I think that, in America at least, one of the few professions where this truly is alive and well is medicine. After four years of training you become a Doctor, but then you spend the next 3-5 years as a resident before you start to actually practice. Hospitals are these complex learning institutions where people in various stages of training are involved in everything to keep them learning.
Good point. Also Canadian lawyers fresh out of law school go through a one year journeyman program -- it's called "articling." http://www.lsuc.on.ca/articling/
If you poke around, I bet that more professions than you initially suspect have formal or informal apprenticeship or training programs. I've hired reporters who have previously gone through internships or entry-level jobs, which served that purpose. In California, for instance, the state requires that licensed contractors have "at least four full years of experience at a journey level": http://www.cslb.ca.gov/applicants/ContractorsLicense/ExamApp...
The term journeyman is still used in the U.S. to describe plumbers, electricians, etc. as well.
Clinical Psychologists go through something similar too. My girlfriend's PhD program is 5 years of classes and training, and giving therapy under supervision in the clinic under the school's umbrella as well as supervised therapy off-site at hospitals, clinics, and other institutions. Then, she must do a 1 year internship somewhere else (very typically requires relocation). After that she has her PhD but then must "post-doc" for a few years somewhere else (again, typically relocating). Only then can she become licensed.
Academia in general sticks surprisingly close to the guild model. You have professors as masters, postdocs as journeymen, grad students as apprentices, and undergraduates as initiates.
Academia is designed on the guild model, though the original correspondences are more: undergraduate students = apprentices, graduate students = journeymen, graduate degree holders = masters
Yeah, the traditional distinction between professors and degree holders who aren't professors wasn't part of the guild-training system, but probably better maps onto an idea like patronage. Someone who completed the doctorate was "done" with the training process, a certified master fully licensed to hold lectures and supervise theses. But this did not in itself come with any salary or position. The exact situation varied by country, but in Germany such a person might be a Privatdozent, someone who earned a living by giving lectures (often traveling from university to university) and tutoring students. That's somewhat analogous to a master painter who subsequently earned a living from portrait commissions.
A professor then is simply a master who, rather than earning a living as a craftsman, has a position and salary paid by a patron or institution. One might compare to a painter who became a salaried court painter, or one who received regular stipends from the Académie de peinture et de sculpture, rather than earning an income from seeking commissions or giving lessons.
I think the common way people view the situation has changed in part because these craft occupations are more difficult to sustain, so you're not really seen as "done" until you've landed a regular full-time job. Like being a painter without a salary, being a lecturer without a salary is nowadays a very precarious position. There used to be enough wealthy patrons paying enough in portrait commissions and tutoring fees for such careers to be make for a decent middle-class living, but it's not a common career anymore, so now people typically either look for a full-time academic position, or look for a full-time job elsewhere. You can temporarily hang around academia as an adjunct lecturer, but it's not a good or stable living.
undergraduate students = apprentices, graduate students = journeymen, graduate degree holders = masters
Closer, but still not quite right. The concept of graduate students is quite a recent one; and until recently the MA was the standard undergraduate degree.
This is still seen at Oxford and Cambridge: After 3 years of study, you write examinations and receive the BA, whereupon you leave the university; 4 years later, you receive the MA. (And until very recently, upon applying to receive the MA you had to certify that you had "continued to practice" in the intervening years.)
A masters being the standard undergraduate degree is still roughly true in Denmark, though in a bit different format. The traditional undergraduate degree was a single 5-year program. Under the EU's Bologna Process harmonization, this has been split into a 3-year BA/BSc, and a 2-year MA/MSc. But in part because this is recent, many people see a BA/BSc as only 60% of a degree, not a place to stop and go get a job. So getting a Masters to "complete" the undergraduate program is still sort-of expected, though not everyone does it.
Unlike in the U.S., Masters and PhD students are therefore not lumped together as "graduate students". Bachelors and Masters students are instead lumped together as "students", i.e. people who are taking an undergraduate education, often living in dorms, and receiving a small stipend (the SU) to support their cost of living. PhD students, by contrast, are junior research staff, employed with a proper salary (typically ~$50k), living in their own apartments or houses, entitled to attend departmental meetings, etc.
It is possible to pursue CS in the context of a MD PhD program. However, I think it's rather difficult to justify that level of effort in non-medical fields. Maybe consumer space travel will make it worthwhile to dedicate the entirety of one's 20s to higher CS education, as a minimum qualification, but I'm having trouble coming up with any present-tense examples.
Now that I think about it, quants could benefit from a financial equivalent of a combined MD PhD. Large scale finance and clever math can be quite dangerous after all.
The actuarial profession effectively requires a lengthy apprenticeship before practice rights are granted. A typical actuarial student starts their first entry-level actuarial job with only an undergraduate degree, and then spends the next five to ten years working full time under the supervision of senior actuaries while taking the examinations that eventually lead to being admitted into the profession. I do not know of any other profession that works this way.
Wow, your very username is actuary :P And interestingly enough, i have a VERY thick MLC manual sitting on my desk right now, and it's only ONE THIRD of the whole syllabus! Just trying to come to grips with that.
As for your comment, no actuarial science isn't the ONLY profession that works like that. Consider doctors for example. I think same applies to lawyers and Chartered Accountants
