Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: What Kind of Labor Law Issue is This?

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    As you have presented the question, this is not a labor law issue of any kind.

    "if your qualifications do not meet their standards, they are entitled to deny your application.
    Don't their standards have to be tied to (i.e., predictive of) job performance? If so, I know of no data that would support the view that graduation from an accredited program today is a better predictor of job performance than graduation long ago from a program that, like many others of the time, was working toward, and close to, accreditation. If scores on the national exam are any indication, graduation from some currently accredited programs is not something to write home about.

    So, do hiring standards have to relate to job performance?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    254

    Default Re: What Kind of Labor Law Issue is This?

    Quote Quoting karnut2005
    View Post
    Don't their standards have to be tied to (i.e., predictive of) job performance? If so, I know of no data that would support the view that graduation from an accredited program today is a better predictor of job performance than graduation long ago from a program that, like many others of the time, was working toward, and close to, accreditation. If scores on the national exam are any indication, graduation from some currently accredited programs is not something to write home about.

    So, do hiring standards have to relate to job performance?
    Absolutely not. How does an employer know what your performance is, aside from the references they might get? Hiring standards are a minimum threshold of education and experience required to perform a given job. An individual with an education level and/or experience below the stated hiring standards for a job title is not considered minimally "qualified" for the position---its plain and simple.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    9,096

    Default Re: What Kind of Labor Law Issue is This?

    As long as the requirements for the job are not illegally discriminatory, they can make whatever requirements they wish.

    Look at it this way... would you want your local hospital hiring doctors that didn't go through an accredited med school but still did okay on the boards?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: What Kind of Labor Law Issue is This?

    Quote Quoting mitousmom
    View Post
    .
    Wow, lots of questions settled in rather summary fashion. In order:

    <<Did you apply for the job in response to a posted vacancy? If so, did it state the minimum qualifications for the job? Did it state that graduation from an accredited program was required?>>

    The announcement for this position varies. Sometimes it cites the U.S. Code by reference only, other times it cites and quotes the Code (“doctoral degree in X from a college or university approved by the Secretary”), other times it cites the Code and includes interpretations of the Code (titled “Interpretations” in the announcement), and other times it cites the Code and includes requirements in the agency’s handbook such as the blurb in question regarding accreditation. Excepting accreditation, I meet all requirements (including an accredited internship). The Code is current as of 2006; requirements in the agency handbook, where the requirement about accreditation resides, originated in 1980.

    << You chose the institution from which you attained your degree. I assume that you knew it was not accredited.>>

    I did. Like many other programs at the time, it was working toward and had applied for accreditation. The program expected accreditation before I graduated, in which case I would have graduated from an accredited program, but it didn’t get accreditation until after I graduated.

    << Regardless, an employer can establish the requirements for its jobs, including a degree or training from an accredited program.>>

    They can indeed. Yet those requirements are based on the assumption that the requirements are likely to yield the best applicant pool. That assumption arises (we hope) from empirical data, of which accreditation is but one data point. The distributions of scores on the national exam for prospective licensees from accredited and non-accredited programs of my day overlapped considerably, which means that there were large numbers from both groups whose scores were statistically the same. I doubt if the agency in question could support its position on accreditation with hard data in cases such as mine. What follows is not the best analogy, I know, but should Bill Gates be excluded from an executive position with a federal agency solely because he lacks a college degree? What about his other qualification? My point is that remote accreditation or lack thereof is not in itself sufficient grounds for rejection given objective data and circumstances of the profession at the time. Until quite recently, schools like Harvard and Stanford rejected accreditation because they felt it hindered or devalued their programs. For the last several years in California, failure rates on the national exam for several accredited programs have ranged from 50% to 70%. I and others from my program passed the exam on our first try and scored well above the mean.

    <<The employer is not required to change its requirements because of your choice or your belief that the training you received from the non-accredited institution is comparable to the training at an accredited institution.>>

    I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that the employer’s requirements vary by announcement and in cases like mine serve to exclude eminently qualified individuals. As of 2004, there were 179,000 licensed individuals in my profession in the U.S., of which a very small percentage held board certification. I do not have figures at hand, but I would guess the figure was less than 5%. Board certification is no picnic, and all state licensing boards accept it without question as testament to the highest level of competence.

    << You asked the agency to grant you an exception and it declined. I see no employment or labor law issue in your situation. You simply don't meet the agency's requirements for employment.>>

    I asked if a person who is board certified but whose degree is not from an accredited program can be employed by the agency, and, if not, if procedures exist, e.g., an individualized exception review similar to that offered by professional boards, whereby such a person could qualify. The rep’s reply, paraphrased, was that they’ve always done things that way and they ain’t about to change. No other federal agency I am aware of lacks flexibility with respect to education, training, and experience beyond the agency in question. Whenever I see rigid, absolute adherence to a matter that is not critical or basic to an issue, I look elsewhere for explanations. Here, I might point out that those responsible for creating and perpetuating the agency’s requirements are agency administrators who just happen to be members of my profession. Since the 1930s, but especially since the late 1970s, these individuals have held increasing sway over national agency politics and protocol. In the late 1970s, they formed a private, political action committee, joined hands with a national, well-positioned professional organization, and, in my view, got down to the business of insulation, self-protection, and self-promotion. The words guild, fiefdom, and country club come to mind, but that’s just my imagination, I'm sure.

    <<You indicate that you got your training in the 1980's. That's awhile ago. Maybe you should consider updating your training or acquiring a post doctorate degree at an accredited program or doing whatever is necessary for you to meet the educational requirements for this job and others that require a degree from an accredited program.>>

    I offered to provide a letter from the department chair of the program, now long-accredited, at the university from which I graduated stating that my education and training meet the department’s current standards and ought to satisfy the agency's standard concerning accreditation. The agency rep replied that that wouldn’t wash because I still would not have a degree from an accredited program. There are no post-doctoral degrees in my field beyond the diploma and status that accompany board certification. Assuming that nothing changes with the agency, my only option would be to re-specialize in a closely related area, which would entail considerable time and academic redundancy, and little objective gain.

    << Why do you believe that the "secretary and the agency" have different educational requirements for the position you sought? If the job requires a degree from an accredited program, some secretary - years ago, if the standard was imposed in the 1980's - decided that the doctoral degree had to be earned at an accredited institution.>>

    That, my friend, is a very good question. The regs in the Code are current as of 2006; those in the agency handbook date from 1980. I have no idea how it came to pass that the Code and the agency differ, but I aim to find out. I’m no legal beagle (I can hardly get my head around the Code). But what I can say is that the agency is Cabinet-level and that (obviously) the Secretary doesn’t write that stuff. I can also say, as I mentioned above, that the agency itself is populated by administrators who have endured for a long time as a private, self-interested, political action entity, who just happen to be members of the profession, and who are entirely responsible for the regs that appear in the agency’s handbook.

    Thanks so much for the thought-provoking questions. FWIW, I’ve taken another job, but the more I’ve thought and now written about the situation at the agency, the more I’ve gotten a sense of what’s been happening there, and the more I don’t like it. I think it’s unfair, and I’d like to see it changed.

    That's enough for a while.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    9,096

    Default Re: What Kind of Labor Law Issue is This?

    I am not going to wade through that... because it doesn't matter.

    An employer can put an educational requirement on a job offering.

    Period.

    Regardless of how fair an applicant believes it to be.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: What Kind of Labor Law Issue is This?

    Quote Quoting mlane58
    View Post
    Absolutely not. How does an employer know what your performance is, aside from the references they might get? Hiring standards are a minimum threshold of education and experience required to perform a given job. An individual with an education level and/or experience below the stated hiring standards for a job title is not considered minimally "qualified" for the position---its plain and simple.
    <<Absolutely not.>>

    I'll take that as "no" and suspect that you're not entirely comfortable with what follows.

    <<How does an employer know what your performance is, aside from the references they might get? >>

    Ideally, by directly observing your performance over time. For prospective employees, where that isn't possible, the employer will have to use variables known to distinguish good employees from bad. That is, the employer will use variables that have predictive value, and he/she can't do that without knowing in advance that the variables are associated with, i.e., predictive of, job performance, at least not in ways a scientist would appreciate.

    <<Hiring standards are a minimum threshold of education and experience required to perform a given job.>>

    Hiring standards are variables favorably associated with job performance.

    <<An individual with an education level and/or experience below the stated hiring standards for a job title is not considered minimally "qualified" for the position>>

    Therefore, Bill Gates is not qualified for an executive position that requires a college degree because he ain't got one.

    <<its plain and simple>>

    It is, when you think about it.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: What Kind of Labor Law Issue is This?

    Quote Quoting cyjeff
    View Post
    I am not going to wade through that... because it doesn't matter.

    An employer can put an educational requirement on a job offering.
    Period.
    Regardless of how fair an applicant believes it to be.
    Sure, but certainly not any ol' requirement.

    The poster was kind enough to ask critical questions. I felt obligated to reply.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: What Kind of Labor Law Issue is This?

    Quote Quoting cyjeff
    View Post
    would you want your local hospital hiring doctors that didn't go through an accredited med school but still did okay on the boards?
    Our local hospitals employ physicians with degrees from foreign countries. Before being licensed, foreign physicians must show that their degrees are equivalent to degrees in the U.S. The vetting process involves extensive scrutiny and requires sound clinical judgment (sometimes, or perhaps often, with regard to "gray areas") by seasoned examiners. It identifies deficiencies that must be rectified and requires tough decisions about substitutions, equivalencies, retraining, and admission or rejection. I don't have a problem with that at all, and at the end of the day, I don't distinguish the foreign-trained from the locals. I wish the agency I've been writing about accorded me that scrutiny.

    Doing "okay on the boards" is not a phrase I would apply to the certification process in my area of specialization.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Arbitrary Degree Accreditation Requirement

    You asked what kind of issue it was, if it was not a labor or employment law issue.

    It is a non-issue.

    I say again, they do not owe you a job. They are not required to accept your credentials simply because you think they should.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    200

    Default Re: Arbitrary Degree Accreditation Requirement

    The statement in the code that a "doctoral degree in X from a college or university approved by the Secretary" isn't inconsistent with the requirement that the degree must be from an accredited program. The later statement is simply more descriptive. It indicates the colleges or universities approved the Secretary are ones with accredited doctoral programs.

    Federal law doesn't require that hiring standards or requirements "be tied to (i.e., predictive of) job performance," unless they have an adverse impact on a group or groups protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. EEOC, DOL and DOJ have issued guidance on this subject under the UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES (UGESP). However, nothing you have described appears to fall under UGESP.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trials: Second Degree Murder Instructions Without Second Degree Verdict Forms
    By Inquisitive0927 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-10-2011, 10:39 PM
  2. Grades and Credits: Recourse for Arbitrary Grading and Failing
    By clevelandox in forum Education Law
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 11:02 PM
  3. Home Invasion: 2nd Degree Home Invasion, 2nd Degree Conspiracy In Michigan
    By peacelovechange in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-02-2008, 11:48 PM
  4. Burglary: 2nd Degree Burglary, 3rd Degree Criminal Tampering
    By modlite in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-30-2008, 08:23 AM
  5. Retail Fraud / Shoplifting: Retail Fraud 1st degree and Conspiracy 1st degree
    By stupid30yrold in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 01-11-2007, 12:40 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources