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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!think!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Credentials, State vs. private Message-ID: <28200056@inmet.UUCP> Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 00:56:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200056 Posted: Thu Sep 5 00:56:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 04:20:32 EDT References: <1763@psuvax1.UUCP> Lines: 128 Nf-ID: #R:psuvax1:-176300:inmet:28200056:000:6705 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Sep 5 00:56:00 1985 >/* Written 5:59 pm Sep 3, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics.t */ >/* ---------- "Re: Credentials, State vs. private" ---------- */ >> >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. > >This is no a communist country, but a country with checks and balaces. >There is a lot of very reliable statistical data which are collected >by goverment institutions. Ho-hum. Does this overqualified statement mean anything? I suppose we know how many salmon spawn in Alaska, but the accuracy of certain government figures is widely debated. Indeed, a certain (rather libertarian) book I lent to someone in the social sciences was slammed because it used census data ("Which everyone knows is not worth anything"). Perhaps you didn't notice when Ronnie's administration presided over a change in the way cost-of-living was calculated (around 1981, if I remember right). It was contended at the time that the old method (which showed a higher cost of living) was causing inflation because so many contracts (and a lot of public perception) were pegged to it. No, the government doesn't do this sort of thing lightly, and it cannot prevent (at least not so far) independent statistical studies. But to argue that because our system has checks and balances, the figures our government puts out are actually representative is sort of silly. > >> >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. >> >> >............. >> 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. >> >What we see here is a naive belief in the selfregulatory powers. In fact >SAT tests are widely criticized for being detached from reality. As >somebody put it "since most of the colleges accept practically everybody, >they need some fiction to support the claim of mantaining standarts. >Thus the need for SAT scores". SAT tests are indeed widely criticized. So, for example, is this or that football team. The solution? Use SAT scores to evaluate certain things and not others. I do not argue for a moment that SAT scores are perfect for any use whatsoever. In fact, I suggest you dig up some of their literature and see if you can find precisely what they promise to do. All colleges that I'm familiar with use SAT or other standardized tests to evaluate certain aspects of a prospect, but they would be fools to reject or accept a student on that basis alone, just as you would be a fool to hire someone on the basis of having a "CCP" after his name. I see here no evidence that government testing would be any better -- certainly we would see "self-regulatory" behavior there too. >Yesterday there was an article in NYT >about widespread incompetience among doctors. Since no centralized >system of credencial exists, it is extremally difficult to prevent >incompetient (at time fraudulent) doctors to be in the profession. Excuse me, but I believe you can call the AMA to verify such things, can you not? If not, perhaps you could call the school name that appears on the Doctor's MD? I've noticed that real doctors tend to post their diplomas prominently. >This illustrates the point that in the absence of universal, imposed >standards, private associations and state agencies are not able to >assure the desired level of competience. Excuse me, but there's no evidence in your note to suggest that federal agencies would do any better. Against someone who SEEMS legit, and who can bribe the right people, federally-controlled systems are probably even weaker. I'm also curious who you think would sit on the board of a hypothetical federal testing agency. Do you suppose we'd find.... doctors? Perhaps the same ones who make up the AMA? Why not? By the way, how did these bogus doctors fare in the face of malpractice suits? What were their insurance premiums like? If they were merely incompetent (as opposed to fraudulent) how is the government to test them for this.