Hacker News Reader

Comment by arihant | Hacker News Reader

It's not an exam to pass. A license must be earned continuously by practising within law. A license would be taken away even if you have the best knowledge but are even slightly off on ethics of practice.

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?

View on HN

Scroll up: the question is not whether Zenefits should obey dumb laws. CPLX said he would argue that the law in question isn't dumb.

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.

This is not SAT unfortunately. Your score and your behaviour are both needed for a license. Besides, in situations like these attendance policy is important. You can't test every single edge case possible on a test. The state has to answer if a license holder says "I did not know X." As a taxpayer, you would question why the hell does a person who does not know X has state license to practice?

Unless you're asking every person to recite the whole textbook, the only way to be sure is an attendance policy.

Attendance policies and requiring 52 hours of "next" clicking also don't ensure that a person knows all the edge cases.

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.)

the question is why 52 hours of clicking is a good law

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"

If the exam is intended as an assessment of your knowledge, then why should it matter how much time you spent acquiring that knowledge?

It doesn't matter. The requirements of license seem to be 52 hours of mandatory study/attendance and passing the exam. Zenefits clearly cheated on one of the requirements.

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.

The point is that those requirements seem redundant.

52 hours of study to start a whole new career do not seem redundant to me. Specially when the field is highly sensitive, legal repercussions are huge, collateral damage arising out of wrong communications can be millions of dollars.

Besides, the "redundant" requirements just caught a person trying to cheat -- Zenefits. So you cannot even claim they aren't working.

The question we are discussing in this thread is whether or not it's a dumb law. Your comment simply reiterates that the law exists, which no one disputes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com