Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Orphaned Response Message-ID: <28200053@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 1-Sep-85 02:50:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200053 Posted: Sun Sep 1 02:50:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 05:28:27 EDT References: <152@gargoyle.UUCP> Lines: 131 Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle:-15200:inmet:28200053:177600:6124 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Sep 1 02:50:00 1985 >/* Written 5:50 pm Aug 17, 1985 by ubvax!tonyw in inmet:net.politics.t */ >In article <28200048@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes >>>Hence it makes >>>filling a job a manageable task for most jobs, by helping to ensure >>>that the number of "qualified" applicants for a job match the number >>>of jobs more or less. >>>It also makes filling a job a less risky >>>procedure, since applicants have accumulated a record which can >>>be compared with other records even before the first job. >> >>A peculiar stance, given that the colleges and private high >>schools depend on private achievement tests..... >> > >Again here, private achievement tests have nothing to do with jobs. They >react to the failure of high school or elementary schools to generate >decent credentials -- a failure of the American system of local rule >over high school and elementary education which systems following >national educational standards don't share. In other words, if the state provides such a service, the market need not. This is news? There's nothing here to suggest that the "national educational standards" are better than standardized tests, and if you want diversity in your educational system, I would think that the standardized test route (public or private) would be the way to go. >The solution here is stricter national standards, not looser ones. >And personnel departments don't look at ETS results, anyway. They don't have to -- the people with poor ETS scores had less of a chance to attain the credentials that the personnel departments DO look at, and the ETS info would be old anyhow. On the other hand, perhaps you have heard of the "Institute for the Certification of Computer Professionals"? >>>Of course, the value of a credentialing system depends on the level >>>of publicity, the level of enforcement, and the level of agreement >>>on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best >>>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials >>>is a public regulatory authority, >> >>Support please. >> > >I assume you agree with the first sentence. As far as the second goes, >I think of a credentialing scheme like a security setup. The most >secure setups are where an outside, central agency takes charge of >security and makes sure that all sub-central security arrangements >are consistent, so that the system as a whole is secure against hostile >entry. And where everyone knows the rules. The same rules which >maintain secure environments are the rules which maintain consistent >credentialing systems. > No support here for the notion that the state must administer such a system -- the "outside, central agency" need not be public at all (ETS isn't). Indeed, public agencies have the problem of being under government pressure to pump the scores up. Private agencies are presumably a little more resistant. >The only central agency in a state which has coercive powers over >people within the state is the state. AHA! Here's the core of what I believe to be your error. There is no need for such an agency to be coercive. None. >So it has a role if a social >goal is that educational credentials should be secure and consistent. Why? If I tell you that my name is "Nat Howard" and can get you to agree with me that much, and then we make a joint call to a private credentialing service that you trust, you will be convinced that I have a given credential if they say I do. Of course, you may elect not to trust the private agency, feeling that a public one would be more trustworthy. If so, you've fallen into the bad mistake of believing that public officials are less corrupt than private ones. >>>on the value of particular credentials. Hence, since the best >>>guarantor of publicity, enforcement, and agreement between credentials >>>is a public regulatory authority, >>>and because people outside the >>>educational system disturb the system of credentials, >> >>Support for the implication that the impact that outsiders have >>is "distortion" and not "adjustment to reality", please. >> > >The debate over affirmative action. Anyone who gets benefited by >affirmative action is assumed to be distorting the system because >they didn't obtain the necessary credentials, or their credentials >were watered down and inflated compared to similar credentials held >by others. These people are outsiders because they break the rules >relating credentials to jobs. Now, if you believe that affirmative >action is adjustment to reality, then I have no argument with you. > By "outsiders", I meant the people outside the testing system who exert pressure to modify testing criteria. Not the beneficiaries of such modification. Indeed, making a government agency be the arbiter of such things means that testing criteria MUST be influenced by politics. A private agency faces ruin if it's credentials are shown to be fraudulent. Not so a government agency. A private agency also faces ruin if its credentials are shown to be unattached to reality. This is also not so true of a federal agency. In short, the forces that act on a private agency tend to make the credentials reflect reality more closely. The pressures on a public agency reflect the degree of power and interest held by pressure groups, some of whom would benefit from certain changes. Nice try, by the way, with affirmative action, but we're discussing credentialing agencies, not criteria that are supposed to be important for choosing among people of equal credentials. Or do I misunderstand AA? Or am I missing your point? >>>the place >>>for education is in the public sphere, and education should be >>>subsidized and regulated by a public authority. >> >>Given a false premise, it's possible to prove anything. Please back >>yours up. > >I'm guessing here as to what you think is the false premise. Maybe >you could tell me in some reply or future article. The false premise is that coercion is needed to have a good credentialing agency. As near as I can tell that is your only reason for thinking the government should run such an agency.