4 ms·

Unfortunately a lot of this came from books and articles I read years ago. "Indoctrination" is a bit of a loaded word, perhaps I should have said "assimilatio

Unfortunately a lot of this came from books and articles I read years ago. "Indoctrination" is a bit of a loaded word, perhaps I should have said "assimilation" or "acculturation". But it was definitely a major factor. I remember reading a long paper about the movement establishing universal high school in New Haven in the early 1900's. It all revolved around dealing with the massive flows of immigrants who had no grounding in American civic culture. As for credentialing laws, pretty much all professions rely on some level of book knowledge plus on the job training. The book knowledge can be provided for by reading books and passing an exam. You don't need to attend three years of law school in person to become a great lawyer. Nor do you need four years of university to be a great engineer. The architecture profession seems to have been much better off without any degree requirements. Just compare the architecture of the 1800's to that of the past few decades. 30% of jobs in the U.S. economy now have legal credentialing requirements. That includes everything from hair dresser to interior designer. Even jobs like parole officer now require a four year college degree. We're essentially recreating the old guild system, which stifles economic growth. I don't think it's any accident that the most dynamic sectors of the economy - software, consumer electronics, movies - have virtually no licensing requirements.

jacobolus 18y ago
For some things (e.g. the hair dressing you mentioned), I concede that licensing requirements are unnecessary, and their use should be reexamined. For others (public defenders, surgeons, structural engineers, etc.) such licensing and formal training is in my opinion critically important. To construe it as purely anti-competitive is pretty misleading. What proportion of top-level architects don't have architecture degrees? Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and American political institutions is a mis-use of public education?
- bokonist 18y ago
  What proportion of top-level architects don't have architecture degrees? Today all of them do because it is legally required. My girlfriend is currently attending architecture school and it is beyond useless. She's learned an awful lot about "aura" and "algorithmic design" and precious little about designing buildings for the real world. Architects end up learning everything on the job. In the 19th century, it was not uncommon for architects to be high school drop outs. The New York Public library, some of the tunnel projects under London, the California Aqueduct, were all designed by drop outs. The structural integrity of the buildings was very high, and the aesthetics far surpass the creations of modern architects. To construe it as purely anti-competitive is pretty misleading. I obviously would not want an untrained surgeon practicing on me. The trouble is that credentialing laws are a highly unstable equilibrium. It requires 8 years of post-secondary schooling to prescribe penicillin, read an x-ray, or set a broken bone. I could be convinced that 2 years of schooling might be necessary. But not 8. The reason it is so high is because of lobbying by the AMA. I'm sure they argue that the requirements are in the public interest. Perhaps they even believe their own PR. But if you talk to doctors about medical school, most of them will tell you that it had little relevance to their actual job. Perhaps the most notorious example of credentialing is the orthodontist profession. The average orthodontist works 35 hour weeks and makes 350k ( about 40% more than dentists). The reason for this is that number of orthodontists allowed to graduate each year is actually capped at 280. The orthodontist association have even gone after inventors who devise new labor-saving (and thus income-reducing) braces, See the case of Viazis v. American Association of Orthodontists. This is blatantly anti-competitive, and it costs thousands of dollars from the pocket book of every American. Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and American political institutions is a mis-use of public education? I once worked a bit on capitol hill. The civics class description of American democracy bears little resemblance to the reality. However, these the civics class lies are probably necessary to make a democratic system even marginally functional. My preferred solution then, would be to get rid of electoral democracy.
  - cousin_it 18y ago
    Wow. I just read some of your other comments, and you rock. Thanks!
  - rsheridan6 18y ago
    >My preferred solution then, would be to get rid of electoral democracy. To be replaced with...?
    - bokonist 18y ago
      One option: Abolish Congress and the presidency. I mean, what have they done for you lately? Can you name a single good deed they've done in the past 30 years? Use some sort of board of trustees to select the Supreme Court justices and the Joint Chiefs. Perhaps this board of trustees would be selected by existing trustees, or perhaps we could use something like the Venetian lottery system ( http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elections.html http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elect... ). Other options include something like Juristopia ( http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/juritopia.html http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/juritopia.html ) or Formalism ( http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali... ) Or, if you want something a little more proven, there is always Monarchy. Basically, anything that doesn't use a ritualized form of gang warfare would be better than democracy in my book.
      - hugh 18y ago
        I mean, what have they done for you lately? Can you name a single good deed they've done in the past 30 years? Luckily, the job of the government isn't to do good deeds -- it's to hold onto power in order to stop even worse people from getting it. The purpose of democracy isn't to get the best people into power, it's to stop the worst people from getting into power.
        bokonist 18y ago
        I would welcome a government that did absolutely nothing except stop bad guys from getting into power. Unfortunately, Congress thinks its job is to pass "legislation" and it does so in vast quantities. This has piled up over the decades covering the entire country in a gray legislative goo. If abolishing Congress is too big of step, how about changing the rules so that any new law requires a 70% majority? Or maybe even a 90% majority? I'd also note that democracy is altogether a failure at preventing the worst people from getting into power. Some of histories worst tyrants from history have come to power through party politics.

jacobolus 18y ago

For some things (e.g. the hair dressing you mentioned), I concede that licensing requirements are unnecessary, and their use should be reexamined. For others (public defenders, surgeons, structural engineers, etc.) such licensing and formal training is in my opinion critically important. To construe it as purely anti-competitive is pretty misleading. What proportion of top-level architects don't have architecture degrees? Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and American political institutions is a mis-use of public education?

bokonist 18y ago
What proportion of top-level architects don't have architecture degrees? Today all of them do because it is legally required. My girlfriend is currently attending architecture school and it is beyond useless. She's learned an awful lot about "aura" and "algorithmic design" and precious little about designing buildings for the real world. Architects end up learning everything on the job. In the 19th century, it was not uncommon for architects to be high school drop outs. The New York Public library, some of the tunnel projects under London, the California Aqueduct, were all designed by drop outs. The structural integrity of the buildings was very high, and the aesthetics far surpass the creations of modern architects. To construe it as purely anti-competitive is pretty misleading. I obviously would not want an untrained surgeon practicing on me. The trouble is that credentialing laws are a highly unstable equilibrium. It requires 8 years of post-secondary schooling to prescribe penicillin, read an x-ray, or set a broken bone. I could be convinced that 2 years of schooling might be necessary. But not 8. The reason it is so high is because of lobbying by the AMA. I'm sure they argue that the requirements are in the public interest. Perhaps they even believe their own PR. But if you talk to doctors about medical school, most of them will tell you that it had little relevance to their actual job. Perhaps the most notorious example of credentialing is the orthodontist profession. The average orthodontist works 35 hour weeks and makes 350k ( about 40% more than dentists). The reason for this is that number of orthodontists allowed to graduate each year is actually capped at 280. The orthodontist association have even gone after inventors who devise new labor-saving (and thus income-reducing) braces, See the case of Viazis v. American Association of Orthodontists. This is blatantly anti-competitive, and it costs thousands of dollars from the pocket book of every American. Finally, do you think that teaching citizens about civic culture and American political institutions is a mis-use of public education? I once worked a bit on capitol hill. The civics class description of American democracy bears little resemblance to the reality. However, these the civics class lies are probably necessary to make a democratic system even marginally functional. My preferred solution then, would be to get rid of electoral democracy.
- cousin_it 18y ago
  Wow. I just read some of your other comments, and you rock. Thanks!
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  >My preferred solution then, would be to get rid of electoral democracy. To be replaced with...?
  - bokonist 18y ago
    One option: Abolish Congress and the presidency. I mean, what have they done for you lately? Can you name a single good deed they've done in the past 30 years? Use some sort of board of trustees to select the Supreme Court justices and the Joint Chiefs. Perhaps this board of trustees would be selected by existing trustees, or perhaps we could use something like the Venetian lottery system ( http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elections.html http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elect... ). Other options include something like Juristopia ( http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/juritopia.html http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/juritopia.html ) or Formalism ( http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formali... ) Or, if you want something a little more proven, there is always Monarchy. Basically, anything that doesn't use a ritualized form of gang warfare would be better than democracy in my book.
    - hugh 18y ago
      I mean, what have they done for you lately? Can you name a single good deed they've done in the past 30 years? Luckily, the job of the government isn't to do good deeds -- it's to hold onto power in order to stop even worse people from getting it. The purpose of democracy isn't to get the best people into power, it's to stop the worst people from getting into power.
      - bokonist 18y ago
        I would welcome a government that did absolutely nothing except stop bad guys from getting into power. Unfortunately, Congress thinks its job is to pass "legislation" and it does so in vast quantities. This has piled up over the decades covering the entire country in a gray legislative goo. If abolishing Congress is too big of step, how about changing the rules so that any new law requires a 70% majority? Or maybe even a 90% majority? I'd also note that democracy is altogether a failure at preventing the worst people from getting into power. Some of histories worst tyrants from history have come to power through party politics.