4 ms·

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 clicki

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.
      - arihant 11y ago
        52 hours of study to start a whole new career do not seem redundant to me. Specially when the field is highly sensitive, legal repercussions are huge, collateral damage arising out of wrong communications can be millions of dollars. Besides, the "redundant" requirements just caught a person trying to cheat -- Zenefits. So you cannot even claim they aren't working.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      The question we are discussing in this thread is whether or not it's a dumb law. Your comment simply reiterates that the law exists, which no one disputes.

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.
    - arihant 11y ago
      52 hours of study to start a whole new career do not seem redundant to me. Specially when the field is highly sensitive, legal repercussions are huge, collateral damage arising out of wrong communications can be millions of dollars. Besides, the "redundant" requirements just caught a person trying to cheat -- Zenefits. So you cannot even claim they aren't working.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The question we are discussing in this thread is whether or not it's a dumb law. Your comment simply reiterates that the law exists, which no one disputes.