>>However, I have seen serveral political initiatives to have software programmers licensed and tested the same way other professionals are, consistantly shot down by the coders themselves, aided and abetted by software houses. We test and license doctors, lawyers, engineers and even cosmotoligists (hair cutters), but not software programmers. If software programmers had to pass general and specific proficiency tests (that are not cash cows of the software industry) in order to receive a license to consult for hire, along with laws making coding for hire illegal if the coder is not licensed, it would go a long way to improve the image and quality of the programming profession.
>
>I think sometimes we developers are an egotistical, yet insecure lot. We say how great we are at what we do, but tend to shy away from any real inquiry into the level of our knowledge. Sure, there are some that become certified. There are many more who do not. There's another side to the testing though, it would imply that just because I received my license I'm just as good as everyone else who got theirs. If you've ever gotten a bad haircut you know that's not the case.

True, but your odds at getting lacerated or your hair burnt off are a lot less with someone who has passed 1,600 hours of cosmotology training. My daughter, for example. I was her first customer. She did a great job! But, she couldn't make a living in the profession so she is now a manager at a local printing company.