5 ms·

Since you would have disagreed, can you explain why you think 52 hours of clicking "next" is a necessary step in becoming a broker? Zenefits employees did pass

Since you would have disagreed, can you explain why you think 52 hours of clicking "next" is a necessary step in becoming a broker? Zenefits employees did pass the exam, and they possess the knowledge you believe is necessary. It's just that the law requires 52 hours of clicking before you are even permitted to take the exam. Why do you think this is a good law?

arihant 11y ago
It's not an exam to pass. A license must be earned continuously by practising within law. A license would be taken away even if you have the best knowledge but are even slightly off on ethics of practice. A policeman can be strongest, but a sexual harassment case will disqualify him. When I see a broker license, I know I'm dealing with a knowledgeable, honestly practising professional. Can't say that about Zenefits anymore. They must lose license. EDIT: You can give credit to any kind of cheating with the reasoning you gave. Why is SAT I verbal section important in a student becoming an electrical engineer? He should be allowed to cheat, according to you?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Scroll up: the question is not whether Zenefits should obey dumb laws. CPLX said he would argue that the law in question isn't dumb. I think a person should be allowed to take the SAT without actually being obligated to click "next" for 52 hours. If they don't know the material they'll get a low score.
  - arihant 11y ago
    This is not SAT unfortunately. Your score and your behaviour are both needed for a license. Besides, in situations like these attendance policy is important. You can't test every single edge case possible on a test. The state has to answer if a license holder says "I did not know X." As a taxpayer, you would question why the hell does a person who does not know X has state license to practice? Unless you're asking every person to recite the whole textbook, the only way to be sure is an attendance policy.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Attendance policies and requiring 52 hours of "next" clicking also don't ensure that a person knows all the edge cases. What exactly do you believe that clicking "next" repeatedly tells you about a person's behavior? (Again, remember that the question is why 52 hours of clicking is a good law. If a person didn't click for 52 hours when the law didn't require it, that would not be evidence that they are willing to violate unjust laws.)
      - untog 11y ago
        the question is why 52 hours of clicking is a good law It isn't. It's 52 hours of study, everyone is latching onto "clicking" to make a disingenuous point. Almost every exam you take is intended as an assessment of your knowledge, not "are they able to recite answers to 10 questions in a 2 hour period inside an exam room"
        punee 11y ago
        If the exam is intended as an assessment of your knowledge, then why should it matter how much time you spent acquiring that knowledge?
        arihant 11y ago
        It doesn't matter. The requirements of license seem to be 52 hours of mandatory study/attendance and passing the exam. Zenefits clearly cheated on one of the requirements. the state wants you to make sure you read everything and that you can answer questions about it. It doesn't seem like a stretch at all, especially considering people run their livelihoods based on that license. It's a license to conduct a proper practice and a career.
        punee 11y ago
        The point is that those requirements seem redundant.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
CPLX 11y ago
You're being disingenuous. The requirement isn't "clicking next for 52 hours" it's spending that amount of time studying an online course. You're required to actually pay attention for 52 hours and then certify that you did. For another example, the requirement inherent in a multiple choice exam isn't a matter of "filling out a semi random sequence of the letters A, B, C, and D" it's knowing the answers to the test. The filling out the letters is a signal that you know. Signals aren't perfect, in that example if you don't know but copied answers from someone else that's cheating and the signal would be unreliable then, and you've subverted the actual intended requirement. The requirement in this case is spending about a week of your life actually studying this material and the clicking of the next button as well is a signal that you did it. Don't confuse the means with ends. You could have argued that the amount of hours spent studying the material is also a useless metric. But that's a more nuanced argument that you haven't made, and one that has defensible positions on both sides. Clearly clicking next isn't a meaningful requirement, but so what, it's not actually the requirement. Spending time studying is, and they cheated and lied about it.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  What the law actually requires is clicking for 52 hours. But lets take your claim as a premise; why is it important that a person spend time learning? Suppose two people know the material equally well, but one of them learned it faster than the other. Why is that a good regulation? How does it benefit consumers to make it illegal to learn things fast? I know a former algebraic geometer (lots of category theory) who learned Haskell very rapidly. Would it benefit consumers of his services to pass a law saying he needs to learn Haskell at a slower rate comparable to a RoR hipster without a math PhD?
  - CPLX 11y ago
    I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you have no idea what the law actually requires in detail. It's ok neither did I. Here's an example of what it looks like, there is a lot more on the linked pages, which collectively comprise the actual requirements: https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID813F6A0622011E4A9828577DD5F1BF2?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default) https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID813F6A0622011E4A... > why is it important that a person spend time learning? Suppose two people know the material equally well, but one of them learned it faster than the other. Why is that a good regulation? How does it benefit consumers to make it illegal to learn things fast? I don't know. But I do know that basically every educational institution requires some level of engagement measured in time. You can't just pass tests to get an undergrad degree or a PhD either. The requirement to spend actual time is hardly cruel and unusual. I also know that the requirements were clear enough to be known to Zenefits and they willfully evaded them. What is the difference between a Harvard graduate in Economics and someone who attended and completed all the requirements for an Econ degree but was short one art elective class and never got a degree? Should he just fudge his job applications since the art class isn't important? What's the difference between someone assigned 100 hours of court ordered community service who did it and someone who went back to court with forged paperwork saying they did it? In all the examples, and Zenefits as well, the difference is that the person is committing fraud, is lying, and is not ethical. Cheating on requirements isn't the same as arguing to change the rules, regardless of how confused you continue to pretend to be about it.
st3v3r 11y ago
Yeah, no. You're oversimplifying this, and pretending like all there is is clicking "next".

arihant 11y ago

It's not an exam to pass. A license must be earned continuously by practising within law. A license would be taken away even if you have the best knowledge but are even slightly off on ethics of practice. A policeman can be strongest, but a sexual harassment case will disqualify him. When I see a broker license, I know I'm dealing with a knowledgeable, honestly practising professional. Can't say that about Zenefits anymore. They must lose license. EDIT: You can give credit to any kind of cheating with the reasoning you gave. Why is SAT I verbal section important in a student becoming an electrical engineer? He should be allowed to cheat, according to you?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Scroll up: the question is not whether Zenefits should obey dumb laws. CPLX said he would argue that the law in question isn't dumb. I think a person should be allowed to take the SAT without actually being obligated to click "next" for 52 hours. If they don't know the material they'll get a low score.
- arihant 11y ago
  This is not SAT unfortunately. Your score and your behaviour are both needed for a license. Besides, in situations like these attendance policy is important. You can't test every single edge case possible on a test. The state has to answer if a license holder says "I did not know X." As a taxpayer, you would question why the hell does a person who does not know X has state license to practice? Unless you're asking every person to recite the whole textbook, the only way to be sure is an attendance policy.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Attendance policies and requiring 52 hours of "next" clicking also don't ensure that a person knows all the edge cases. What exactly do you believe that clicking "next" repeatedly tells you about a person's behavior? (Again, remember that the question is why 52 hours of clicking is a good law. If a person didn't click for 52 hours when the law didn't require it, that would not be evidence that they are willing to violate unjust laws.)
    - untog 11y ago
      the question is why 52 hours of clicking is a good law It isn't. It's 52 hours of study, everyone is latching onto "clicking" to make a disingenuous point. Almost every exam you take is intended as an assessment of your knowledge, not "are they able to recite answers to 10 questions in a 2 hour period inside an exam room"
      - punee 11y ago
        If the exam is intended as an assessment of your knowledge, then why should it matter how much time you spent acquiring that knowledge?
        arihant 11y ago
        It doesn't matter. The requirements of license seem to be 52 hours of mandatory study/attendance and passing the exam. Zenefits clearly cheated on one of the requirements. the state wants you to make sure you read everything and that you can answer questions about it. It doesn't seem like a stretch at all, especially considering people run their livelihoods based on that license. It's a license to conduct a proper practice and a career.
        punee 11y ago
        The point is that those requirements seem redundant.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

CPLX 11y ago

You're being disingenuous. The requirement isn't "clicking next for 52 hours" it's spending that amount of time studying an online course. You're required to actually pay attention for 52 hours and then certify that you did. For another example, the requirement inherent in a multiple choice exam isn't a matter of "filling out a semi random sequence of the letters A, B, C, and D" it's knowing the answers to the test. The filling out the letters is a signal that you know. Signals aren't perfect, in that example if you don't know but copied answers from someone else that's cheating and the signal would be unreliable then, and you've subverted the actual intended requirement. The requirement in this case is spending about a week of your life actually studying this material and the clicking of the next button as well is a signal that you did it. Don't confuse the means with ends. You could have argued that the amount of hours spent studying the material is also a useless metric. But that's a more nuanced argument that you haven't made, and one that has defensible positions on both sides. Clearly clicking next isn't a meaningful requirement, but so what, it's not actually the requirement. Spending time studying is, and they cheated and lied about it.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
What the law actually requires is clicking for 52 hours. But lets take your claim as a premise; why is it important that a person spend time learning? Suppose two people know the material equally well, but one of them learned it faster than the other. Why is that a good regulation? How does it benefit consumers to make it illegal to learn things fast? I know a former algebraic geometer (lots of category theory) who learned Haskell very rapidly. Would it benefit consumers of his services to pass a law saying he needs to learn Haskell at a slower rate comparable to a RoR hipster without a math PhD?
- CPLX 11y ago
  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you have no idea what the law actually requires in detail. It's ok neither did I. Here's an example of what it looks like, there is a lot more on the linked pages, which collectively comprise the actual requirements: https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID813F6A0622011E4A9828577DD5F1BF2?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default) https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID813F6A0622011E4A... > why is it important that a person spend time learning? Suppose two people know the material equally well, but one of them learned it faster than the other. Why is that a good regulation? How does it benefit consumers to make it illegal to learn things fast? I don't know. But I do know that basically every educational institution requires some level of engagement measured in time. You can't just pass tests to get an undergrad degree or a PhD either. The requirement to spend actual time is hardly cruel and unusual. I also know that the requirements were clear enough to be known to Zenefits and they willfully evaded them. What is the difference between a Harvard graduate in Economics and someone who attended and completed all the requirements for an Econ degree but was short one art elective class and never got a degree? Should he just fudge his job applications since the art class isn't important? What's the difference between someone assigned 100 hours of court ordered community service who did it and someone who went back to court with forged paperwork saying they did it? In all the examples, and Zenefits as well, the difference is that the person is committing fraud, is lying, and is not ethical. Cheating on requirements isn't the same as arguing to change the rules, regardless of how confused you continue to pretend to be about it.

st3v3r 11y ago

Yeah, no. You're oversimplifying this, and pretending like all there is is clicking "next".