What make a "Qualified Wizard"?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 118178


Vivamus wrote:
<snip> I'm trying to recall if there is anything in canon about what
makes a "qualified wizard".    The only thing I can think of (other
than age) is the OWLs.   If that's so, that means Harry would no
longer be under the underage decree, wouldn't it?
<snip>

John responded:
> Actually, we do know when a person is allowed to use magic outside
of school. If we look at Fred and George, they were not allowed to use
> magic untill the summer leading into thier seventh year. We also
know that at this time the twins are 17 because in GoF they are upset
about not being able to compete in the TWT due to their not being 17. I am
> positve 17 is the age where a wizard is able to do magic outside of
> school, but I cannot think of where I read it. This means Harry will
> not be able to do magic untill the summer leading into his 7th year
> when he turns 17.
> 
> John, who hopes he helped

Carol responds:
I don't think that being allowed to do magic outside of school is the
same thing as being a "fully qualified wizard" (the correct
expression, IIRC), which I think means someone who has finished his or
her training and is qualified to do just about any job in the WW. Such
a person could train to be a healer or an auror. Fred and George, in
contrast, are now of age and have three OWLs each--more than enough to
"qualify" them to run a shop in Diagon Alley--but they'll never get a
job like Percy's since Percy has an impressive number of both OWLs and
NEWTs and is almost certainly as much a "*fully* qualified wizard" as
his father. 

At any rate, age alone is certainly not sufficient to "qualify" a
wizard. Hagrid, for example, is in his sixties but his wand was broken
and he's not allowed to practice magic (except under very particular
circumstances). Moreover, he never finished his fifth (OWL) year at
Hogwarts, let alone his seventh (NEWT) year. For various reasons,
Hagrid is clearly not a "fully qualified wizard."

I'm guessing that there are many other "unqualified" wizards, say Stan
Shunpike, who is about nineteen in PoA and therefore young enough to
have attended Hogwarts in Harry's first year, but there's no
indication that he did so. If he wasn't in Hogwarts for what would
have been his seventh year, he obviously has no NEWTs. Quite possibly
he has no OWLs, either, and dropped out of Hogwarts because there was
no point in attending for a sixth or seventh year because he wasn't
eligible for any NEWTs classes. Probably he's allowed to practice
simple spells, such as summoning charms, but as far as getting a job
for which being a "fully qualified" wizard is a prerequisite, he might
as well be a Squib. Even Tom, the toothless old innkeeper at the Leaky
Cauldron, can light a fire using wandless magic, but chances are he's
not a "fully qualified" wizard, either--a matter again, of education
rather than of age. And just possibly, personal preference plays a
role as well. Why bother with OWLs, much less NEWTs, if your goal in
life is to be an innkeeper?

To get back to Harry, he won't be able to (legally) use magic outside
school (barring special dispensation or a change in the law) until he
turns seventeen, between Books 6 and 7, and even then, despite earning
several OWLs (I'm guessing at least four), he still won't be a "fully
qualified wizard." If OWLs and being of age are all that matter, why
return for a seventh year and why suffer through your NEWTs? Even Tom
Riddle, who could have left to pursue his quest for immortality after
murdering his parents, returned to Hogwarts? Why, even with the honor
of being elected Head Boy, if he was already "fully qualified" by
virtue of OWLs and age?

Carol, who is only trying to reason things through with little more
than "Career Advice" in OoP to guide her