This is my main beef with tech interviews: you get given a test, or an algorithm, or put under the spotlight in a pairing session to solve a problem in essentially the least efficient way possible. It's usually under the guise of seeing how you think, but it's pretty damn hard to do that without also judging how the code looks and how much you were able to write.

This then becomes representative of your experience in spite of that fact that you are never likely to be confronted with that kind of problem with that kind of timeframe. Whatever's on your CV, and whatever you can say about what you've learned over the years, becomes totally irrelevant in the face of that.

I think it's offensive and I don't like how the industry has standardised on basically assuming everyone's a bullshitter. What's worse is that you'll have to repeat this over and over again for any company you interview with.

To that extent I'd much rather see the formation of a professional body that offers a trustworthy credential, potentially one that you need to renew every couple of years to ensure you're still current. That comes with challenges of its own but I'd rather have something that is both verifiable and can be reused.