The author of this article did not seem to think about this too deeply -- the bar exam works because it grants extra privileges to those who passed it; and barber certification works because it is easy to tell barber from non-barber. Neither is the case for data scientists.
IMHO, if one wanted to add regulation in this area, the "working" approach would be to add restrictions first -- like only licensed people can work with personal data.
But then we'd have to worry about cases like "there is a team of 's/w engineers' writing the code and a single licensed person who can only press 'run' button". And fixing that would require even more regulations... which will probably transform the B2C software landscape, and it is not clear if it would be beneficial or not.
Actually that's brilliant. Forget about the transition period for a moment, what do we want the industry steady state to look like. And I think it's exactly this. You are licensed and trained to work with personal data. Your license is on the line for misuse. You have all the incentives in place for the right behavior, and companies have the right trade-offs to consider when choosing to use it or not.
You can do tons of software development without needing personal data, and when you do need it you have someone in place who is accountable for it.
The other thing to note is that certain jobs can be easily offshored. If you can't get a local (data scientist/software engineer/ journalist) to do what you want, you can just pay a foreigner to do it. The same is not true of doctors and lawyers, due to the extra privileges you point out.
The point of the license wouldn't be to protect you from them. It would be to protect us from you.
I work with actuaries. Basically they are accredited data scientists. Oh scratch that, they would have been data scientists if the CAS exams hadn’t stagnated their knowledge. instead of keeping abreast of the industry, they devote all their time to study for antiquated exams that just serve as barriers to entry, but it does keep their jobs safe.
Also ones of the key arguments the article uses isn’t just applicable to accredited professions, everyone can go to jail or be fined if they lie to a judge. This is the first major reason the authors cites... I propose authors should have to be accredited so they can lose their license when they produce negligently thought out arguments.
> “Its drafters could also borrow ideas from actuary licensing, such as a thorough understanding of linear algebra and statistics”
Dear lord! Noooo. This Person is out of their mind. The cas exams promote rote memorization of simplified formulas and problems rather than actually reasoning statistics.
Part of why everyone has to do esoteric leetcode problems every time they interview with a new company is because there is no uniform hiring standards. Imagine taking the Bar exam each time a lawyer wanted to jump to a new firm.
Licensing could help improve the signal to noise ratio for hiring standards at least.
I think a better comparison should be with how the actuarial industry conducts itself. They have been doing “data science” for decades but equally so are bound by professional standards and expectations.
If there were to be an exam I'd be on board with, it'd be questions about GDPR and CCPA compliance. Even those are moving quickly as courts decide what the laws mean.
