4 ms·

> Academia put itself as a gateway How did academia do that? It doesn’t seem like universities would have the power to do that. More likely, either employers p

> Academia put itself as a gateway How did academia do that? It doesn’t seem like universities would have the power to do that. More likely, either employers put academia as a gateway. Or even: the culture at large misunderstood what pathways existed to middle class life. Or even: pathways to middle class life became scarcer and more insecure, and the real gatekeepers (hiring managers) had no good ways to select which of the many people at the door to let through.

bumby 1y ago
I agree with you (and upvoted) but consider this: why don’t fancy schools offer the same credentials for MOOCs if the information and assessment is on-par? I believe it is because they recognize the value of the credential and guard it closely.
- godelski 1y ago
  I think you missed the parent's point. Maybe consider this: Why don't employers recognize the credentials of a MOOC to the same degree that they would a university degree? We could similarly ask why employers value the degrees of some universities more than others. I think it's important to realize that ultimately the decisions come from the employers, not the universities. No one is making the employers do anything. But at least the second question might have a clearer partial answer. In part, there is a selection of a tribe, an implicit "culture fit" that's happening. It isn't uncommon to see employer bias towards specific universities. This is especially true with prestigious universities. But it's not the universities that are making anyone do anything and that's an important distinction.
  - bumby 1y ago
    I brought up that I think the root problem is employers in a different comment, so I’m not missing that point.[1] The distinction is that I don’t think it’s a dichotomous problem. While colleges may not be the root problem, they can still be a contributor to the problem. (Besides, if an employer is to recognize a MOOC, that course completion has to be documented, which means it’s just another version of credential) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43890682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43890682
    - godelski 1y ago
      I was responding to the comment you wrote. But I also disagree with the other one. It is a confounding variable[0]. The problem with trying to go after the confounding variable is you 1) don't solve the problem after fixing it 2) let's the current negative feedback loop continue growing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
      - bumby 1y ago
        Nobody ever claimed the best fix is going after the proximate cause and not touching the root cause. That’s a narrative you contrived. I’m in favor of fixing both (which is how systemic improvements ought to work).
        godelski 1y ago
        Look back at the thread: - ebiester claimed academia made itself the gatekeeper of credentials - alpinisme suggested that was silly. Employers have autonomy - you asked why MOOC classes don't get the same credentials - I said you missed alpinisme's point. The employer is the one that is deciding those credentials are not equal. I also pointed out how the same is true about different universities. Pointing out that you didn't need to say "MOOC" when "Stanford vs University of Wyoming" also leads to the same conclusion (which makes it weirder to point to academia as a whole instead of the prestigious unis) - you act like I was supposed to have read a reply to a different person while not addressing my point - I double down saying you're barking up the wrong tree. Take the finger and point it at employers - you say you never claimed employers aren't the problem and I'm creating a narrative Well you're right, you never claimed that. But ebiester did and when alpinisme called bullshit you came to ebiester's defense. Forgive me if I got confused. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that the employers have complete autonomy. They can make whatever rules they want. There's no use to pointing at academia because ultimately they have no say. Do they want to be the credential keepers, yeah! Which also means they'll be happy to be the ones being yelled at if the result is that employers keep using them as credential makers. Ultimately academia is about prestige. Ultimately it's about far more than "the product" (the credential). But who decides what credential is best? The fucking employers. No one is holding a gun to their head. There's no front door or back door dealings. You have concluded that since academia benefits from the employers selecting them as credential makers that they are the problem, or a meaningful part. The issue is, if you take away academia, the problem doesn't get resolved. Nor does it improve. Arguably, it becomes more noisy until employers converge onto some other arbitrary credential
ebiester 1y ago
Academia did it with advertising. And it used some of the strategies founded by its marketing, communications, and psychology departments. It also recognized the GI Bill as an opportunity and also sent lobbyists for the HEA in 1965.

bumby 1y ago

I agree with you (and upvoted) but consider this: why don’t fancy schools offer the same credentials for MOOCs if the information and assessment is on-par? I believe it is because they recognize the value of the credential and guard it closely.

godelski 1y ago
I think you missed the parent's point. Maybe consider this: Why don't employers recognize the credentials of a MOOC to the same degree that they would a university degree? We could similarly ask why employers value the degrees of some universities more than others. I think it's important to realize that ultimately the decisions come from the employers, not the universities. No one is making the employers do anything. But at least the second question might have a clearer partial answer. In part, there is a selection of a tribe, an implicit "culture fit" that's happening. It isn't uncommon to see employer bias towards specific universities. This is especially true with prestigious universities. But it's not the universities that are making anyone do anything and that's an important distinction.
- bumby 1y ago
  I brought up that I think the root problem is employers in a different comment, so I’m not missing that point.[1] The distinction is that I don’t think it’s a dichotomous problem. While colleges may not be the root problem, they can still be a contributor to the problem. (Besides, if an employer is to recognize a MOOC, that course completion has to be documented, which means it’s just another version of credential) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43890682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43890682
  - godelski 1y ago
    I was responding to the comment you wrote. But I also disagree with the other one. It is a confounding variable[0]. The problem with trying to go after the confounding variable is you 1) don't solve the problem after fixing it 2) let's the current negative feedback loop continue growing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
    - bumby 1y ago
      Nobody ever claimed the best fix is going after the proximate cause and not touching the root cause. That’s a narrative you contrived. I’m in favor of fixing both (which is how systemic improvements ought to work).
      - godelski 1y ago
        Look back at the thread: - ebiester claimed academia made itself the gatekeeper of credentials - alpinisme suggested that was silly. Employers have autonomy - you asked why MOOC classes don't get the same credentials - I said you missed alpinisme's point. The employer is the one that is deciding those credentials are not equal. I also pointed out how the same is true about different universities. Pointing out that you didn't need to say "MOOC" when "Stanford vs University of Wyoming" also leads to the same conclusion (which makes it weirder to point to academia as a whole instead of the prestigious unis) - you act like I was supposed to have read a reply to a different person while not addressing my point - I double down saying you're barking up the wrong tree. Take the finger and point it at employers - you say you never claimed employers aren't the problem and I'm creating a narrative Well you're right, you never claimed that. But ebiester did and when alpinisme called bullshit you came to ebiester's defense. Forgive me if I got confused. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that the employers have complete autonomy. They can make whatever rules they want. There's no use to pointing at academia because ultimately they have no say. Do they want to be the credential keepers, yeah! Which also means they'll be happy to be the ones being yelled at if the result is that employers keep using them as credential makers. Ultimately academia is about prestige. Ultimately it's about far more than "the product" (the credential). But who decides what credential is best? The fucking employers. No one is holding a gun to their head. There's no front door or back door dealings. You have concluded that since academia benefits from the employers selecting them as credential makers that they are the problem, or a meaningful part. The issue is, if you take away academia, the problem doesn't get resolved. Nor does it improve. Arguably, it becomes more noisy until employers converge onto some other arbitrary credential

ebiester 1y ago

Academia did it with advertising. And it used some of the strategies founded by its marketing, communications, and psychology departments. It also recognized the GI Bill as an opportunity and also sent lobbyists for the HEA in 1965.