[johnnybgoode]

> No, the above doesn't fall under the: "You don't have an option avoiding legal credentialing"

Technically it does, but I do agree that it is more open than many other careers. And yes, there are plenty of options still left. But some careers are completely shut off to you if you do not go through govt.-approved schools. That is the key.

[thismat]

What is your suggestion to replace that? As some careers demand a certain level of competency and skill (Doctors, Nurses, Civil Engineers, et cetera)?

Are you saying the confidence we give doctors based on their years of studying and research just might be too much faith in the Government standard? Interesting question that brings up as well, how do we accurately gauge a persons skill in a profession like this if we were to try to "free" up the institutional thought process? Maybe an apprentice/master system? Seems to work well for skill trades, why not for doctors?

[johnnybgoode]

> Are you saying the confidence we give doctors based on their years of studying and research just might be too much faith in the Government standard?

Yes, absolutely.

> What is your suggestion to replace that? As some careers demand a certain level of competency and skill (Doctors, Nurses, Civil Engineers, et cetera)?

It turns out someone else here has asked me the same question, please see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645576 (my answer follows there).

> Maybe an apprentice/master system? Seems to work well for skill trades, why not for doctors?

Agreed. They do this already in a way, but if you combine it with a much more diverse set of options I think that would accomplish the goal.