Licenses and Certification Aren't Necessary

[fifthpaw]

I did read the evidence, and just proved WriterLinXiaolong didn't read it. Maybe you should read it instead of taking someone's word.

[ajcrwl]

so you favour proof and evidence but don't like licenses which are meant to be the proof of competence? oh the irony. maybe some people should request a license instead of taking someone's word about their competence.

[fifthpaw]

1. Mike Pence is on his bullshit. I ain't no republican. I voted for bernie in the primaries against hillary.
2. The point of pewtrust article was to show both side of the argument. You know, pewtrust/pewsearch. Not biased yet you seems to twist words.

as I said, the debate isn't about the need to prove that people are actually competent and won't fuck up. it's about costs.

What are you talking about. That's my argument.

this only breeds incompetence. incompetence and corruption. friends hire friends and acquaintances. quality of work goes down. it gets just as harder to enter the field of work when there's a prerequisite to be somebody else's friend as when you need to pay a ginormous fee for a college and a license.

There's a difference between networking and nepotism.

Nice job on exposing my facts and logic and showing politics doesn't rule you thinking? (sarcasm)

[ajcrwl]

I ain't no republican. I voted for bernie in the primaries against hillary.

have a singular clap from me.

Nice job on exposing my facts and logic and showing politics doesn't rule you thinking? (sarcasm)

this doesn't mean anything, you know that right? stop being so edgy. politics can be a tool to turn your biases into legislations, or it can be a tool to bring some order into society. we can sit here and pretend to not care about it, meanwhile politicians are busy using it one way or another.

There's a difference between networking and nepotism.

okay, explain

as I said, the debate isn't about the need to prove that people are actually competent and won't fuck up. it's about costs.

What are you talking about. That's my argument.

let me rephrase that, "the debate isn't about the need to confirm that licenses are unnecessary as a proof of competence. it's about the costs of acquiring one".

[WriterLinXiaolong]

Again they are not saying its fact, from same article: 5.5, pg 285

We are not able to find any influence
of the relaxation of licensing statutes on blunt, overarching, but important measures of health outcomes.

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.

[ajcrwl]

Chapter 6, pg 287

jesus christ, are there 300 pagess in that text? wtf.

[WriterLinXiaolong]

[ Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 59 (May 2016)]
© 2016 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2186/2016/5902-0009$10.00

It's from this book
So...

[fifthpaw]

there is a need for additional analysis

Doesn't mean their findings aren't fact. It just means more data is required before the study can be more bullet proof. Like I said,

the AMA made it increasing difficult

They are definitely saying

regulating and relaxing provisions for the occupational groups
involved in the delivery of health services can affect both wages and prices

we were not able to find any influence of these
changes in the regulatory climate on infant mortality rates or malpractice insurance rates as
indirect measures of the quality of the service provided. Relaxing regulations does not appear to
change the most serious adverse medical outcomes.

which supports my argument that licenses are political tools.

[fifthpaw]

politics can be a tool to turn your biases into legislations, or it can be a tool to bring some order into society.

That's part of my argument. So I'm wondering if you know that.

the debate isn't about the need to confirm that licenses are unnecessary as a proof of competence. it's about the costs of acquiring one

Again, that's part of my argument. I don't understand what you're getting at? Well at least Andrew Yang agrees with me about relaxing licensing. Or is he too republican for you? Oh wait, he's a democrat

okay, explain

Ok, so read carefully to what I write because all you've done so far was twist words and agree with me without even knowing it. Networking is when you know a someone for example a friend, who is competent and you know will do the job right, so you skip formality because you already found the right candidate, Nepotism is when you know someone for example a friend, who is incompetent but you hire anyways for no other reason then that person being your friend.The key difference is knowing competency. Just because a producer who is friends with steven spielberg hire spielberg instead of some qualified rando isn't nepotism. Sure the rando might be qualified, but the producer doesn't know that. spielberg might be the producers friend but spielberg has already proven himself.

[yansusu]

I'm not a teacher, I don't have a degree in any educational studies either so you won't find me putting out any 'evidence' but this whole thing just made me 'fondly' remember my school days. Back then we had a wide variety of teachers and I remember about three people who I'd deem 'good teachers' while most were the alright kind and some were ... well, people who probably shouldn't teach.

So here's a bit of my experience (I should warn you that this is long but I have a hidden TL;DR at the end so just go look for that if you don't care about anybody's experience.):
- I had an English teacher that was said (nobody ever showed me their license so this is only by word of mouth) to have been working in some factory before and only did some course when they lacked teachers and managed to get into the school. It's partly thanks to this person that my English pronunciation is not up to par (trying to salvage it on my own now but it's hard if you've done it wrong for years) because they needed 3(!) years to point out there was a problem but they never offered any help on how to change that (even though we still had a year left with them). They also taught the whole class the definitely wrong pronunciation for some words which was luckily rectified two years later when we got into different courses and had a new teacher.
- I had a licensed teacher for some subject that incorporated economics, technical stuff and work-related matters. The person was a drunkard that would go and 'copy materials' only to come back without anything whatsoever and then went back to get it because he 'forgot'. Nobody wanted to get even a few steps close to them because you couldn't take the smell.
- I had a licensed teacher who managed to fail their exam twice (as he very proudly told us) but managed to get through on the third attempt. Never learned anything until a to-be teacher currently doing their internship at our school took over the course for two years. Sadly, the person was unable to salvage the situation especially since we got the old teacher back in our last year.
Btw that guy was highly unprofessional. If you were a girl and showed some cleavage you easily got full marks in his course and I had the displeasure of hearing stuff like 'A pretty girl like you should do something in the media' when casually talking about what I intended to do after school. He also had no concept of personal space and even if you shifted away from him in a conversation because you were very uncomfortable with him standing so close, he would just follow you around the room.
- In regard to the internship there's another funny story: The one who tried hard to make up for what that old teacher more or less ruined got an average grade when her course was graded later on. Another internship-person we had at the same time for our history course and who was unable to control the class (people were playing bingo, surfing on the net, talking so loud that you could hardly hear the teacher talk) and was unable to answer anybody's questions (he'd start and then drop off somewhere in the middle) got through it with the highest grade.
Oh, this guy was also the person that prompted one of my classmates to ask the director (who was our history teacher in the next year) why we weren't talking about WWI at all and he just wanted to do WWII with us. Turns out the internship-guy had managed to talk about the stuff before WWI for so long that we missed an entire semester (!) of stuff we should have known. (Which made quite a few people panic because history had an oral exam for several people at the end of school and if you miss that much it's very hard to make up for it.)
- There was also our teacher for political education. He had studied politics but didn't have a teacher's degree. He certainly knew a lot about politics. Sadly, I don't. When we were voting for the Europeen Parliament this year, I had to effing google what it was about and how I was supposed to vote for it. The only thing I actually remember is something about 'Pareto' and some principle where an exchange is supposed to be beneficial to both sides?

These were my worst experiences with teachers I guess. As for the three I'd deem 'good teachers'? Well, two of them were licensed. They taught us what they were supposed to teach us, managed to do some extra stuff, showed actual interest in their students (aka you could always come to them and ask stuff if you didn't know, even if it wasn't about the subject) and one of them even managed to inspire me personally for the following years so that I didn't give up when things didn't go well for me.
The last one wasn't licensed. He was our art teacher and I value him because we did some of the most interesting projects with him we ever did in art class. There was one problem though: He was completely unable to explain what the heck he wanted from us. He literally once told me to 'do nothing' for a project and I didn't understand. I finally did whatever I felt like because at that point, I felt I could only go wrong anyway and his final evaluation after looking at the thing was 'Oh. I actually thought this wouldn't work.' Well, I do expect of my teacher to be able to explain the effing tasks and tell me if he thinks stuff goes wrong because my fucking final mark depends on his course too. I'd deem everything else unfair. So even though his ideas were interesting - and his personality was great - these two things are why I'd say he's a 'good teacher' - he was also kind of bad because he nearly ruined my grade (and that's a huge thing because one of the universities I wanted to apply to had a minimum grade you needed to reach).

Anyway, here probably comes the TL;DR from my experience: A license doesn't guarantee that a teacher will be a good teacher. (I don't think anybody here ever said that though?) But not having a degree doesn't guarantee anything.
From my perspective as a student, I'd still rather have teachers that are certified because at the very least, I'd know they went through some basic stuff and will know what they're supposed to teach us and when. Sure, there will be slip-ups but overall my trust in them will just be higher because I know they did something to get that license.

Oh, fun fact (not my experience though): There were some cases of teachers faking licenses and teaching for several years here in Germany. The students noticed because they didn't learn anything, reported it but (at least in the one case that I remember, the woman was teaching some religion and ethics-related stuff I think) the person in question moved away so the school didn't pursue the matter. The same happened with all subsequent schools where she went until one finally managed to get onto her case and reported her.
I think it's very interesting that the students notice. It just goes to show that just because somebody thinks they can teach something, it doesn't mean they really can. Children aren't stupid. If you're not qualified (regardless of whether you have a license or not), they'll catch onto that quite fast.

[fifthpaw]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[skicoak]

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]

Yep, that's what I said.

Licenses are a liability protection and a political tool

license is really meant to control supply and money

[skicoak]

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]

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.