You misunderstand licensing. Licensing ensures a minimum of conduct and creates a standard for liability for falling below that level of conduct.

I know that perfectly well. That doesn't change what I've said as it applies to the examples above.

It does. Licensing has nothing to do with your credentials past having them. The state bar doesn't care which lawschool you went to, your LSAT score, your GPA, etc.

"It does"

How?

"Licensing has nothing to do with your credentials past having them."

The way that most credentialing is used for employment.

That's separate from having your license. You don't need to be employed by a law firm to be a licensed atty

What's your point here? You still need a license.

My point? That credentials are separate from the license and aren't part of the same thing. That's why many professions don't have licensing. They serve completely different purposes.

A license is a credential.

Not all credentials are licenses, but all licenses are credentials.

You can look up some definitions if you want. I'm done with this conversation as you are so set on arguing a tangent without an open mind.

I did look up the definitions and they don't support your argument

License: a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade

Credential: a qualification, achievement, personal quality, or aspect of a person's background, typically when used to indicate that they are suitable for something.

Sure, you can characterize the license as an achievement. But it's really just a license.

> Sure, you can characterize the license as an achievemen

Maybe, maybe not, but its 100% a qualification, so its definitely a credential.