But the second big problem is the competence floor. For 10 years now, I've worked with people who can barely do the job, and I often suspect don't understand what's being asked of them. We need people to apprentice so they are taught the correct lessons by a master engineer. There's a reason all the trades do the same thing. It ensures confidence that this person has been vetted and can do the job. Will they do the job? You can't guarantee that. But you also can't get more confident than "a master engineer said they're good to go".
I'm one of those people who dropped out of high school 25 yrs ago and got himself into tech. I was way too green; I had "talent", and none of the rest. I went to a sysadmin bootcamp (which went bankrupt and took my money) and got a couple certs out of it, which didn't help me get hired. I wanted someone to tell me how to do the job, so I could get hired and do the job. I wanted a trade school. What I ended up doing was bullshitting my way into positions and learning on the job. I'd rather have been confident in my abilities from the start (or apprenticed until I was confident).
This is a universal problem though. You only have 2 min of a reviewers time to sell yourself. That’s all a resume is.
> For 10 years now, I've worked with people who can barely do the job
I saw a lot of this before but it’s not been my experience lately. Probably because work for companies that do value degrees.
Once again, we have a credentialing option, it is just (correctly) not enforced.
> We need people to apprentice
Nobody really does this anymore because it’s so inefficient. Even trades which use those terms are really just a regulatory stamp (like professional engineer), not a close teaching relationship.
Apprenticeships were traditionally between very young men 12-14 and lasted for 8-10 years.