of a "Professional Engineer." Civil engineers are not all licensed professional engineers. In fact, most of them are not. A significant structure that could pose a risk if unsound is probably designed in part by engineers that are NOT PEs. But a PE has to review and sign off on the final design. Something similar could be implemented in software engineering for certain critical applications. The majority of software projects would not require licensing.

A number of people here have said that tests and certification would necessarily impede progress. I disagree. Programming is not about the language you use. Assembly, COBOL, C, C++, Java, and C# require adherence to many of the same basic principles, and the principles do not undergo constant dramatic change. There are known "good/best practices." A given algorithm will work the same in just about any language. Also, despite what some people here seem to think, software can be effectively validated (Ada, anyone?). And before somebody complains "but the spec can be wrong too!" I'd like to point out that the same thing is true of other engineering disciplines that already have certification.

Civil engineering does not stand still either. New materials are continually being developed, as are more effective methods. New code books are produced on a pretty regular basis. And if software engineering moved so much faster (like everyone claims) nobody would ever be able to get anything done because each new version of a library would break compatibility.

EDIT: One more thought. If our industry undergoes such dramatic change all the time, why is one of the most recommended books on SO Mythical Man Month? It's not a recent title. And MMM isn't the only example of an oldie-but-goodie.

Answer 22

No. As others have pointed out, requiring licenses that are issued by a government bureaucracy to program would cause the gears of innovation and progress to grind to an awful, screeching halt. If licensing were required of individual programmers, it would also have to be required of software companies. This could be catastrophic. Open source software would no longer be viable, because how do you license (more specifically, how do you hold liable) a group of volunteers? Commercial software companies would be handcuffed by their duty to hire licensed developers when searching for new programmers, and it would be difficult for recent graduates to obtain work.

Answer 23

If only to perpetuate the idea that not everyone who knows Java knows how to make elegant applications.

Answer 24

Anyone against insisting programmers having a degree and be licensed there after are just those to lazy to go to college.

College does not teach specific implementations but how the underlying systems work and as such someone can pick up and learn new technology with much ease.

I go so tired of having to debug all the Microsoft Certified programmers code because they have no idea what goes on behind the scene. If you asked them to convert a decimal number into Hex or Binary they would just look at you stupid. And these are the people writing the code that operates things like hospital equipment.

But to be a barber you need a license.