Disagreed. There are some problems, and low level hardware is one of them, where you need understanding and not just experience.

so what would qualify one to do this kind of work? a graduate class in parallel programming?

Depends which thing.

- For low level hardware grovelling, you need a sufficient understanding of the workings of modern chip internals.

- For crypto, another "don't invent your own" thing, probably a specialised degree in cryptography and a lot of practical experience.

The bar is simply higher than "I have access to a programming language and think my idea would work".

not going to argue about core crypto primitives - i have no idea what it takes to be able to contribute meaningfully there.

but I have no formal education. and when I started there were no gatekeepers. I mean there were, the MIT grads got to work on much cooler stuff than everyone else.

since then I've collaborated on chip designs and written a metric shitton of low level software - including microcode and alot of parallel synchronization primitives. and when I work with new grads (incl phds), I don't expect them to know any of that really - and we teach them. some of them get it and some of them don't.

not only do I find your emphasis on the 'proper training' misguided - I think its counter productive. unless you're working with a very rare professor, they aren't going to really have a very adequate notion of what new designs are like at all. most of them have had only the most casual experience with industry. your utility to me as a future systems programmer has alot more to do with your general level of talent and your interest in the topic than whether or not someone made you do dining philosophers.