Practical tests might be a little harder to administer. It’s one thing to watch a guy pull apart an engine over Zoom, it’s another to verify that a fringe electrical engineer’s hydro setup is actually putting out the amps he says it is.
Anyway, we should knock out a few of the easier ones first.
Architecture is easiest.
Like artists, it’s much faster to verify the aesthetics than to create them.
This could be done by having one trusted expert look at the portfolios of every single architect who applies.
“Yes, this person has artistic ability and skill.”
The math side could be done with a standardized test.
There may also have to be a way to measure the difficulty of the applications the person has done, to measure conscientiousness.
If a guy spends five years on one building and the difficulty was insanely high, that has to count for more than a guy who threw something competent together at the last second and went back to his cocaine bender.
Employers would certainly want to know which was which.
So, throw in another evaluator type: the project estimator. Probably this person is a trusted working architect.
We can call the first one a “critic”.
It’s largely a political appointment.
When you choose your critic, you choose the aesthetics you want boosted.
If we imagine that I’m the czar of metal, it’s going to trend to speed metal and metalcore over black metal, grindcore, hair metal, etc.
It occurs to me we already have an example selection process for scientists.
The IQ research community.
Basically, people collaborate with other people whose existing contributions they like.
I see no reason to mess with something that clearly works.
The same process could be used for programmers.
Since software engineering is basically impossible to standardize (they’ve tried).
re: difficulty of projects, this is somehting that people get a good sense of after a few years in their ndustry
but a “qualified evaluator” could serve as a particualr sepcialization
[Editor’s afterthought: This observation is correct, but most people remain bad at estimation even if they get a feel for the relative “bigness” of projects because they tend to quote how long projects should take rather than how long such projects historically did take. Project estimation is a skill that requires practice and empirical feedback. That’s the long way of saying Owl is correct, this would have to be a sub-category of working architects who then sub-specialize in estimating. It’s like having one of those references that says how long an average auto mechanic should take to do a task, except using expert judgment in the absence of apples-to-apples data.]