I feel very difficult exams should be commonplace. Everyone should be held to very high standards. It's surprising how many professions don't do this. For example, I've been to several physical therapists who barely seemed to understand what was wrong with me even after several visits. Each gave me what seemed like the same standard routine that they give everyone with <insert pain type here> problem.
1. The test was ridiculously easy. Junior high–level math and reading. And yet teacher candidates still failed it.
2. For K-12 teaching, the knowledge that was tested was pretty much irrelevant for the job. What matters for more than being able to find the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle or to comprehend an expository paragraph (which is not to say that these aren't useful skills) is the ability to manage a classroom. Almost none of the teacher prep I had was geared towards that single most important skill (which I, unfortunately, was not so great at) and which is what will make the difference between succeeding and failing in a K-12 teaching career.
I think this generalizes to other fields as well. Think about all the tree-traversal BS we've all gone through in a software engineer interview and how little that relates to the actual work that we do and how the hard stuff is much less the programming and more the learning the code base and business.
However, physical therapists already have an occupational licensing exam. You could argue that it’s not hard enough, as it does have a high pass rate for those who have graduated from a PT university program, but then you start drifting into “no true Scotsman” territory.
Yes this is true. I realize my comment had the wrong tenor in that the actual exams matter less than just having rigorous courses. Not everyone should be a doctor or a physical therapist or a software engineer and it's common nowadays to credential so that some institution can make money.
I think this is a terrible idea. Exams are terrible proxies for ability to do the work. At best they seem like a measure of intelligence, conscientiousness and maybe memory.
What makes you think that a very difficult exam will improve the ability of your PT?
Investment management is a classic example of this. CFA has a low pass rate (it isn't that hard really, tens of thousands of people do the exam in India and China so that impacts the pass rate), most people do it but, ofc, the really useful knowledge can't be tested...picking a stock isn't like passing a exam. And worse, you get lots of people who pass the exam, acquire false sense of confidence, and then make mistakes (or don't ever move beyond the "parrot" level of intelligence).
I think maths is another one, as conventionally taught. I hated maths at school because it was largely sitting down in a room, doing the same thing over and over again like a computer...quite reasonably, I asked myself whether this was a productive use of my time. As an adult, I have taught myself everything again, it was far more enjoyable and useful because I actually took the time to understand the concepts (and no, none of the stuff I did at school was useful, it was just mindless computation).
I don't necessarily think exams are a bad idea but they don't produce knowledge, experience, or real expertise. They are often misused (as is certification, I knew a guy who worked as a fund manager and was a senior member of the CFA for ethics and standards...he stole from employees regularly).
Meanwhile, they often gate the requirements to even take the test. It would be chaos (and bad for the law schools) if someone were able to take the bar without a JD (some states have just as lengthy apprenticeship periods replace that) or otherwise prove professional ability acquired via non traditional means.
My grandfather got his architecture license without a college degree (in the 1920s). He often related riding down to Champagne, IL to take the exam in the rumble seat of a Model T Ford with a couple college grads to take the exam. He passed the exam and they both failed.
I was somewhat surprised watching the Perry Mason series on HBO last year when Perry Mason was sworn to the bar without actually going to any sort of law school. Apparently that was the norm until after World War II.
> was sworn to the bar without actually going to any sort of law school.
It can still be done today in most US states.
Also, note that even the self-represented can take on a government and win. See Jim Pattison's (Canadian billionaire) tax hearings vs. the Crown (Canada), which he won after a decade of litigation. Multiple prosecutors and judges retired during that time period.
Besides developing further tax filing methods for his empire, you can bet he wasn't sued again by the government - they hate taking a loss. (The US SEC infamously tries to undermine defendants today by going after their ability to pay lawyers before trials.)
If by "most" you mean 4 or 5 US States (California, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and maybe West Virginia). That's 10% of states, although more than 10% of the US population (but still a very small minority).
Meanwhile, anyone can represent themselves in court, and with sufficient facts on their side have won. However, the Supreme Court no longer allows people to represent themselves. This means, in the US there are many cases where you cannot take on the government yourself and win.
Even in those states, you can't just show up to the bar exam and ace it.
Thost states all requires you to spend four years (i.e., even longer than law school) working/studying under an attorney. Washington even charges "tuition" of $2000/year.
> Thost states all requires you to spend four years (i.e., even longer than law school) working/studying under an attorney. Washington even charges "tuition" of $2000/year.
I did try to to explain that in my OP:
>>>> (some states have just as lengthy apprenticeship periods replace that)
Exams for positions whose work can apply to the entire organization can be more difficult without significant negative effects. Positions that interface with people (don't scale) suffer more when testing and licensing is too onerous.
For example, physical therapy services would suffer if testing were too onerous for patient-interfacing therapists, but the physicians and researchers who set the direction of the PT program can be examined more thoroughly and this is essentially how medical practice is structured.
Similarly, actuaries, whose modeling and underwriting work applies across the entire financial org, can be tested more rigorously than the financial advisors and customer service reps who are busy with customers, custodians, etc.
It depends… if you set the standards too high, then fewer people are going to be able to do it, and then you either have a shortage or you have to increase salaries to attract more candidates. However, if you are expecting high standards at ALL professions, then even raising salaries won’t fill your candidate pool enough to find sufficient qualified people.
Raising standards won’t suddenly increase the number of people who can meet those standards. It is likely you will just end up with a lot of shortages for important positions.
The standards have to be considered very carefully to find a balance between ensuring enough quality to be effective but not so high that you can’t fill the need.
