> 1. Suppose you're an employer. You see a candidate who did some radical education program you haven't heard of and know nothing about the details of, instead of going to university. Your natural assumption (because it's correct in 95% of similar cases) is that this is someone who wasn't good enough for university.

But you can see the questions yourself. If you did a degree you'd know if it was the sort of level that you'd expect from a university student. If someone can answer university level questions, why do they need to go to university?

As for the profs, you can hire them from the same universities. They're allowed to work on the side.

> 2. When the exam is cheap and the only source of credit, fraud is a much bigger risk than for normal university exams. Apart from anything else, outright bribery is now a risk at every level in the process, because a good exam result is worth far more in lifetime earnings than you can afford to pay anyone involved.

Sure, so rent a hall, make people walk through a metal detector, etc. Make sure the papers are seen by several randomized people.

It's a trust building exercise, that's true. But plenty of businesses depend on trust, and it's not like nobody has managed to build trust before.