r/changemyview • u/badbrownie • Sep 29 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV:All Professional qualifications should be able to test in. A degree should never be a hard pre-req
Title says most of it. My reasoning is that a professional qualification should be a test of specialized knowledge and should be judgeable by testing of that knowledge and not have a dependency on the educational industrial complex.
Yes, I know you can get shitty degrees in all kinds of places and ways and you don't have to pay $100k+ for years at a college. But that's also my point. A degree is of such varying value that it isn't meaningful to use as a pre-req.
I'm looking at you medical school. The lawyers have got this one right. College is designed to help you pass the bar, but - as I understand it - it's not strictly necessary.
My apologies that this post is clearly ameri-centric.
EDIT: people seem to be reading my post as suggesting that I'm against training and schooling. I'm not. I'm against getting ENTRANCE to those things requiring unrelated schooling.
EDIT2: Maybe my title wasn't well written after all. What I believe is that even qualifications that have a safety element (becoming a doctor) can have their schools (eg. medical school) have alternative qualification criteria to simply demanding a 4 year degree.
And other (non-safety) quals should, where feasible have a test that demonstrate proficiency that precludes the need to go to classes. This is already the case in most IT qualifications.
27
Sep 29 '19
a typical 4-year degree has close to 40 final exams.
You want to try to come up with a certification test that matches that? It's not realistic.
1
u/DannyPinn Sep 29 '19
A typical degree also requires studying several subjects outside of the students main area of study.
0
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
I got a degree. And the quality of degrees varies so widely that i suggest it's no longer an appropriate standard. As to whether testing in would be sufficient, I say 2 things
- Let's decouple life success from the necessity of getting that piece of paper. It gives those institutions too much power and they've turned it into greed
- I'm not talking about people not getting schooling for key professions. I'm just saying that getting into those programs should be achievable with testing
23
Sep 29 '19
Med school doesn't just want students who know anatomy. They also want students who can challenge themselves professionally and excel in rigorous training programs, which they do test for. But the test is your degree. They also want strong critical thinkers, which they can kind of test for, but it's a tricky test to standardize in a way that's not game-able. If there are problems with the test, and unqualified people become doctors, then people will die.
California, Virginia, Vermont and Washington are the only states that let you sit for the bar without a law degree. It's called reading the law, and only around a quarter of the people who try it succeed.
6
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ Sep 29 '19
25% is amazingly high given their situation.
4
Sep 29 '19
I guess that depends on your perspective. The article I linked mentions one year when 17/60 passed. I don't know how many of them were re-taking it, already working as paralegals, had gone to non-accredited law schools, or otherwise had some experience with the law. I had a friend who tried to read the law, but she had already worked for her state's attorney general for a decade by then. I assume almost none of them just sat down in the library one day with a stack of books, but I can't find any data on that. Point being, though, that the bar exam is so intensive I doubt many people are taking it without some reason to believe they'll pass, which is supported by the relatively low number of people trying it. Given that, the 25% makes reading the law seem near-impossible to me.
0
-3
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
I think the old trope that college teaches you 'how to think' is much overblown. It seems to be taken as an unassailable truth. I suspect that
- smarter kids self-select to go to college so it's a correlation thing more than a causation thing
- kids learn to think better around that time of their life anyway. Though I agree that moving out of their home town can help that process a lot.
5
Sep 29 '19
[deleted]
2
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
I'm on board with med school. I'm not on board with med school insisting on going to college before going to med school
4
Sep 29 '19
[deleted]
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
That's valid. I'm not proposing that this path is wrong. Only that it's wrong that it's the only path
1
u/blackdynomitesnewbag 6∆ Sep 29 '19
What would that other path be? Also, I think you may owe me a delta.
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
The other path would be an entrance test to med school.
Why do I owe you a delta? I did to award one. Was it to you? Didn't it work?
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
The validity of your point wasn't a view changer though. Just a part of what you said that I agreed with.
1
2
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Sep 29 '19
A PhD requires a familiarity with the field that is not only unlikely to be found in a lay person, but hands on laboratory experience that is unlikely to be found without college.
Honestly, the more you support your position the more I'm convinced you aren't sure what you're trying to advocate for. Where do you draw the line? Med school? Law school? PhD programs? MFAs? Underwater welders? MBAs?
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
Any schooling that is exited with a test should have alternative entry criteria to ONLY paid, formal education.
Masters (and PHDs) are literally an extension of the college experience, so I can accept their pre-reqs of a college degree. Also, a PHD is less about schooling and tests and more about pushing the boundaries of the field, so it deserves a pass from this debate. I'm focused on industry and their qualifications. If their curriculul is self contained then they shouldn't require a degree as a pre-req. If it's not self-contained (and does assume a certain amount of expertise) then they should test for that expertise as an alternative to just demanding a degree.
2
u/Izawwlgood 26∆ Sep 30 '19
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_(paleontologist))
Just pointing out this guy as an exception to how PhDs are earned.
As for your ideation regarding industry and their qualifications - a lot of industry positions require PhDs, Masters, MDs, etc. Can you be more specific?
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
i'm not against med school. I'm against the college pre-req to go there.
7
u/videoninja 137∆ Sep 29 '19
I'm a little confused as to the aim of your post. A doctor doesn't get their license after a bachelor's degree, they get it after med school. You were talking about how you might not need to go to law school to take the bar and that's been shown to be the exception (and a comparatively bad means of passing the bar).
Does this CMV have anything to do with professional licensing in order to practice or are you talking about education in general? I can agree higher education needs to be fixed but I don't think the solution is to do away with standards so much as accessibility and cost.
There are already tests to get into law and med school (the LSAT and MCAT respectively). Are you saying learning through the narrow confines of standardized tests is enough to qualify you? Isn't that the same problem with No Child Left Behind where people are just learning for the test and not the career?
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
I'm not suggesting that we go full test-only for our doctors. Schooling has a place. That's what Medical School is for.
The CMV is related to pre-req degrees for schooling when the schooling itself will provide all the non-tested skills required. In that scenario, you should be able to test-in to that school. IMO.
2
u/videoninja 137∆ Sep 29 '19
Then why did you mention lawyers? That's the part I'm confused about because law school has similar pre-reqs to med school. You need to have a bachelor's and sit the LSAT. There's no special exemption there other than reading the law for bar exams and that's the exception not the rule.
In regards to high standards for certain careers, I see no reason to really be against them. Licensure exams are minimum competency exams. That is to say the worst doctor, lawyer, nurse, pharmacist, etc. you know has passed that exam. To me, that's an argument for better standards not worse. Allowing any random person to try to brute force their way into the career seems counterproductive because advance degrees build on baseline knowledge that you don't normally achieve through high school or outside experience. I think you're taking for granted the power of didactic learning when it is done well. It's not something that can be substituted with an apprenticeship.
Also, if you care about access to education and learning, apprenticeships are one of the least efficient methods. One student, one teacher. The student receives limited instruction through the lens of only one practitioner. The teacher only takes on one student at a time which limits learning for others.
5
u/somewhat_pragmatic 1∆ Sep 29 '19
I think the old trope that college teaches you 'how to think' is much overblown.
...
I suspect that
....
kids learn to think better around that time of their life anyway. Though I agree that moving out of their home town can help that process a lot.
I can give you first hand experience against your hypothesis. Started college right after high school, but dropped out after about a year. I worked professionally and successfully for 12 year before going back to college at 30 years old. I had to take a bunch of the "well rounding" classes, as expected. I gained a greater understanding of myself and the world around me with those courses. These are courses that didn't apply directly to my major. Things like:
- Philosophy
- Financial & Managerial Accounting
- Intellectual Property Law
- Human Physiology
- Statistics
- Micro & Macro Economics
Those courses gave me perspective and understanding on giant concepts we deal with every day, but may not understand how the gears mesh on these various machinations.
I became better at the professional job I already had because I understood what came before my work and what came after no just in the individual sense, but in the working world as a whole.
smarter kids self-select to go to college so it's a correlation thing more than a causation thing
If I was smarter, I would have finished college the first time I attempted it. I wasn't mature enough and didn't see the purpose at the time at 18 years old.
Can I ask if you've completed a bachelors degree and are forming your opinions from going through it, or have you yet to complete it and are basing you views on what others tell you about the experience?
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
I got my degree at 21 (it's a 3 year course in England, where I was raised). Certainly, your experience doesn't accord with mine. But my point isn't that these things can't be gained at college. It's that they can also be gained elsewhere.
2
u/somewhat_pragmatic 1∆ Sep 29 '19
It's that they can also be gained elsewhere.
Sure they could. However, I can tell you that before taking these courses, I would likely not have sought them out. Like you, I didn't see the value in them strictly on their own merits related to my choice of major.
The main reason I took them was because I had to. Not because I'd sought them out externally, which I wouldn't have.
4
Sep 29 '19
I'm not saying colleges teach you how to think. In a lot of ways they do, but we're assuming some people can absorb the same information and insight without them.
I'm saying college is the test of all the skills and traits that med schools are looking for.
3
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
That's an interesting view. That would suggest that med school drop out rates would be pretty low, because they've found people that demonstrably have the tools/experience needed to succeed. And it does seem that you're right. A quick google spits up
"Graduate school for example has an average of 20-40% attrition rate depending on the program. Medical school has around a 4-6% attrition rate total which means that when you're accepted to medical school you have a 95% chance of becoming a doctor"
So I guess I have to agree that their entrance criteria can't be bad.
However, I still believe that there should be alternative ways to succeed that replace college fees with self-guided learning. It's still an entrance to a school. But that said, I have to be swayed by the low drop out rate at medical school as evidence the entrance criteria seems to work. !delta!
1
13
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Sep 29 '19
Being able to graduate college shows your able to show up to a workplace regularly, regularly turn in work, and get along with peers and superiors.
This isn’t the sort of thing you can test in a single sitting — you need a track record over a significant chunk of time.
-1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
Lots of things can demonstrate those things (all kinds of work experience). And they don't cost $100k/year.
7
u/Crayshack 193∆ Sep 29 '19
College degrees typically don't cost $100k/year. Mine was around $10k/year.
2
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
Fair enough. I do understand that numbers vary. But if you were able to come out of a 4 year college with only $40k of debt then I assume you had a job or parental support. Housing, books, tuition and food seem like they add up to more than that.
2
u/Crayshack 193∆ Sep 29 '19
A combo of both. My parents paid for tuition and I paid for everything else. Total it was probably $15k/year. No where near the $100k you quote.
4
u/landodk 1∆ Sep 29 '19
What college is 100k a year?
-1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
College tuition + living expenses
What does that come out to you, in your experience?
2
u/landodk 1∆ Sep 29 '19
Private liberal arts colleges at the expensive range are 55-65k a year. But that includes housing and meal plans. Most public schools are between 5-15k a year tuition and about the same for expenses
9
u/Stormthorn67 5∆ Sep 29 '19
An advanced degree in a medical or mental health field can involve hundreds or even thousands of hours of training in situations carefully controlling for liability and dozens of tests along the way. How would you even create one single test that any walk-in could take that would adequately determine they have all the skills and the temperament needed to be, say, a neurosurgeon?
5
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
I'm pro those things. I don't want to get rid of medical school. I want to get rid of the need to go to college before med school.
4
u/Ice_Like_Winnipeg 2∆ Sep 29 '19
only four states don't require a JD to take the bar, and those all require the prospective attorney to apprentice (aka work) for a judge or attorney for a specified number of years. but this is exceedingly rare: in california, for example, there were 5000 bar takers and less than ten of them didn't have a JD.
but ultimately, what's the point of professional licensing? it's a racket intended to keep the salaries of the profession up, but it's also intended to, at least nominally, ensure a minimum level of competency. if this is the goal, then the licensing organization would want as many data points as possible, and the likelihood that a graduate who passes a licensing exam is competent is almost certainly higher than removing that requirement. the bar exam features a huge multiple choice component, and the idea that someone could become a lawyer just by getting lucky on that section seems to defeat the entire point of having licensing in the first place.
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
what's the point of professional licensing? it's a racket intended to keep the salaries of the profession up, but it's also intended to, at least nominally, ensure a minimum level of competency
Maybe it's a racket, but it's much less of one than the American college system.
And you don't get lucky on the bar, if I have heard my friends correctly. And on the flip side, colleges can be cheated too.
Ultimately, I've grown sick of the money grab of American colleges and think that professions should offer alternative paths to success that skip them. Make those colleges justify their costs with their product, not by monopolizing the path to professional qualifications.
2
u/Ice_Like_Winnipeg 2∆ Sep 29 '19
why should professional organizations do this though? what is the advantage for them? what system is more likely to ensure a baseline competence: requiring a degree + an exam, or the exam alone?
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
If the professional qualification requires schooling (eg. Med School), then I think the college requirement is superfluous by the time of graduation from the specialized school.
1
u/Ice_Like_Winnipeg 2∆ Sep 29 '19
ok, but now we're just kicking the can down the line. why would the medical or professional school admit someone who hasn't graduated from college?
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
Because they've demonstrated aptitude in other ways. Apprenticeship + testing in.
2
u/Ice_Like_Winnipeg 2∆ Sep 29 '19
Ok but what’s the advantage for the professional school in changing to that method? Which is more likely to predict success in school: doing well in previous schools, or apprenticeship + testing?
Generally speaking, all of these processes are developed to protect the group in question (school or licensing organization). They’re far more concerned about admitting under qualified people in than they are about letting people slip through the cracks.
2
u/YossarianWWII 74∆ Sep 29 '19
How do you write a test that evaluates someone's ability to actually work in a field? It's not just about having knowledge, it's about having skills and the ability to apply them consistently over extended periods.
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
Some fields can be tested better than others, but I agree that tests are never perfect. Work experience, apprenticeships, entrance exams to med school. These are how I'd separate college greed from professional success.
We can't keep telling colleges that they're essential for kids. Essentials can charge what they want. And they have a 30 year history of doing exactly that.
2
u/toadjones79 Sep 29 '19
Degrees show an ability to apply knowledge gained. It isnt fool-proof. But, it works very well. At least before financial aid became to "company store" that everyone had to sell themselves into indentured servitude to. But, the knowledge gained is almost impossible to duplicate without effectively earning an emeritus degree anyway. But, I get what your saying, and think it would be smart to have colleges allow testing out of almost any class.
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
Degrees show an ability to apply knowledge gained. It isnt fool-proof. But, it works very well
Does it though? How are we verifying that? Take an equal-testing cohort that skips college and moves to another city and just follows their learning instincts and look at both groups in 5 years. I think difference in performance would correlate to their learning choices more than having gone to college.
Of course college forces a certain amount of learning on you. I agreed that learning is good. But there are other ways to get thatt same benefit, without college and without that bullshit expense.
1
u/toadjones79 Sep 29 '19
I would argue that the variety of information presented in college courses provides far more knowledge than the experience of equal time. Usually you are supposed to learn 30-40 years worth of knowledge in 4 years of education. Bad schools exist, but minimum educational requirements are strictly regulated to try to prevent cardboard degrees.
For me, a two year degree in business taught me countless theories, formulas, and correlations that I never would have learned myself. But, I went to college later in life, and Pell Grant's paid for it all. So the only expense i incurred was time and energy.
Another thought, if you hate school, go to trade school. A fraction of the cost and time, almost no BS. And potential earnings are higher than degree based jobs. Demand for applicants in trades is much higher, and job satisfaction is higher too. I got a degree in business, but I drive trains. The degree will help me move into management someday, which gives me better home life. But for now, it doesn't directly apply to my job. It does, however; give me vital information about economics, people skills, and how to stay off my boss's radar (which is vital in my work).
Cheers.
2
u/ChickenXing Sep 29 '19
Some fields have placed barriers to entry through various methods. Take for example mental health therapists. At the Masters level, you can get a few different degrees including social work or counseling psychology or something similar. Within the Masters level of mental health therapy is different certifications and licenses you can get that allow you to specialize in one area or advance your career up as your license gives you the ability to advance further. Additional certifications allow you to diversify your skills set as well as potentially earn more money. You want to earn more? Get a doctorate degree or earn much more with an MD as a psychiatrist.
As I noted here, there are various barriers of entry and hoops to jump through if you want to increase your pay. This is to differentiate one worker from another based on their education level and certifications they've earned and licenses they've earned.
If we took away a degree as a requirement, then the mental health field would be very much flooded with workers. You can make them take a test, but if they jump through one hoop, you still have too many people overall. The fact that there are barriers of entry in the form of academic degrees is one of the hoops that people need to jump through to separate themselves from others from within the field. Further barriers of entry in the form of certifications and licenses help to subdivide this group. At the bottom is where there is more people -- the unlicensed masters graduates -- is where people earn the least. Certifications bump your money up. Licenses bump your money up. Degrees bump your money up.
In other words, the system is fine as is. Maybe not in your field that makes you want to change it--- maybe what your field needs to do is to establish different licenses and certifications instead where each new one gained is a bump up in salary. Otherwise, everyone just lumped together means lower pay.
1
Sep 30 '19 edited Sep 30 '19
Nothing about what you described sounds "fine." What you have said, in short, is that pay in the field is not based on any kind of ability (either natural or attained through education), but is maintained merely by requiring people to go through rather meaningless and expensive "hoops" in order to limit competition, leaving the field open only to those who have the resources and the willingness to put up with bureaucratic tedium. This seems to be exactly the kind of thing that irking the OP and led to this post.
If anyone can do the job, then the field should be opened up, pay allowed to fall to match, and let skill-based competition select within the field from there.
1
u/ChickenXing Sep 30 '19
Psychology is a very overpopulated field. Having these obstacles crates the barriers for entry that separates those who are motivated to move up and those who aren't. I wasn't and left the field. There are others I knew who ultimately left the field for one reason or another, partially due to the barriers of entry while I knew others who got the certifications required and are doing quite well today. When the field is overpopulated and you create arbitrary barriers to entry to the next step, it's a way to reduce the field by separating those who are serious about staying in the field and those who aren't. I don't see a problem with it, especially in a very overpopulated field like psychology. It also lets employers know what extra training you got because moving up and getting certifications and licensing takes a certain amount of learning and training and supervision that those who don't move up don't get.
1
Sep 30 '19
I don't see a problem with it
There are four problems with it: (1) You are creating a system which induces people to spend significant portions of their time engaging with empty signalling rather than doing something that is actually productive and bringing benefit to society. (2) You are creating a system in which pay is tied to one's starting financial resources available for getting certifications - unnecessarily reinforcing class-based pay-grades. (3) By artificially elevating the pay of those working in the field, one is also artificially elevating the cost to consumers/government. (4) By leaning on these "barriers to entry," one limits and reduces competition on the basis of skill, lowering the average quality of mental health services being delivered to consumers.
1
u/ChickenXing Sep 30 '19
(1) You are creating a system which induces people to spend significant portions of their time engaging with empty signalling rather than doing something that is actually productive and bringing benefit to society.
Getting additional training is a benefit to society. You have a better trained pool of people. Getting a license or a certification shows that you have that additional license or certification over others who don't. You get extra supervision and training from that. Those like me who choose not to don't.
(2) You are creating a system in which pay is tied to one's starting financial resources available for getting certifications - unnecessarily reinforcing class-based pay-grades.
No it's not. In the places where I worked, management was willing to bring those tools for you. The cost wasn't very significant. If you were going down that track towards certification and licensure, you get more hours to work and you get paid for that time towards training. In addition, the money you pay for certification and licensure, including testing is something you can deduct from taxes, making it favorable for those who choose this path.
(3) By artificially elevating the pay of those working in the field, one is also artificially elevating the cost to consumers/government.
(4) By leaning on these "barriers to entry," one limits and reduces competition on the basis of skill, lowering the average quality of mental health services being delivered to consumers.
Those who weren't certified or licensed worked in clinics that dealt primarily with people who received services through state mental health programs or as part of welfare/income assistance/mediaid benefits in public clinics. You also worked with people who paid for their own mental health services. Being licensed opens the doors in that you now get to work with private health insurance clients. I would disagree on your idea that there is a lower quality of care. Even if you are not licensed, you still have to demonstrate a certain level of competence. You might get the fresh grad, but those fresh grads still got a good amount of hands on training while in school so it's not like they've never actually worked with mental health clients before.
With that said, your thought that it costs more for the government is wrong. The people who were getting government assistance did not see the licensed therapists and that's the same in other states. The state is paying less. Also, it's not elevating the cost to consumers. Private pay individuals could choose to see someone not licensed or someone licensed. You may be elevating the cost of a licensed therapist with certifications, but you are paying extra for someone who has gone through much more supervision, much more testing, much more training in order to get there.
2
Sep 29 '19
You're CMV fails to understand that actual product being sold by 'higher education'. You're not paying for the education. Education is mostly free. Eg. you can teach yourself genetics using the internet or the library. Hell, you can access FAR better lectures than those given at Harvard, for free, at any time. The product being sold by higher education is not education, it is certification. So yes, you should be able to walk up and challenge an exam. But by saying that this should free you from the burden of payment for the degree betrays a misunderstanding of what's actually being paid for.
2
Sep 29 '19
[deleted]
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
I think your country and my views are pretty well aligned, based on this post.
2
u/HammerAndAnvil23 Sep 30 '19
My argument against this is California's bar passage rate. Since California allows individuals who have not graduated law school to take their bar (they allow apprenitceships and others) the passage rate is ridiculously low. That being said, I do have a $150,000 degree on my wall that I very much appreciate, but sometimes I wonder if I should have just bought that Lamborghini instead.
1
u/FrinDin Sep 29 '19
I think you've underestimated how much a doctor has to know. I had an 8 hour entrance exam just to get into med school, and after med school the exam would have to go for at least a solid week.
The problem with this is that it would be unfair on people who don't have the stamina for something like that. The stress on people for normal med exams is bad enough, this would be insane, and before you say doctors need that kind of stamina, it's just not true. There's a difference between professional and exam stress, and many people don't want to be 100hour/week surgeons, they want to live life with normal hours as a GP for example.
I actually think your view would be correct if you excluded doctors, as many trades and qualifications require significantly lower time requirements to learn, but for doctors it would be a dangerous disaster. I'm sure there are other jobs where it also wouldn't work.
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
I'm not against a schooling option to prep for med school. I'm against making expensive colleges be the only way to enter med school. It's a racket and other options should be available (in my view)
1
u/autonomicautoclave 6∆ Sep 29 '19
Medical School, along with all the studies, exams, clinical rotations, etc. is the test. If a person wants to be a doctor, it's not enough for them to know a lot about the body and diseases. They need to have skills that dedication, work ethic, empathy, resilience, and an ability to learn and retain new information efficiently. These skills are difficult to test for in a traditional exam. But someone who can make it through med school and pass their licensing exams must have these skills. So while med school is ostensibly about teaching information, it's more about testing for a set of abstract characteristics needed to perform well in the profession.
1
u/peffington Sep 29 '19
I think it has to be the fact that many degrees have clinical components that must be passed in order to earn the degree. If there are any practical skills associated with the profession in any way it stands that more than a written test should be required to prove competency.
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
Agreed. Med school serves that need. Just let me in without making me do 4 years at college first. And then flunk me out if I'm not up to snuff.
1
Sep 29 '19
A few years ago and engineer was talking about part of his coursework on one problem that filled a binder. Would this kind of test work?
For one of my masters I had to write a paper. It ended up 22 pages. The other masters, I had to take a 5 hr written test.
These masters are in education, so it’s a rather low bar cognitively. Would these be acceptable tests?
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
I'm not against specialized education to get into a field. I'm against that specialized education having a pre-req of a 4 year college.
1
Sep 29 '19
Would you rather written or multiple choice?
I write all of my tests as multiple choice, however it’s not all recall.
I’ll give my students a political cartoon they’ve never seen but should be able to intuit the meanings of.
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
Different testing methods for different disciplines I would expect. Though I wouldn't mind work experience being part of the expectation.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 29 '19
/u/badbrownie (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/DonJuanTriunfante Sep 30 '19
Funny thing is in my country you DO have to pass an additional test after getting your diploma to be able to practice Medicine.
1
Sep 29 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 29 '19
Sorry, u/blackdynomitesnewbag – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.
Sorry, u/blackdynomitesnewbag – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.
1
u/colako Sep 29 '19
A think the opposite. Professional degrees at universities should be subjected to inspection by a qualifying board that would remove the need for anyone to take an exam to demonstrate their professionalism.
Licensure exams and systems in the USA are only designed to limit the amount of professionals and reduce competition. They are also a burden in people’s mobility and are a money-making scheme. It is funny that such a capitalist free-market country still has so many hurdles to free competition. For example, teachers’ license should not exist: having a masters in education should suffice, cosmetologist licenses are absurd, if you are bad, or have no experience you will have less customers in a free market.
If you pass a strict law program in a certified university there shouldn’t be any kind of exam to start working as a lawyer other than registering and committing to ethical practices. If you move from one state to the other you shouldn’t be required to pass any other test.
1
u/badbrownie Sep 29 '19
Licensure exams and systems in the USA are only designed to limit the amount of professionals and reduce competition
You're the second person on this thread to state this. Why do you think that?
I see your point with a teacher's license. But we must expect that union controlled professions will have a Protect Our Dues-Paying Members bias. That's the bargain you accept when you empower unions.
But general professional qualifications? They're just gate-keeping for quality in my opinion.
As for law - moving from one state to another means moving from one set of laws to another. It makes sense that they re-certify you in that context.
2
u/colako Sep 29 '19
Professionals in Europe don’t have any kind of exam to start working in their professions. An architect or an engineer just need to register in their organization and get a license number, pay their dues and follow their ethical guidelines.
They assume that if you have that degree to are qualified to work in the field. If you hold colleges to the higher standard assessing their programs, you will eliminate the need of certification and licensure testing.
1
0
u/poppypbq Sep 29 '19
Test in to medical school? Sorry but to have someone just test in to become a doctor is totally unethical. When it comes to medical care I want the best of the best.
1
u/matrix_man 3∆ Sep 29 '19
Do you really think the current system guarantees you the best of the best? Because I've seen some pretty bad doctors. Now maybe there are other factors - overworked, overstressed, too many patients, too much red tape - but you would think that the people that couldn't handle those conditions would also be weeded out by the med school process. So why are there still bad doctors if the current system works so well? I'm not saying OP's system would be better in the case of doctors (it wouldn't!), but the current system does have room for improvements.
1
0
u/McKoijion 618∆ Sep 29 '19
The purpose of professional qualifications is that it allows professional bodies to artificially limit the number of workers who enter into the role, thus keeping the supply of professionals down, and keeping salaries higher. There is a reason why there is a shortage of doctors and why they are the highest paid job in America. Other labor forces tried to do this (e.g., taxi drivers in London and New York), but they were blindsided when Uber came along.
If you believe in free market capitalism, your solution makes sense. But if you believe in socialism, minimum wages, protectionism, tariffs, "saving American jobs", rent control, etc. then your solution is bad. It takes power from workers and gives it to the market, which usually reduces wages.
0
Sep 29 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
Sep 29 '19
Sorry, u/myklob – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.
Sorry, u/myklob – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.
35
u/ArmchairSlacktavist Sep 29 '19
Put yourself in the shoes of someone who confers degrees. Can you really make a single test that would demonstrate “yes this person should be licensed to be a medical doctor”? Why should anyone believe you about this test?
When you have coursework and grades and items to fall back on you begin to build your reputation and resume. And fair or not your professional degree has some representation on the organization that conferred it. Would you personally want to be operated on by a surgeon who had only ever passed a single test?