Licenses and Certification Aren't Necessary

TJSchongar 2019-08-19 01:49:52 UTC #15

Also, a background check and registration with whatever government entity that controls education in your state/province/country, so that the teacher can be properly protected and/or sanctioned.

DiegoPalacios 2019-08-19 02:04:13 UTC #16

how did i forgot to add that?????!!!!! XD, thanks for adding that point!

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 03:00:58 UTC #17

That's really misleading. So to take your example of lawyers, there have been many law suits of where people graduated from law school, pass the bar, but no job. They sue because they were fed lies about employment, salary information, and so on. According to the BLS, there have been more law graduated than job growth for years. It's a known fact the bar license (like the medical license) is really about supply control rather than capabilities. So much so there is a push to change the requirements to work in law such as with California's CBA accreditation rather than the ABA accreditation.

There are also engineering licenses like the IEEE, PE, ASCE, and so on, which engineers really don't care about. I know, because I'm a retired self taught software engineer who worked at Northrop Grumman with no engineering license. I worked with mechanical, electrical and many other types of engineers who also didn't have degrees or licenses. We all know having those certifications doesn't mean anything and is the reason why companies test people if they know their stuff because those certification don't mean anything other than limiting government contracts recipients. The law only requires those license only if working in government and even then sometimes you just need 1 person in the group to have it.

So teacher license specifically, those things you mentioned, again nothing to do with teaching licenses. Yes, they have to do with teachers but not licenses.

Show me a study that shows those with licenses do better than those without than school children as well as I will conceded that licenses are important.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 03:08:40 UTC #18

but a background check is a separate thing from a license.

AceRagz 2019-08-19 03:21:07 UTC #19

Just adding a thought to this. If you hire Joe Nobody without an electrical license or certification and your house burns down due to faulty wiring in some jurisdictions the insurance company may be off the hook for the costs as it will be seen as your fault.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 03:47:13 UTC #20

Yes, that is true. Insurance companies will find all sorts of excuses to not pay out. But that doesn't negate that non license people are just as good or just as bad as those who are licensed. Licenses are a liability protection and a political tool and not what everybody think it is. So I am all for hiring licensed electricians to protect yourself form the insurance companies if something went wrong.

As a side note, in the other thread I mentioned a school hiring a murder as a unlicensed teaching assistant but that was as far as the argument got. Nothing on how people would react if something went wrong or the schools result.

DiegoPalacios 2019-08-19 03:59:50 UTC #21

First, a licence is not a job guarantee.......people who believe that are deluded.....is harsh, but is the truth.

The use of a licence is to opt for a job, but is not a "magic scroll of you`re hired-ness". You still gotta nail your interviews and actually look for jobs.

I agree that in some carreers licences are not neccesary. And of course, taking all those college loans are not worth it if no one is hiring.

A licence doesnt work on itself to give all info needed to hire someone. Psychological tests and interviews exist for a solid reason, but that paper is a complement so save years on research time to see if a person would be adequate for the job.

AceRagz 2019-08-19 04:35:42 UTC #22

Yikes I would take that as an example for not hiring unlicensed people.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 04:39:31 UTC #23

I agree with your all your argument except the

If you look at how employers hire employees, then you would know that paper is the worst way to get a job. This includes lawyers. Employers first go through people they know who would be interested then recommendations from people they know. After all else is exhausted, the outside candidate is considered. If the license isn't required by law, key word being not required by law, then the employers values experience more than having that paper. The paper is near the bottom of the list. If required by law, then you'll find that employers do put that paper at the top but that's a self fulling prophecy.

WriterLinXiaolong 2019-08-19 05:06:28 UTC #24

I think even if it is not required by law, employer would still pick licensed over unlicensed because again, lower risks involved. I really don't know how you see license. To me, when I see someone with license/certificate, especially if it wasn't required by law, that person already have higher advantage than the rest since they know what they are doing.

Edit:

Yes, papers mean nothing in its own but what you put in your paper is what matters. Any information you put out need to have a supporting documents. License and certificates are one of such supporting documents.

Getting license would mean they did their research, work an extra mile to get the license, passed whatever requirement needed to get their license and thus, looks much reliable than an unlicensed one.

GesuGesu 2019-08-19 05:23:08 UTC #25

No, the doctor's license is to prove competency in your studies as an award after years of theoretical medical school and internship at a hospital. This allows any employer to know with a quick glance that this person passes. Second, all countries have some sort of medical board that decides standards for licensing and ability to work.

New age medicine is proven by anecdotes, which is one of the weakest types of proof and evidence. What happened to standards and quality? THE LICENSE is there to prove standard and quality.

I would always pick a piano teacher with an ARCT or Bachelor's of Music over a piano teacher with no certification. If there's 5 teachers out there for hire, why not pick the most impressive one?

I would also not risk picking a doctor, dentist, lawyer, optometrist, orthodontist, etc. without a license because I don't want to get screwed over by an unlicensed practitioner and then not be covered by insurance or have leverage due to their unions.

Honestly, I don't know what kind of mindset you have to believe that licenses and certification aren't necessary in ANY job just because of an article that is more than 10 years old at this point WITH no cited sources or previous research articles referenced. Your linked article is an opinion piece with facts by a qualified writer (excuse the irony), but in no way would that article be published in any academic journal due to the lack of requirements it fulfills.

I am already trying my best to be civil as someone on the side of teaching.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 06:03:44 UTC #26

I view licensing through facts and logic instead of propaganda. Here are the facts, beside the source I listed at the top, here's another. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688093. Licenses does not improve quality. This study along with many others showed no improvement, only rising cost.

Here's an article by pew that gives arguments for both sides about licenses. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/1/30/a-license-to-braid-hair-critics-say-state-licensing-rules-have-gone-too-far

Notice the ones advocating for licenses and saying it protects the public and the usual arguments are the ones who benefits from licenses. But where are the studies that prove what these authorities on the subject say is true? I can't find any. At best I'm given a history lesson like people selling snake oil and licenses put a stop to that. But that isn't true. Snake oil is more popular than ever. It goes by new age medicine and is protected by license such a acupuncture. But I did find studies saying licenses drive up cost and hurt low income people, and don't improve quality.

So when you you think, I want sources.

AceRagz 2019-08-19 06:16:01 UTC #27

I am going to point out that acupuncture licenses are not medical licenses unless the doctor who gains an acupuncture license is already licensed in traditional medicine. Any other forms of new age medicine that is licensed are licensed under non medicinal licenses and they are not allowed to call themselves doctors. And a lot of the truly harmful alternative medicines are not allowed to be licensed at all. This is why new age medicine is mostly sold as books, videos, lessons.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 06:28:15 UTC #28

Where's your source? Here's mine https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688093. And this is from 2016. Is that too old? A downgraded nursing license apparently was just as good as a full doctor's license.

Again where's your source?

Exactly, so why are you giving me your anecdote about you picking license professionals?

What are you talking about? The data is right there. The study used data from the New York City Department of Education, which cover the 1998–99 to 2004–05 school years and grades 3 through 8. The study sample includes 10,000 teachers in total. So a study by a Harvard Professor isn't good enough for you? Then how about the other research that you say wasn't mentioned. https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.2.176 Is the MIT Journal still not good enough for you? What does it being 10 years old matter? It's still relevant. How is it an opinion piece? Like I said, this study gets dismissed because of politics.

Again, where are your sources?

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 06:43:15 UTC #29

They might not be allowed to be called doctors, but they're still licensed.

AceRagz 2019-08-19 06:44:58 UTC #30

Yes but that is acupuncture and chiropractors. Stuff like Miracle Mineral Supplement (industrial bleach in reality) are not allowed to be licensed.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 07:38:45 UTC #31

I do like people who clarifies the details.

WriterLinXiaolong 2019-08-19 07:50:43 UTC #32

This is from the journal of your first link: Relaxing Occupational Licensing
Requirements: Analyzing Wages and
Prices for a Medical Service
Chapter 5.5, pg 283

Even if this pattern does
not hold for some types of health services or for some patients, it is important
to note that if scope-of-practice deregulation leads to an increase in services of
lower quality but with greater convenience

To further assess the quality-related consequences of
allowing NPs to provide more services, we examine evidence of an increase in
major medical errors that could lead to serious injuries or death.

Chapter 6, pg 287

However, there is a need for
additional analysis on more medical procedures and further work on the implications for patients’ quality of care before these results can become the focus of
new public policies.

Despite all their research, they knew their report was still lacking.

The second link is not even a proper journal/article so I won't touch on it.

GesuGesu 2019-08-19 08:00:19 UTC #33

I'm not arguing with you anymore. This is getting on my nerves too much.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 08:32:56 UTC #35

You are absolutely correct, but as I said in my first post

That doesn't invalidate your argument that the study is still lacking. However, that study plus countless others that say the same thing, and the same people who are in favor of licensing blocking it over and over again to cause these problems to make the studies lack, plus studies that have no problems and conclude licensing is a problem is at the very least reasonable doubt.

As I said before and told others, if you cite solid evidence that licensing is good, then I will concede. You just need one. I already provided a few like the MIT journal that people discredit without any valid reasons. However, so far I'm the only one providing sources. I'm the only one saying I will change my mind. Everybody else has their mind fixed and provide no sources of their own to discredit my arguments.