'What is your name?' 'Eliezer S. Yudkowsky.' 'IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!!!':
> If that's the case, then Institutes of Verification that require
> re-passing a written exam or one-day hands-on demonstration once a year
> will be more in demand by employers. And again, how do you "cram" for a
> hands-on test?
What do you mean by "hands-on?" The most obvious example *I* can think of, hands-on anatomy in med school, is often crammed in anticipation for an examination. I can't think of a MORE hands on examination than that, and students still cram for it, and still forget the material a month later. Or did you have something else in mind?
A yearly exam might do, but, as I'd argued, the more often the testing, the better the incentives to learn long term, and the more accurate the test becomes.
> I scored well enough on the SAT at age eleven; should I have been
> admitted to Harvard?
Is this a reductio attempt on MY argument??? I argued that standardized testing AND teacher's evaluations were necessary. (And Harvard wisely looks at both.) If anyone's argument is susceptible to this kind of criticism, it's Lee's argument, which depends on standardized exams ALONE for the allocation of credentials.
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-