Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

Comment by CPLX | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you have no idea what the law actually requires in detail. It's ok neither did I. Here's an example of what it looks like, there is a lot more on the linked pages, which collectively comprise the actual requirements:

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.

You can't just pass tests to get an undergrad degree

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.

Getting my degree many, many years after entering the field

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.

is different from passing a multiple choice exam

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?

Academic institutions are paid by the credit or by the year. Of course they will insist on receiving a minimum amount of money before giving out the precious certification.

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".

> Try to pay attention.

Please don't be uncivil. This comment would be fine without that bit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com