Posted on 05/31/2015 8:53:28 AM PDT by SleeperCatcher
Should government primarily state and local government be able to prevent someone from actually working in a field or profession after they have spent tens of thousands of dollars and perhaps many years on an education from an accredited college or university?
Unfortunately, too many states and localities believe the answer to that question is yes. Their attitude is that unless government gives its seal of approval and always for a fee, of course then somehow trained, qualified and educated men and women are not fit to practice their craft.
Its time to dispel this myth.
(Excerpt) Read more at absoluterights.com ...
My FRiend, I was in no way referring to your self as 3rd worlder, sorry for the misunderstanding.
I was referring to your consideration that professional or skilled trades who hide from the rightful and beneficial, to society in general, regulation and licensing.
Master Plumbers and Electricians, for instance, are required to prove a higher level of technical skill by being licensed to prevent unsanitary or deadly environments in homes and buildings. In Building Trades, their underlings may be licensed for similar protections or simply work under the direction of the Master, to the same effect.
You might be hard to find any Liability that covers poor worknmanship. Take em to court? If they are unwilling to go through a very minor certification and pay for a very minimal license, why would you think they would be willing to live up to the dictates of any court?
Your argument, for NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION is why so many see libertarianism as a faulty concept void of common sense or a realistic understanding of human nature.
Ah - I see the issue...reread my posts - I never said zero govt regs ... I said it should be limited so as not to prevent people with the skills from earning a living and we disagree on what “limited” is.
I even proposed a requirement for liability insurance and also proposed industry certifications - as opposed to govt mandates - as a solution to prevent the ‘uneducated masses’ from being hoodwinked.
My argument - for which I provided examples - is that the licensing and regulation does not provide the safety you profess it does and that the same level of safety can be achieved through other means then GOVT imposed laws and regulations which prevent otherwise satisfactory workmen, such as my dad, from providing adequate services - simply because of $ or cronyism.
Again - my FRiend - I’ll agree to disagree.
Well, guess what? Licensing and testing still doesn’t prevent unqualified medical and legal practitioners from entering the field.
In the beginning school accreditation was supposed to ensure quality of education and uniformity of standards. Accreditation STILL does that and is STILL required, but no longer good enough. Why not? What has changed? If anything, education has gotten better, especially in the sciences, because knowledge has expanded.
Compare the pass rates from the minority schools with the pass rates from the regular schools. (It would be even more striking if you could factor out the affirmative action admissions).
For law schools:
In Texas, compare Texas Southern and St. Marys with the other schools in the state. In Louisiana, compare Southern to Loyola and LSU. North Carolina - compare NC Central with UNC or Duke or Wake Forest.
Then, maybe, you’ll understand why bar exams are necessary.
You’re obviously missing the point. The testing and writing procedures and requirements contained in the accreditation process for higher education was supposed to serve as the ultimate measurement of how well (or how poorly) students performed at the end of their education cycle. Lawyers, physicians, PA’s nurse practitioners and most professions like these all have to pass required written and oral exams over materials presented in their course in order to successfully complete them. Accreditation is a standardized process and thus each school “accredited” to provide an education in [pick your field] must present similar curricula. Included in this process are clinical rotations that also must be performed to standard in order to pass.
Why, then, are these people subjected to ANOTHER round of testing by the State(s) - testing that consists of primarily the *same* materials (and again, always for a fee)? And THEN they must pay to be “licensed,” even though they’ve already proven, twice or even three times, they are competent to practice. It’s ridiculous and unnecessary.
My, how ever did we get along without the blessing of government?
Mississippi was one of the last states to have diploma privileges for the state law school. When Mississippi College got accreditation, they had to take the bar exam. They sued, and Ole Miss grads had to start taking the bar exam. First time out, the pass rate for Ole Miss grads was horrible. Show what the Ole Miss law degree was worth compared to other law schools. Suddenly, a bunch of folks that could have started practicing law upon graduation were kept out until they knew a bit more than they were learning in their accredited university.
On the other hand, I ran across a guy who was complaining that he’d failed the Georgia bar exam 10 times. That wasn’t you, was it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.