Regarding your boss (if I understand you correctly, forgive me if not) – I’d not feel too odd about having a boss who had not graduated provided that he was competent. We have all experienced the teacher at school who we know to be a bumbling fool, he is ridiculed but doggedly clings to his position of authority – not realising he is only there by virtue of time passing and hoop jumping. Your wording suggests (?) that your boss ‘didn’t graduate’ vice ‘didn’t attend’ TPS - I am sure you could clear the air by asking him why he started but didn’t finish?
This was a generic point, I had no specific individual in mind.
1) Let the qualified and certified TPs/FTEs do the tricky bits (envelope expansion, handling characteristics, new and difficult stuff) and be accredited by virtue of them having completed a TP/FTE course.
So you'd sack, for example most of the flight test team at Scaled, or for that matter one poster above to my knowledge is / has been CTP for several very well respected organisations, published widely on test flying practice, yet not attended TPS. I'm pretty certain you'd also be sacking virtually all of the FTEs and TPs in the British, American, French, Australian, Czech light aircraft industries that I'm reasonably familiar with. Oh yes, and the majority of FTEs at BAE(S), although having worked with a few of them, I didn't notice a particular lack of competence - and much of the rest of the world seems very happy to buy their aeroplanes.
Yes, TPs and FTEs have got to be competent - no debate. But surely it's the overseeing company and authority that should determine that, not graduation from a particular school, nor oversight from (for example) ETPS which is without doubt an incredibly competent organisation but inevitably has teaching staff drawn almost exclusively from a particular parish: UK and US military testing. (And whose syllabus, as various people have said, can't possibly encompass every area of flight test in any reasonable time).
G