Licenses and Certification Aren't Necessary

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 10:53:50 UTC #52

I hear you. Bad unlicensed teachers are bad. Since you've given anecdotal evidence, I'll give you mine. All the licensed teacher I had didn't teach me anything. It's the same story for a lot of kids. However, I did have the internet. I found Dave Ramsey. Yes, he's a christian, but I had an open mind. I'm still an atheists but learned a lot from this "unlicensed teacher" despite all the nonsense about the bible he preached. He led me to the fire movement which led me to warren buffett which led me to Mr. Money Mustache. All these unlicensed teachers I've never met in person taught me so much that I went from poor kid to multimillionaire with only 9 years of work and retired before the age of 30. But no one ever believes me despite evidence.

Merle 2019-08-19 11:09:00 UTC #53

And now you spent your pasttime as a multi milionaire on a random forum on the internet.
I would call this a classic Troll allert.

Multiple people have read that nice article you´ve presented, and they´ve come to the same conclusion, so I am definitely not wasting any of my time on it

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 11:24:49 UTC #54

Yep, you're the type that won't believe the screen shots of my accounts. Nor the research about millionaire. The authors of "The millionaire next door" even joke they're not millionaires because they went for their PhD. But your so closed minded, everything I said is automatically false, and any nonsense argument against me is true.

yansusu 2019-08-19 12:06:00 UTC #55

Actually, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, does it? I mean this doesn't really have anything to do with the original question - which was "Does it make sense if someone with a Doctorate in Mathematics isn't allow to teach math b\c no teaching degree/licence" (just as a reminder in case somebody can't remember after 50+ responses - I often have that problem )

I think most of us (maybe even all?) can agree on some things:
There can be bad licensed teachers, as well as bad un-licensed teachers. Likewise, there can be good licensed, as well as good un-licensed teachers.
Maybe most of us can also agree that different people will learn better in different environments and with or without other people around them. Some children will do great in a class, some children won't and will have a better experience if they're taught at home by their parents, by a private tutor.
There are many things that play into this. E.g. learning in a class doesn't just have to do with the student-teacher relationship but also with student-student relationships. I could imagine that a student that is continually bullied by their classmates will have a very hard time keeping up with their studies regardless of how excellent the teacher is (or whether they have a license or not).

I'd also like to add that people normally don't just learn from teachers. We can learn from any random dude passing by because everybody has things they will know better than others. Some of these people are great at teaching others, some people are just better at learning things from other people even if the average person would say they're very bad at explaining things. This is a matter of interest, intelligence (sorry, not trying to be mean here), time ... - you name it. Many factors play into it.
So, in a nutshell, I think that the whole situation of education is much more complicated than having/not having a license.

In regards to this discussion: I think people have given good reasons and examples for why they prefer teachers to have a license. Just off the top of my hat: That can be everything from being able to trust the person more, to making sure the person knows their stuff in regards to education, to legal reasons ...
In other words, you've actually gotten your answer already. People have told you why they think licenses do make sense in their opinion. Whether you agree with these things or not is an entirely different matter and you're the only one who can judge that. I also don't think that there is any need to 'convince' (since I think I saw this come up somewhere) anybody here. We don't need to have the same opinion on this at all.

AceRagz 2019-08-19 13:00:34 UTC #56

Anyone can claim anything these days. But in the end though I bet that if you were struck down by a serious illness you would be looking for the best licensed Doctor you can afford. Because in all honesty even myself with my phobias about hospitals the second I get seriously ill my butt is rushing to the ER

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 13:07:27 UTC #57

Nope. A doctor yes, but based on reputation not license.

skicoak 2019-08-19 13:11:58 UTC #58

Licenses can also be about accountability and limiting access to items.

As someone who was on the front wave of having to get certified and licensed to use certain classes of refrigerant in the U.S., it wasn't about the ability to service HVAC/cooling systems...it limited individuals from having selective deniability.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 13:15:54 UTC #59

Yep, that's what I said.

skicoak 2019-08-19 13:21:29 UTC #60

That doesn't mean it's a political tool or a form of capitalist's control.

It's so Joe Moron had to account for usage and not drop multiple cans of R-22 into a leaky system.

AceRagz 2019-08-19 13:22:49 UTC #61

Controlling supply isn't necessarily a bad thing. So many prescriptions are abused these days. Look at the posts of people turning Xanax abuse into something they deem fun and harmless when in reality it is a very bad idea. There is control of substances in chemicals as well for farming and other industries where these particular things can be used in home brewed bombs. And also again because some people huff chemicals for dangerous highs.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 13:29:37 UTC #62

Totally agree. A license is not bad in of itself, it's about how it is being used. Which in a lot of cases is a political tool or a form of capitalist's control.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 13:32:53 UTC #63

Totally agree, controlling supply isn't necessarily a bad thing. But taken to the extreme, you end up with a war on drugs that licensed doctor help perpetuate. You're not debunking any of my arguments. If you want to talk about war on drugs I'm cool with that.

AceRagz 2019-08-19 13:38:41 UTC #64

Not here to debunk I started off reading along and participating because you gave out some blanket statements before on new age medicine that made it sound like all of it is licensed. I am also pointing out that control isn't bad in itself because from most of your statements it comes off as you saying that it is a terrible thing.

AceRagz 2019-08-19 14:03:23 UTC #65

You know on second thought because now I am curious as to what your thoughts are on the war on drugs and how this is being flamed by licensed doctors. Because the main drugs we are fighting are:

Cocaine: Once used for pain reliever but was discontinued and later made illegal due to it being addictive and destructive.

Heroine: Once used as a pain reliever. Discontinued because it was found to be addictive and destructive. And made illegal on the same grounds.

Marijuana: Was in use for general pain relief discontinued later due to political views turning against its use. Politicians made it illegal. Doctors later fought for limited use of it for patients with terminal diseases. This helped open the door to allow it for further medical use research. And when Obama began to help legalize it the doors opened up for wider acceptance that it has medical value.

Meth: What possible medical value does this stuff have when you look at the lives it has destroyed. I don't see any at all.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 14:35:31 UTC #66

I've always put control in the context of license and not control itself is bad. As for the blanket statements on new age medicine, yes you're right but I'm sure many would agree that "half of alternative practitioners are physicians" along with various state business licenses legitimizing the business justify the blanket statement.

http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/1/3/173.full

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 14:46:10 UTC #67

I don't about you but I remember things differently. Remember Dr. Sanjay Gupta and how the medical community was on his side. Only a minority of doctors fought for limited use for patients.

How about a more recent example, the Opioid Epidemic.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6139931/

Doctors on the take. South Park even made an episode about it.

Freemints30 2019-08-19 14:54:43 UTC #68

Here the thing. Licenses at the end of the is just to reduce the risk of getting random joe smoes in to really sensitive positions. Yes it bares some people who who may qualify but can't get the license due to a variety of reasons(my mother unfortunately experienced this as a primary school teacher as several things change in the system causing her to lose her position and she, at the time,couldn't afford it) but it is a sacrifice the we have to be willing to make. From what I have seen positions that would hire without a proper licence tends to do it to promote propaganda(an unlicensed biology teacher to teach creationism and young earth to a religious school) or shady companies wanted to promote "proper remedies". At the end of they people would rather trust some one who went throu the effort and time to learn and achieve their license (showcasing the virtues of hard work and knowledge) rather some nobody who only has their word and anecdotal evidence does not count as sufficient evidence.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 15:58:34 UTC #69

You do realized that some of those teachers that teach creationism are licensed.

Those are not private school, but public school that require licenses.

If you bothered to read my sources, you'll know your statement is opinion not fact. Here's one of my sources again that you won't bother to read like everybody else https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.2.176.

The only one who sort of bother was WriterLinXiaolong, but even he didn't bother to read the next paragraph which put thing in context.

Freemints30 2019-08-19 16:58:44 UTC #70

yes I just read thru the abstract, emphasis on some, of them of course in any system there will be outliers(ie people driven by politics rather than logic) that's why people need to push back against licenses driven by such things, instead of just letting it to just happen

My opinion still remains the same, at the end of the day its not about hearsay its about trust, and even if your the best in your field we need something to confirm that your not some random peddler. yes some people get in while being absolutely shit. at that point its the actual school and other businesses to filter out those who legitimately received their certificate from those just paid for it. Certification is just one qualification filter the rest is up to the schooling and cooperate system to filter out the rest.

fifthpaw 2019-08-19 17:14:57 UTC #71

I agree with you 100%. Certification is indeed just one qualification filter. But part of my argument is that those who legitimately received their certificate compare to those that don't have one, studies show the performance is the same. The only reason I'm saying it's not necessary is because of the problems in licensing is so huge that the results in there being no difference in performance between the two groups. I'm pointing out the problems that needs to be fixed otherwise what is the point. For example, how did those creationist get their teaching license? There doesn't seem to be a standard like everybody said there is. Yet people here think I'm against licensing no matter what.