Philadelphia, PA

Dear Daugherty,

Reading your question, what immediately came to mind was a classic piece by William James, available, e.g., via the following link:

http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/octopus.html

My sense of the matter is that formal qualifications for degrees may now be less of a problem than formal recognition, which has been significantly politicized, IMHO. But attention to the James piece may help with the more general question you pose.

I take it, as a general point, that politicization of academic recognition is a very significant problem, because it tends to seriously limit the scope of political debate itself; and there is no small tendency for political forces to select for supporting constituencies. In the end, the argument rests on the rejection of political dogmatism.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Daugherty,

Reading your question, what immediately came to mind was a classic piece by William James, available, e.g., via the following link:

http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/octopus.html

My sense of the matter is that formal qualifications for degrees may now be less of a problem than formal recognition, which has been significantly politicized, IMHO. But attention to the James piece may help with the more general question you pose.

I take it, as a general point, that politicization of academic recognition is a very significant problem, because it tends to seriously limit the scope of political debate itself; and there is no small tendency for political forces to select for supporting constituencies. In the end, the argument rests on the rejection of political dogmatism.

H.G. Callaway

Dear @Douglas, it seems that credentialism hurts the meaning of educated! I have attached a fine blog about RISE OF CREDENTIALISM!

http://bolesblogs.com/2005/09/01/rise-of-credentialism/

Dear all, sorry but work called,

@ H.G. thank you. In thinking about this question I am reminded of Ilich's book Deschooling Society (1970). I believe his arguments have merit in today's view of academics and employers view of those with degrees. 

@Ljubmir, I thank you for the information and I will look into them

@ Shabon,I also am greatfull

I believe that a lot depends on the induction/ admission system. The credential system would work well if the admission system is based on capability and equal opportunities. It would otherwise create a 'quasi-feudal' stratification and increase the divide between haves and have nots.

A very good example of how credentialism ruins the education system can be seen in India where a degree is important as a means of getting into a job. First, the admission system in India is marred by inequalities - a caste based reservation system is in place where certain seats for higher education are reserved for a particular section of castes. Further, there is a class based reservation system where 'backward classes' (usually caste based classes are inducted) are preferred for admissions to universities. Then, in certain courses the cost of education is so high that only those who have a lot of money can afford it. There are hardly any scholarships or loans available.

So we have effectively curtailed traditionally higher castes and economically  middle class from getting unbiased admissions into courses on basis of pure merit. So, those who are more likely to be better professionals may not be able to get the right credentials, study and have jobs that they can do well.

Dear Ankur,

I thank you for the information and agree with the way the degree acts as a caste blocking tool to continue the social structure in India.  What a shame all these well qualified students shut out do to the lottery of birth!!

Douglas

Dear all,

To me this issue of how we, as a society, nation, and globally perceive or define what an educated person is to be is fundamental to the credibility of arguments presented, who gets access to the media, how the media covers the argument, and whom is chosen to lead our nations. I do think in the brief history of human existence a person who is viewed as being completely uneducated has been elected through a democratic process yet with the possible exception of George Bush Jr . I will admit however some have been elected who I claimed to be unqualified certainly have been elected to hold the top office in the nation I reside in being the U.S namely the above mentioned. 

Collective perceptions are shaped and molded by access to media, carefully crafted media events, crafted for media speeches and staged answer/questions prime time specials. In this fashion a collective perception begins to form and soon a collective judgement takes shape as to his/hers educational attainment which hopefully transfers as part of his/hers needed qualifications regarding the position entails. Simply put what is necessary for said position. From the laborer in construction to the engineer building an eight lane bridge over water, to those who are chosen to the judiciary and those leading our university systems, and finally those we chose to be in government office.

The perception of an educated person is so basic it effects how we see the whole of the person. It also shapes and effects how we see our children and unfortunately how it unmasks the value we place on educating our children as well. By relying on the credential we have forgot how to critically evaluate said employee and ask the right question at the time. The credential has become a crutch we lean on when we make mistakes. It opens doors others can't and allows people into positions they never should have been given an interview for.

In this light I repeat, is our credential system helped or hurt how we view what an educated person is?

Thank all who have posted and I look forward to reading others.

Douglas

A lot depends on what education is. For example, dentistry is a respected and a paying profession internationally in the modem times.. however in medieval world it was practised largely by cobblers in  the west and goldsmiths in the east (even though ancient Indian medical texts talk about tooth extraction and periodontitis, by medieval era it was not practised formally any longer). I don't know anyone around me who would probably want to be a cobbler or goldsmith when one grows up, though people might want to be a dentist ! So, can we conclude that skill of cobbler or a goldsmith is any lesser than that of a dentist, or is it our prejudice about what education consists and inability to acknowledge skill sets as a part of education that makes us short sighted about the extant of spread of realm of knowledge?

Mr. Daugherty,

This is probably the topic I find most fascinating within higher education, that of the effects of educational credentialism, or maybe better stated, the cult of education in postindustrial society.  When I bring up this topic in my field, I am surprised at how infrequently people have given thought to the potential negative effects of educational expansion, the institution of education itself, or have entirely internalized the positive discourse on education's value.  To the extent people question it, they do from the perspective of this invaluable institution serving the ends of a malign elite or ideology.  

I know on a personal level that I value the quality of being learned or wise, but I am not certain that the effects of what Baker calls the "Schooled Society" (I highly recommend this book, it uses neo-institutional theory to advance the idea of education as a primary institution and discusses the ways in which we are shaped by education and moves beyond instrumental perspectives of education which subordinate it to other social processes) are an unalloyed blessing.  This goes beyond the idea of misallocated resources of time, money or infrastructure (technological and physical) that people claim go into the expansion of educational credentialing, or the inequalities that it allegedly reproduces but to the fundamental social changes which it has wrought upon modern postindustrial societies.  There is an increasingly well-known thesis that Western, Industrial, Educated, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) societies seem to condition their inhabitants to think differently in some fundamental ways (tending towards analysis and abstraction) and I would bet at least a portion of this difference is in the rapid advance of universal education.

As Baker points out, increasingly, the myriad ways of achieving status or respectability in society have been crowded out by educational credentials (and those forms related closely to them for admission or one-upping others in the marketplace.) Increasingly, we not rely upon them not as proxy for learning or signal of character traits but as a currency of social status.

Ironically, many people express the view that higher education has become too much of a private good (I agree), but it is precisely the education revolution which they embrace which has driven the competitive spiral of cram schools (in some countries) or burnishing extracurricular credentials for admissions committee review. For example, as Taiwan expanded access to higher education, out-of-pocket expenditures on children's educational pursuits increased pari passu. When most people did not attend or complete college, any person demonstrating certain traits or knowledge can be perceived as "educated." Now, you are only educated in a field if you have those credentials. Witness the people who have done presumably credible jobs who were fired after it was found they forged or exaggerated their academic credentials.

To some degree, it is true that it is unlikely that you will be exposed to the latest scholarship in your field without that, but that speaks more to the structure of knowledge production and the legitimacy of institutions outside of the academy to engage in it than it does the necessity of having the degree.

I tend to hold the view that the "massification" of anything tends to lead to the sort of stratification and hyper-competitiveness you see in higher education and educational credentials. As an example, the deregulation of airlines led to a mad scramble for the largest pool of dollars and the starry-eyed dreams of refined and relaxed air travel fell by the wayside and we are now subject to the cattle cars of the sky (US-based passenger airlines, at least.) As I have recently mentioned to others, you see this even with something as trivial as the Super Bowl. It has long been a popular event, but the focus was once squarely on the game. As "casual" (meaning the masses) spectatorship exploded and the competition for market share took place during the broadcast of a championship football game, much of the experience (including parties, length of the game, etc) has led to a deterioration of the experience for actual football fans. Is the same to be said for education, and is that elitist to give voice to? I don't know.

Regards,

Nicholas Katopol

Dear Nicholes,

I am indeed to here more on the Baker book. I am a fan of Illich and his 1970 book Deschooling Society. One page one her writes, The pupil is schooled into confusing teaching for learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is schooled to accept service in place of value, medical treatment is mistaken for health care...." I believe this was true back then (I graduated high school in '77) and it is still true today. I also am a very strong believer that schools are ideological installment processing plants in which social reproduction is the fundamental philosophical goal of compulsory education.

The "outcome" is desinged to be a mindless atomiton simply going through the motions of a lifeless existence absent of what it means to human. Imagination being striped away like a blanket is when waking up in the morning.

Credialism has allowed for doors to be opened who have no possibility of understand what it is to be human let alone be a leader of human beings. The credential is like a passport to a future in which one has no thought of a better society but only is focused on making a better thing a ma bob for the hutche jigger over there.

The need for a well rounded critically thinking collection of educated people is not in the cards I am afraid for at least a generation or so do in part here in the U.S. NCLB mandate and high stakes testing to "make sure" the dehumanized do not realized they are in-fact dehumanized.

I could go on but I very much enjoyed reading your response and I am indeed grateful there are otherslike yourself  thinking on this issue.

Douglas 

Hi - I have published quite a lot on the area of credentialism (my MLitt Thesis was on Credentialism and Recruitment) and in the 1990's taught a Masters Unit on Credentialism... Here is a link to a paper for your interest.... 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1177/103841119002800413/abstract?globalMessage=0  

I'll upload the paper here - when I find it!

In my new book, Communication guru, I have a chapter on Bourdieu's amazing essay - the racism of intelligence

Brenda:  I know how you feel.  >25 years clinical experience, 5 years as a full time university lecturer, published widely & to a high level, 2 national fellowships, more letters after my name than in it .... yada, yada, yada,  but a PhD does not feature among them.  Difficult to find those who will give you the time of day in this field, if you don't have the ultimate credential  :-(

Dear Anthony and Nicholas,

I thank you for your time and your replies.

@ Anthony, I absolutely agree that education was one thought of, using your commoditization analogy, as a Cuban cigar now as credentialism has taken a firm grib the degree is just looked upon as just another cigar.

@ Nicholas, Your story sums up our credentialized society, your talents should open any door you would like to walk through in your respected field but......

Thank you both,

Douglas 

@Nicholas Rowe,

I am also aware that a lot of people in administration get PhDs, not only for the leg up (though if you think about it, why would being an academic give you a leg up in management/leadership?) but because having the doctorate is a means to credibility when working closely with faculty who do.  It might be that people are interested in your experience but it loses out to the credibility of their hiring decision when justified to others you would be working with.

Also, when you see companies where everyone, even mail clerks, are required to have a degree, it becomes clear that the credential is a screening device, just as a resume that doesn't use the right buzzword for a certain job might be tossed out by someone in HR who doesn't understand the position, many of those hiring for academic positions will filter out someone without the terminal degree.  

I can (sort of) understand the terminal degree requirement when employing faculty (although this somewhat goes against the principles of inclusiveness etc. that we teach our teachers), but using a degree as a 'screening device' for lower level jobs is logical???  The analogy of the mail clerk needing a degree is not so logical to me, unless there is a dimension of the employment role that specifically links with a certain degree.  If the role is only likely to be performed well with a degree level education that is also OK, but to discriminate against the otherwise quite able person who wants to become a mail clerk under the premise that having this credential makes them instantly suitable does not make much sense to me.  How many people do we know with degrees that are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, and how many of the high-flyers in business (& sometimes science) were once written off academically?

I am all in favour of degrees & credentials as long as they link directly to the type & level of work that is being done. Then people can attribute some true worth to their achievements.

Nicholas,

I may have been unclear with that.  I'm saying that it's something of a buyer's market for the vast majority of jobs, even for highly educated and experienced people.  Thus, some firms can afford to be choosy to the point of absurdity, they KNOW that requiring credentials for clerical positions is unnecessary but they do it anyway as screening (socioeconomic status, personality traits, etc.)  and as prestige signal to competitor firms, customers, the firms' customer base, etc.

Once people began to do this, it has become a commonplace practice.  Which means that people like you, with the right experience, lose out.  Unfortunately, ageism is also a big part of a buyer's market. So, if they can afford to pick candidates with some experience, but not too much, more easily molded or cowed by administration, they will do that too.

Dear Nicholas, Tony,  Nicholas and Anthony,

@ Nicholas K. I did understand and I thought between Brenda, Nicholas E., and yourself made that point clear. I was referring to Anthony's comment and attempting to add your points into Anthony's framework. It obviously was a failed attempt and the misunderstanding was on me.

@ Nicholas R. I think your points are important and your frustrations are valid. The point about the credential I am questioning is the fact the credential in and of itself was thought of in one way and I am claiming that the meaning has changed and not for the better. The credential has become the newest tool used by the dominant group to either include certain people or exclude them. The use of and the meaning of the credential that at one time was a sign of a persons drive, focus, and clarity of thought has been morphed into a single topic discourse in which, as Nicholas K. writes "employers can  be choosy to the point of absurdity"

@ Tony, I look forward to reading your piece and I thank you.

@ Anthony, Again for me your point opened a new perspective one that brought some clarity to my thoughts. I thank you.

Douglas   

Possibly, 'credential' has now entered 'conventional wisdom' .... 🙊

Dear Nicholas,

Perhaps it's final destination is common sense!!!!

What a shame,