The business model I envy is actuaries. The exams are rigorous, but leave it open how you wish to prepare for them. I considered this about 15 years ago when I was leaving grad school in engineering. To get through he first few exams, it's pretty clear that you need to understand vector calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations at the level you'd expect from the general undergraduate sequence for most STEM majors. I read that the most common undergrad major for the exams is math, but you're free to take the test if you've majored in something else, and I think you're welcome to self-study as much as you please. You just have to be able to pass the exams.

It's a rigorous exam, but to me, this is so preferable to a 5 hour interview on differential equations, stats, and linear algebra every time you interview. And that's pretty much what we do in software, it's the equivalent of asking a senior actuary to do an integration by parts or a complex derivative at the whiteboard during an interview.

What I also like about this approach is that we'd avoid that situation where a cartel like the law schools can put a 150k, 3 year degree in between talented people and the profession they'd like to enter.

Another thing is that tech exams are very capricious - you can end up with a totally unqualified interviewer, there's really no quality control on the questions or how the exams are administered. A more formal exam could have a lot of benefits, though I do agree that a required long degree program that is $$ would do more harm than good.

EDIT: There's is something that causes me to question some of what I wrote above - I have grown wary of many of the people who want to regulate software as a profession. I'm still stinging a from my collisions with the test-driven development crowd dating back over the last decade. They really were saying that to merely question the value of the methodology should render you un-hireable. Imagine if they got control over formal licensing. I do shudder at the thought. When I think of that possibility, the Wild West approach, unsavory as it may be, seems more appealing.

Sure, but doesn’t it require 4 years of school + 4 years working under a licensed PE, then state exams?

It is a very different set of trade offs than what we have in CS, where companies are more than willing to take a chance on bright people with non traditional backgrounds, including people that never went to college or dropped out. As a lifelong self-learner, I’ve certainly appreciated the lack of “credentialism” at tech companies.

The one part of the PE thing that I would like to see borrowed is the exams. If all companies are just running everyone through the same kinds of general CS problems anyway, might as well save everyone time and improve consistency by making a standardized test.

A very supportive family - I don't think I could have done it if she had been complaining about it the whole time.

Sure. So get that executive masters or Coursera certificate, and then spend an hour convincing an employer that you actually learned something in your course.