[mcherm]

> people without the credential can still be good at their job

Yes, and some can be very bad at their job. The goal of requiring one to pass a bar exam in order to practice law is to minimize the number of practicioners who are horribly incompetent, because of the serious damage it can do.

It seems to me that a judge who doesn't know how the law works can do even MORE severe damage.

[db48x]

That’s a fair opinion, but 28 out of 50 states voted otherwise. If you want to change that then talk to your state’s congresscritters. Just remember that there are plenty of terrible lawyers out there who did pass the bar, and plenty of terrible judges who were once terrible lawyers.

A degree is ultimately just a piece of paper (or parchment, if they went to a fancy school). It’s not a guarantee that they’ll be any good at their job.

[ziddoap]

>A degree is ultimately just a piece of paper

Would you be comfortable visiting a doctor who didn't have their "piece of paper"?

Obviously a degree is not a guarantee of skill or knowledge. No one is saying it is. However, a degree is a very strong indicator that the person is above some minimum level of knowledge.

The counterpoint of "there are shitty lawyers with degrees" is ridiculous. Remove the requirements and those same people would still be shitty lawyers -- you've just lowered the floor so that even more shitty lawyers can practice.

[db48x]

Yes. The primary purpose of occupational licensing is to reduce the number of people who can participate in the occupation. Test doctors and judges and hair stylists alike based on whether they can do the job, not whether they have a piece of paper. Thousands of judges in 28 states are doing the job just fine even though they haven’t got that piece of paper. Requiring them to get one isn’t going to fix any problems.

[ziddoap]

>Test doctors and judges and hair stylists alike based on whether they can do the job

This is exactly what the piece of paper shows when you get it from an accredited and reputable institution.

What is your proposal? Do surgery until you stop killing people to prove that you can do them now?

[db48x]

Why assume that death has to be involved? That’s just a strawman argument.

Accreditation is an incredibly low bar; all it tells you is that the institution has the right number and type of courses. All a degree tells you is that the student passed some of those classes. But grades in classes do not tell you much about actual ability. And reputation just means that the school has good advertising. It’s not like you can sample a bunch of schools to find out which is actually the best.

Doctors still need to be trained before treating patients but there’s no reason we have to require them to attend so many years of school. If we use our imaginations we can probably come up with alternatives that still achieve that goal. Some of those alternatives would have fewer drawbacks than the system we use today.

For example, our existing schools have the drawback that the school itself decides whether the student was successfully educated. Just as when police departments investigate themselves after a complaint tend to determine that their officers did nothing wrong, schools that investigate themselves tend to find that their professors did all that was necessary and that their students are all perfectly educated. Accreditation was an attempt to solve that kind of problem but it is much too weak to be effective.

Notice also that schools mostly make their students pay up front before success or failure has even been determined. You wouldn’t pay a contractor up front to fix your roof because they’d be tempted to take your money and disappear. You might pay half up front if you’re feeling generous, but even that still has some risk.