[q7xvh97o2pDhNrh]

> My own feeling is that guilds of all sorts prioritize exclusivity for the purposes of bestowing power on some select few. As the article states "Master’s were few and far between".

One possible reason could simply be there's a lot more future impact to granting someone the final title. If you proclaim someone a "Maestro of C++," then suddenly all the other C++ laborers will get a clear signal that whatever that person is doing is implicitly also what they should do, if they want to move up the ladder.

Beyond that, the top jobs usually comes with required work to train the next generation. So this person would heavily contribute, both implicitly and explicitly, to the future of the C++ guild.

Considering that impact in combination with how hard it would be to undo the decision, it's not surprising that many organizations might be cautious about deciding to hand someone that title.

> clear guidelines, training, testing and certification.

This makes sense, too. For any organization that wants to stay in the business of handing out these titles for the long-term, meaningful transparency is a good way to go about it.

[Wytwwww]

> the top jobs usually comes with required work to train the next generation

Not for free. The reason the system worked back then is that apprentices were basically just a source of extremely labour if not indentured servants outright. They were entirely dependent on their master if they wanted to advance their career.