Colleges righteously gaming the SAT

[financeguy]

The bar exam is pass/fail but you can bet an LSAT score matters, much more than the GRE in other fields. This is because the centralized application database where one applies to all law schools collects the data of applicants (GPA, LSAT, etc) and these number must be included on the school's public disclosure form called ABA 509. This data in part is used by US News and others who rank law schools. As a result, a school can certainly admit who they want, but they are very aware of the "hit" they potentially take by not focusing on the numbers. This not only heavily affects admissions but scholarship amounts.

There is certainly a much different "scouting" environment from different programs. When I was seeing a woman finishing up law school, I went into the cafe on campus while she was finishing something and it was near a hallway that had the OCI (on campus interview) sheets posted. One of the things that struck me was how numbers conscious the employers were. A post might read, "Associate role available at Smith, Jones and Fake, must be in top x% of class at a top y program. Coursework in basket weaving law preferred." Being an attorney is not at all "unaffected by the numbers." Two people, one with an LSAT, class rank and school rank in the bottom quartile will have drastically different initial career opportunities than someone in the top quartile of those things. In addition to the career options, at many programs the people not maintaining a specific class rank or GPA have conditions attached to their scholarships. It's not uncommon for up to half to have their awards reduced or eliminated, based on the numbers.

[ciao_yall]

Not an exaggeration at all. I have eight occupational licenses personally, which is down from ten after I decided to remove two areas of business from my "day job" outside of academia since the cost didn't justify keeping them. You need a license to cut hair, to be an interior designer in some areas, licenses to sell caskets, licenses to be a florist. It never ends. My "one in three" number (up from one in twenty in the 50s) comes from an Institute for Justice Study influenced by an Obama admin study:

https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/occupational-licensing/

Video at the bottom of the page is a good short (five minute) summary.

Given the option, I'd remove all occupational licenses, but I don't live in a world that has been designed to my preferences and thus I have received many of them.

Regarding difficulty, there are many licenses that are "difficult" for reasons totally unrelated to the field. In his article on occupational licenses in Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman gives examples of some of the absurd questions that are present in many exams. If I recall correctly one was related to communism on an exam for something farm related. They're protection rackets and extortion scams, but again, it's not my decision. I have to recognize it's right no matter what, pass the test, and collect my money from what I'm using them for.

To make a broader observation, I believe one of the greatest indicators of success in any field or life in general, second only to the capacity to defer gratification is the willingness to meet the requirements actually present in the world, ignoring our own hypothetical preference.

Sure. I'll happily save a few bucks to go to someone unlicensed to...

• Cut my hair, untrained in sanitation techniques;
• Do interior design, unaware of safety codes;
• Sell caskets, bypassing ethical standards in the funeral industry which works with highly emotional and vulnerable populations;
• Arrange flowers, not knowing plant materials and which are toxic or highly allergenic.

/endsarcasm

[dismalist]

An answer is certification instead of licensing. That way one can choose to whom to go. I would contemplate an certified barber but not an certified doctor.

[Caracal]

Sure. I'll happily save a few bucks to go to someone unlicensed to...

• Cut my hair, untrained in sanitation techniques;
• Do interior design, unaware of safety codes;
• Sell caskets, bypassing ethical standards in the funeral industry which works with highly emotional and vulnerable populations;
• Arrange flowers, not knowing plant materials and which are toxic or highly allergenic.

/endsarcasm

1. There are different ways of enforcing standards. You don't have to take a licensing exam to cook at a restaurant. Instead you have regular inspections. That's a much better of making sure that people are following  safety rules than having people take an exam and it isn't a barrier to entry.

[ciao_yall]

Sure. I'll happily save a few bucks to go to someone unlicensed to...

• Cut my hair, untrained in sanitation techniques;
• Do interior design, unaware of safety codes;
• Sell caskets, bypassing ethical standards in the funeral industry which works with highly emotional and vulnerable populations;
• Arrange flowers, not knowing plant materials and which are toxic or highly allergenic.

/endsarcasm

1. There are different ways of enforcing standards. You don't have to take a licensing exam to cook at a restaurant. Instead you have regular inspections. That's a much better of making sure that people are following  safety rules than having people take an exam and it isn't a barrier to entry.

I would rather know that the people at the restaurant were certified food handlers (that's a thing) rather than hoping they were learning the hard way every time they failed an inspection, or I got food poisoning.

But, that's just me.

[ciao_yall]

An answer is certification instead of licensing. That way one can choose to whom to go. I would contemplate an uncertified barber but not an uncertified doctor.

Okay, take your chances.

https://www.menshealth.com/health/g20138724/skin-infections-barbershop/

[mamselle]

Sure. I'll happily save a few bucks to go to someone unlicensed to...

• Cut my hair, untrained in sanitation techniques;
• Do interior design, unaware of safety codes;
• Sell caskets, bypassing ethical standards in the funeral industry which works with highly emotional and vulnerable populations;
• Arrange flowers, not knowing plant materials and which are toxic or highly allergenic.

/endsarcasm

1. There are different ways of enforcing standards. You don't have to take a licensing exam to cook at a restaurant. Instead you have regular inspections. That's a much better of making sure that people are following  safety rules than having people take an exam and it isn't a barrier to entry.

I would rather know that the people at the restaurant were certified food handlers (that's a thing) rather than hoping they were learning the hard way every time they failed an inspection, or I got food poisoning.

But, that's just me.

I've played in restaurants, not worked as a server in one--and, of course, eaten at quite a few...but my sense has been that it's the combination of knowledge--as attested to by certification--and maintenance--with standards upheld by inspections--that work best.

Just like an MD in a hospital or a lab director in a pharmaceutical has to have the required degrees and certificates in their field, but also has to keep up their CE--continuing ed.--credits to stay current.

Qualifications may have a starting point, but they're not static.

M.

[jimbogumbo]

I'm really unclear on the difference between what is considered  a certification versus a license. I look at what requires a state license in Indiana (link below). To teachers are not on the list, but you must be certified and have a license. However, it is unclear what is different here- the terms seem to mean the same thing. You are licensed to practice law (also not on the list), by passing the bar. I  don'T see much on the list I wouldn't want to require a license.

https://www.in.gov/pla/boards.htm

[dismalist]

I'm really unclear on the difference between what is considered  a certification versus a license. I look at what requires a state license in Indiana (link below). To teachers are not on the list, but you must be certified and have a license. However, it is unclear what is different here- the terms seem to mean the same thing. You are licensed to practice law (also not on the list), by passing the bar. I  don'T see much on the list I wouldn't want to require a license.

https://www.in.gov/pla/boards.htm

One can practice without a certification, but not without a license.

[dismalist]

An answer is certification instead of licensing. That way one can choose to whom to go. I would contemplate an uncertified barber but not an uncertified doctor.

Okay, take your chances.

https://www.menshealth.com/health/g20138724/skin-infections-barbershop/

We are all bad at evaluating risk with which we have no experience. But we do learn.

There are people who insure against the risk of having their tires fail! They will fail anyway at some stage, then buy some new tires!

I once explained this at high volume in a crowded tire and auto repair store in which an employee was pushing tire insurance. The employee glared at me as a threat to his livelihood, which I was, and the customers had no clue what I was saying.

[kaysixteen]

In the public school teaching realm, some states use the term 'certified/ certification', and others use 'license/ licensure'.  They're the same animal.

But wrt 'certifying' people like barbers, rather than making them get state barber licensure, methinks this is an attempt to privatize this process, bypassing states and allowing private, often for-profit, outfits to offer such certification (think the ASC (?) certification certificates many car mechanics display.   And we do know that, like it or not, wrt getting out of warranty work done on your ride, in the USA at least, it remains a Randian/ Friedmanesque caveat emptor environment.

A question for those advocating no state barber licensure, but rather private certification--- do you want to require would-be barbers to play ball with these private certification outfits?   And related to this, if a certified barber messes up, who gets to decide whether he should have such certification revoked?   Also, could a competitor  certification outfit set up shop, much like the competing sporting groups sanctioning boxing matches?

[financeguy]

The problem with your opinion tagged as "that's just me" is that if you're advocating any legal requirement, it will not be "just you." You want government force to compel others with the threat of violence to participate in a shake down racket. What's more laughable is the belief that the training and qualifications that are desired are synonymous with a government fee. The SEC's performance in the Madoff scandal should be sufficient to lessen the trust of a citizen in any regulator.

An example of how things (surprising to many) already are can be found in many financial fields, as follows:

-You don't have to be a CPA, or EA (IRS enrolled agent) to prepare taxes.
-You don't have to be a CFP to provide financial planning services.
-You don't have to be a CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) to sell your analysis of investments or manage institutional funds.

Were I hiring any of the above, would I wish the certifications to be held as part of my decision making process? Sure, in most cases I would. Are there instances where this would not be the case? Sure. A tax attorney filing many types of returns who is not a CPA as well could make sense for some things, as could someone with advanced training in a particular area managing a specialty investment fund.

Again, my point is some requirements are already there in the world and have been decided, which makes them the game to play. They are "right" regardless of my wishes and thus I have an absurd amount of licensing regardless of my personal opinion.

Willingness to meet requirements that actually exist in the world is one of the signs of adulthood. To use a more common example, any single man or woman can complain that women are gold diggers for expecting men to have financial resources or that men are shallow for desiring physical fitness. You can complain about these issues all day long but that will not magically cause a high quality partner to appear. Much more productive to get your financial house in order or hit the gym, both of which are much more difficult than complaining about standards the world has already established that you will not change.

[Caracal]

I've played in restaurants, not worked as a server in one--and, of course, eaten at quite a few...but my sense has been that it's the combination of knowledge--as attested to by certification--and maintenance--with standards upheld by inspections--that work best.

Ideally I think you'd like a system where licensing is actually about fixing certain necessary minimum amounts of knowledge without creating artificial and unnecessary barriers to entry that end up making economic mobility harder.

For example, my understanding about restaurants is that usually somebody in a managerial position in a kitchen is required to get a food handling certification. However, every person working in the kitchen doesn't need to get it. That seems like a good way to try to establish standards without making a written exam a requirement to work as a cook-something that might be a problem for people who may not speak English fluently or could even struggle with writing and reading.

[mamselle]

Indeed.

I've played over the years at hotels where the waitstaff, dishwashers, and others reflected the well-trained population of the most recent area of political unrest in the world at the time.

In the late 1970s-80s most waitstaff were Hungarian. Later, many were from the Dominican Republic. Haitians appeared after that. Many Russians arrived in the 1990s. (My first exposure to this was being asked to play <<Czardas> while taking my break in the kitchen. I omitted a repeat in the music to shorten it, and they knew it...)

Most had extensive schooling in their home countries in food service, dietary needs, and safe food preparation. They didn't need to prove they could read English (in fact, knowing French or Italian was more helpful, given the identities of the chefs and sous-chefs), they just had to do the work well.

Such richness in backgrounds and an ecumenical willingness to work together made it more fun.

M.