Maybe because building a bridge is a very standardized process that lives through regulation. Maybe software will end up there some day, hopefully a day by which I am retired.
It may make sense to do this for certain disciplines, like software tailored for other engineering disciplines (think medical grade software, airplane/car control software, etc.).
However for the broad mass of software projects, certification makes no sense and is in fact much worse than what we have now. Do you think certification can't be gamed? It will usually be much easier to game that one since certification by definition is meant to be achievable by a broad mass of people. You don't build a certification program for elites.
Professional leetcode programmer? Sure. So let's count the facts we have at the end of the interview:
* You can code yourself through a number of problems, answer follow-up questions that dig into random specifics of your problem, slightly modify the problem, etc. You can demonstrate structured problem solving, ad-hoc clean code and you make an overall good impression in that performance.
* You are able to demonstrate the necessary experience through targeted behavioural questions that probe deeply into specific aspects of your job history and alignment with the company values
* You are able to design a complex software system and are able to answer unknown follow ups and able to follow drill-downs into random aspects of your design.
Congrats, you are a professional software developer. Can you game the leetcode part? Potentially, however I met several "leetcoders", some of which were even kind enough to put that on their CV... They usually fail quite spectacularly at random follow ups and modification to the problem statement. But even if you are able to somehow "wing it" convincingly, you need to succeed several times and you need to still demonstrate the adequate proficiency in the other two pillars (behaviour and software design).
What we might need is an "interviewer" certification.
It may make sense to do this for certain disciplines, like software tailored for other engineering disciplines (think medical grade software, airplane/car control software, etc.).
However for the broad mass of software projects, certification makes no sense and is in fact much worse than what we have now. Do you think certification can't be gamed? It will usually be much easier to game that one since certification by definition is meant to be achievable by a broad mass of people. You don't build a certification program for elites.
Professional leetcode programmer? Sure. So let's count the facts we have at the end of the interview:
* You can code yourself through a number of problems, answer follow-up questions that dig into random specifics of your problem, slightly modify the problem, etc. You can demonstrate structured problem solving, ad-hoc clean code and you make an overall good impression in that performance.
* You are able to demonstrate the necessary experience through targeted behavioural questions that probe deeply into specific aspects of your job history and alignment with the company values
* You are able to design a complex software system and are able to answer unknown follow ups and able to follow drill-downs into random aspects of your design.
Congrats, you are a professional software developer. Can you game the leetcode part? Potentially, however I met several "leetcoders", some of which were even kind enough to put that on their CV... They usually fail quite spectacularly at random follow ups and modification to the problem statement. But even if you are able to somehow "wing it" convincingly, you need to succeed several times and you need to still demonstrate the adequate proficiency in the other two pillars (behaviour and software design).
What we might need is an "interviewer" certification.