After reading the article and the comments in this thread, I find myself diametrically opposed to the concept of a SINGLE TEST, no matter how comprehensive and secure against tampering or cheating, which would entitle a person to be declared a "de facto" expert in any field, entitled to the rights and privileges thereof.
Coming from a family which has been involved in finance for a number of generations, we have a minimum of FOUR living generations of Certified Public Accountants, with another crop becoming eligible over the next five years.
Each CPA in the last three generations had a LOT of prerequisites BEFORE they were eligible to take the exam. Only one or two, even among the ones who graduated magna and summa cum laude from major "brick and mortar" schools were able to pass on the first attempt, further testimony to the rigor of the test.
The following is anecdotal, but compelling testimony nonetheless:
A quick survey among four of the current CPAs in my family easily accessible to me reports none who feel any person who just passes the CPA exam is capable of performing TRUE CPA duties without OTJ (on the job) experience.
Similarly, most occupations and professions which use qualifing tests for eligibility have a shortcoming in that the exams, no matter how rigorous, do not give a true picture of the capaciy and capability of the person taking the exam.
Again, anecdotally, but I'm certain many of you readers have similar experiences in encountering certificate holders of even the ASQ Six Sigma certificate whom you would not trust to lead the show in creating and overseeing a quality initiative.
The bottom line:
I do not have faith ANYONE can construct a comprehensive test (pen & pencil or practical), which will give a true picture of an individual's ability to jump in and begin work at the purported level of expertise suggested by the exam. Until such test can be devised, any talk of abandoning apprentice programs or actual schooling (brick & mortar or on-line) in favor of a single qualifying exam is really as hypothetical and impractical as talk of widespread individual ownership and use of personal flying machines for business and pleasure travel was back in the 1950's. (actually "doable," but not realistically feasible)
I also do not feel most "short, specialized, and streamlined" courses of instruction for complicated and diverse specialties (brain surgery, six sigma, nuclear medicine, etc.) will accomplish the intended purpose unless the student already has a strong basic training and understanding in the underlying disciplines precedent to the specialties, regardless of how smart the student is.
Folks like Tim Folkerts and Steve Prevette, with strong backgrounds in statistics, could probably ace the ASQ Six Sigma Black Belt exam without further preparation other than a glossary of some of the idiot terms used in SS (kaizen, etc.) I, on the other hand, would probably need a crash course in statistics refresher along with some hours of practicing doing the statistical math before I would feel confident I could complete the test in the allotted time, although I would have full confidence in finishing and passing it cold (no advance preparation) if I had double the time.
Time constraints on the exams raises another question not yet covered - is a person INCOMPETENT merely because it takes him longer to accomplish the same task as a person rated COMPETENT? As tests are currently configured (especially the ASQ certifications), time taken - more accurately, "poor time management") accounts for a large portion of failures. When we counsel folks at ASQ Sections, we always stress "time management" in preparing for Certification exams.
My personal experience (again, anecdotal) is there is not much difference in the result if it takes someone one day or one week to devise a workable quality initiative, as long as it results in an improvement. If the ability to be employed in a position to create quality initiatives is dependent on how fast an individual can formulate an initiative for an exam, is that the true measure of on-the-job competence?