Eric Wertman wrote:
Given the way that medical/legal licensing is used to stifle competition,
prevent innovation, and keep people from earning a living delivering simple
services that people need at prices they can afford, 'more like' would have
to be done very carefully.
To draw an analogy... imagine, if you will, a system where
pharmaceutical companies are the leading source of doctor
certifications. While I'm sure there are many valid arguments that
would show today's system is far from perfect, I'm thinking that would
be a worse horror by some order of magnitude.
If pharmaceutical companies had more influence on licensing people to
make drug suggestions/prescriptions, I suspect they would give more
power to nurses and pharmacists to make such suggestions, to the
improvement of health care in America. America's legal care system is
*way* far from perfect, especially in the civil sphere, though I read it
is even more wretched elsewhere.
I would hate to live in a world where you had to have three years of
graduate professional training to write a for-loop for pay, or where
scientists and mathematicians were prohibited from writing code
(practicing software) without a license. Or where someone who just
wanted to practice Python had to first master assembly.
I would be interested to hear if you know something about medical/legal
exams, quite aside from there use as legal cudgels, that would
contribute to (carefully) improving voluntary computer training and exams.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
