[to folk subscribed to both the Python list and Python-Tutor: apologies
for cross-posting]

Regarding levels of skill or complexity in learning, the European Union
has been working on "The Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment". It also standardises
terminology for spoken/national-language training courses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages

I'm not a fan of such abstract labelling of one's progress (or a
tutorial's content) with codes or "reference levels" (A1, A2, B1, B2,
C1, C2) but maybe it will become widely recognised...

The web-page amuses (this small mind) noting non-PC stereotypes, that
the ever-pragmatic Dutch have scaled language skills based upon how one
wants to apply or use them; the Scandinavians go for numerical
progression; which the Italians do similarly but with 'flair' (using
words not digits).

LanguageCert International have added the EU-codes to their practical
terms: Preliminary, Access, Achiever, Communicator, Expert, Mastery.

A group at the King Juan-Carlos University (Madrid, Spain) is collecting
practitioners' opinions in a bid to categorise Python mastery according
to the Framework. You may like to contribute by responding to their
research surveys (one form takes five-minutes, the other fifteen):
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdlzWGpvZHLHXl6iEdHbLTB6QvYXknrD9-JKmzY7riYJkPmNw/viewform

I like to label tutorials and conference-talks (and sometimes individual
slides/sections) to indicate levels of complexity. However, have
replaced abstract terms such as "Beginner" or "Junior", "Intermediate",
and "Advanced" or "Senior" which all sound school-ish; with the three
terms: "Apprentice", "Journeyman", and "Master" (see also
https://leanpub.com/b/python-craftsman).

Whilst, there have been folk unfamiliar with (UK) "Guild" terms, they
generally respond readily to explanation and the professional context.
NB I use the terms solely to indicate an expected audience, as distinct
from assessing an individual's capability (or pay-rate)!

There is a potential-problem in the rising sensitivity of the word
"Master", eg the git CVS has replaced the idea of a Master-branch with
"Main branch" (or user-chosen alternative name). Will referring to
skilled professionals as 'masters (of their profession/craft)'
transgress (international or at least US-instigated) 'Political
Correctness'?

What do you think a professionally-recognisable series of skill-levels
for programmers?

--
Regards,
=dn

On Sunday, 13 June 2021 at 05:21:44 UTC+2, dn wrote:
<snipped>
> A group at the King Juan-Carlos University (Madrid, Spain) is collecting
> practitioners' opinions in a bid to categorise Python mastery according
> to the Framework. You may like to contribute by responding to their
> research surveys (one form takes five-minutes, the other fifteen):
>
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdlzWGpvZHLHXl6iEdHbLTB6QvYXknrD9-JKmzY7riYJkPmNw/viewform

>
> Will referring to
> skilled professionals as 'masters (of their profession/craft)'
> transgress (international or at least US-instigated) 'Political
> Correctness'?

Instead of learning some cultural relativity in an increasingly diverse
and interconnected world, we cut ideas from the dictionary and from the
minds, a most blatant application of Orwellian politics. The very fact
that we have to have that discussion is a symptom of the insanity of our
times.

> What do you think a professionally-recognisable series of skill-levels
> for programmers?

- Beginner (every day is a new emergency, this is the 24x7-in-fear
phase: perform simple up to intermediate *programming* tasks);
- after some 10 years: Professional (things start working out with some
reasonable level of control: intermediate to expert programming, basic
to intermediate *design*, basic to intermediate *process and project
management*);
- after another 10 years: Expert (now you know exactly how to tackle
problems and what you are doing, you deliver on time and on budget and
you even sleep soundly at night: expert programming, design and
*analysis*, expert *all round engineering* and consistent high quality).

I am not too keen on the specific labels, just, for reference and
measure, those are the number of years and skills that are actually
relevant to software development (a first draft at least), *the most
complex engineering that there is*. Indeed, most importantly, there is
this issue of what "skills": what all these surveys and programmes and
curricula and, eventually, HR check-lists keep altogether missing is
that *there is more to programming than just programming*, a fundamental
lesson that has been erased from all boards. What is actually being
promoted is rather the demise of the discipline, for some 25+ years now,
i.e. starting with the so called "democratization of programming" in the
mid 90's and the big vendors jumping on it, then just a deluge of
sellers of magic potions together with the systematic mystification and
dismantlement of all that in fact counts, be it formal or agile,
starting with the denial of the very state of the art: an "industry"
that cannot deliver but royal disasters, plus has axiomatized that
better cannot be done... An "industry", its theory as well as its
applications, that is playing bob with the overall dumbing down and
self-subjugation of humanity: contributing to it as much as it is
reflecting it. Master.

Julio

On 13/06/21 3:21 pm, dn wrote:
> Will referring to
> skilled professionals as 'masters (of their profession/craft)'
> transgress (international or at least US-instigated) 'Political
> Correctness'?

And what about all the university degrees with the word
"master" in their names?

Worst of all, will episodes of Doctor Who featuring the
Master be banned?

--
Greg