4 ms·

No you can't take away a certification. You can make it certified every year. But a certification exists to certify that you tested OK in 2014, for example. You

by arihant 11y ago

No you can't take away a certification. You can make it certified every year. But a certification exists to certify that you tested OK in 2014, for example. You can't take that away because you can't say he did not pass the test. You can outlaw certifications over a year old, but you cannot take the earned certification away. Besides, you cannot take them away mid-year for malpractice. Once you're certified to pass something, you have passed it. You can't go back in time and unpass it.

jmckib 11y ago
You just have a different definition of certification than I do; we're not actually disagreeing on anything substantial.
- arihant 11y ago
  True. I think we both generically seem to be saying the same thing. The disagreement seem to be on the topic of whether it should be compulsory or not. I do believe that it should be regulated and compulsory. It's much simpler to teach 300 million people to just check for a license than to teach them about how to vet your broker.
  - jmckib 11y ago
    Checking for a certification should be just as easy as checking for a license. The brokers with certifications are damn sure going to let you know they have one! The main reason I oppose licensure is that producer groups (e.g. insurance brokers) will exert political pressure to add more and more irrelevant requirements in order to obtain a license. Take barbering for example: in many states in order to become a barber, you need to complete hundreds of hours of theoretical instruction in the anatomy of the face and head, the elementary chemistry of sterilization, the histology of hair, etc. Just to cut hair! In addition, the professional activities that require a license tend to gradually expand due to political pressure. Doctors spend a lot of time doing things that could be performed by a skilled technician, and the result is unnecessarily expensive medical care, and some people not having access to care at all.
- zymhan 11y ago
  Or you're just defending your untenable position by redefining words.

by arihant 11y ago

jmckib 11y ago

You just have a different definition of certification than I do; we're not actually disagreeing on anything substantial.

arihant 11y ago
True. I think we both generically seem to be saying the same thing. The disagreement seem to be on the topic of whether it should be compulsory or not. I do believe that it should be regulated and compulsory. It's much simpler to teach 300 million people to just check for a license than to teach them about how to vet your broker.
- jmckib 11y ago
  Checking for a certification should be just as easy as checking for a license. The brokers with certifications are damn sure going to let you know they have one! The main reason I oppose licensure is that producer groups (e.g. insurance brokers) will exert political pressure to add more and more irrelevant requirements in order to obtain a license. Take barbering for example: in many states in order to become a barber, you need to complete hundreds of hours of theoretical instruction in the anatomy of the face and head, the elementary chemistry of sterilization, the histology of hair, etc. Just to cut hair! In addition, the professional activities that require a license tend to gradually expand due to political pressure. Doctors spend a lot of time doing things that could be performed by a skilled technician, and the result is unnecessarily expensive medical care, and some people not having access to care at all.
zymhan 11y ago
Or you're just defending your untenable position by redefining words.