Zenefits employees did pass the exam, and they possess the knowledge you believe is necessary. It's just that the law requires 52 hours of clicking before you are even permitted to take the exam. Why do you think this is a good law?
The requirement isn't "clicking next for 52 hours" it's spending that amount of time studying an online course. You're required to actually pay attention for 52 hours and then certify that you did.
For another example, the requirement inherent in a multiple choice exam isn't a matter of "filling out a semi random sequence of the letters A, B, C, and D" it's knowing the answers to the test.
The filling out the letters is a signal that you know. Signals aren't perfect, in that example if you don't know but copied answers from someone else that's cheating and the signal would be unreliable then, and you've subverted the actual intended requirement.
The requirement in this case is spending about a week of your life actually studying this material and the clicking of the next button as well is a signal that you did it.
Don't confuse the means with ends. You could have argued that the amount of hours spent studying the material is also a useless metric. But that's a more nuanced argument that you haven't made, and one that has defensible positions on both sides.
Clearly clicking next isn't a meaningful requirement, but so what, it's not actually the requirement. Spending time studying is, and they cheated and lied about it.
But lets take your claim as a premise; why is it important that a person spend time learning? Suppose two people know the material equally well, but one of them learned it faster than the other. Why is that a good regulation? How does it benefit consumers to make it illegal to learn things fast?
I know a former algebraic geometer (lots of category theory) who learned Haskell very rapidly. Would it benefit consumers of his services to pass a law saying he needs to learn Haskell at a slower rate comparable to a RoR hipster without a math PhD?
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/ID813F6A0622011E4A...
> why is it important that a person spend time learning? Suppose two people know the material equally well, but one of them learned it faster than the other. Why is that a good regulation? How does it benefit consumers to make it illegal to learn things fast?
I don't know. But I do know that basically every educational institution requires some level of engagement measured in time. You can't just pass tests to get an undergrad degree or a PhD either. The requirement to spend actual time is hardly cruel and unusual.
I also know that the requirements were clear enough to be known to Zenefits and they willfully evaded them.
What is the difference between a Harvard graduate in Economics and someone who attended and completed all the requirements for an Econ degree but was short one art elective class and never got a degree? Should he just fudge his job applications since the art class isn't important?
What's the difference between someone assigned 100 hours of court ordered community service who did it and someone who went back to court with forged paperwork saying they did it?
In all the examples, and Zenefits as well, the difference is that the person is committing fraud, is lying, and is not ethical.
Cheating on requirements isn't the same as arguing to change the rules, regardless of how confused you continue to pretend to be about it.
heating on requirements isn't the same as arguing to change the rules, regardless of how confused you continue to pretend to be about it.
Try to pay attention. Above you said that you'd argue against changing the rules. I asked you to justify that, and it sounds like you don't have much of an argument beyond "well universities do it too".
Please don't be uncivil. This comment would be fine without that bit.
Yes you can. Almost every school has a procedure for taking a test or convincing a professor that you have the knowledge the class provides. You still pay the cost of the course, but do not actually attend it.
Getting my degree many, many years after entering the field, I skipped a huge swath of undergrad classes this way. Stuff like non-computer related classes was all that I needed to do 'in person'.
In other words, I skipped 'pressing buttons' for a large chunk of time due to fact that I knew the material and could prove it.
The main difference to the above being that the school recognized that it was possible for a student to understand the core material completely without taking the class, and the above rules do not admit that possibility.
So would you say you had experiential learning in the subject matter of the classes you were being allowed to skip after demonstrating both evidence of this experiential learning and the attendant competency?
Testing out of a course due to earned knowledge is different from passing a multiple choice exam with Cliff Notes awareness of the material.
Some of the classes did just have multiple choice tests that would have been easy enough to 'Cliff'. Though it's not really relevant to larger discourse.
That still doesn't change the facts of the original situation. The test is the determining factor of whether or not they 'completed' the course. Indeed, someone who 'Cliff'ed the notes, and passed the test, and watched Netflix on a second screen while pushing all of the right buttons would still be accepted. Which is the ultimate failure here. Either the time limit is necessary and can't be skipped (due to the physical limitations of some inherent process), or the time limit is artificial and the actual possession of knowledge is sufficient.
Who is served by putting an artificial time limit in place that does not actually prove knowledge of the material?
No it doesn't, and by saying that, you're telling the rest of us that you don't actually understand what's going on, but you want to seem "edgy", and "disruptive".
A policeman can be strongest, but a sexual harassment case will disqualify him.
When I see a broker license, I know I'm dealing with a knowledgeable, honestly practising professional. Can't say that about Zenefits anymore. They must lose license.
EDIT: You can give credit to any kind of cheating with the reasoning you gave. Why is SAT I verbal section important in a student becoming an electrical engineer? He should be allowed to cheat, according to you?
I think a person should be allowed to take the SAT without actually being obligated to click "next" for 52 hours. If they don't know the material they'll get a low score.
Unless you're asking every person to recite the whole textbook, the only way to be sure is an attendance policy.
What exactly do you believe that clicking "next" repeatedly tells you about a person's behavior?
(Again, remember that the question is why 52 hours of clicking is a good law. If a person didn't click for 52 hours when the law didn't require it, that would not be evidence that they are willing to violate unjust laws.)
It isn't. It's 52 hours of study, everyone is latching onto "clicking" to make a disingenuous point. Almost every exam you take is intended as an assessment of your knowledge, not "are they able to recite answers to 10 questions in a 2 hour period inside an exam room"
the state wants you to make sure you read everything and that you can answer questions about it. It doesn't seem like a stretch at all, especially considering people run their livelihoods based on that license. It's a license to conduct a proper practice and a career.
Besides, the "redundant" requirements just caught a person trying to cheat -- Zenefits. So you cannot even claim they aren't working.