The professionals who run the board are generally granted wide discretionary powers, including the right to determine what academic institutions will have their credentials honored and what type of written examination will be required. These mental health professions have sought to dominate the field by requiring entrants to possess certain advance academic credentials, to pass rigorous exams, to possess significant supervised experience as well as other specified characteristics. And they do so by laying claim to a broad field that would seem to have no boundary. If the practice of psychology so defined is illegal without a license, one wonders what is left for the rest of us to do without violating the law. The question, of course, is how well licensing has served the general public.
Good reason exists to believe that most licensing laws are counterproductive.
Several factors are contributive to this. First, a boundary issue exists. It turns out to be difficult, if not impossible, to define the field clearly enough for licensing purposes. The result is that government agencies attempting to reinforce licensing laws will constantly be meddling in the bailiwick of other professions, including education and religion. Even if it were, it seems clear that the requirements are way above what is minimally necessary to be competent.