8 ms·

I can't speak for everyone here who criticizes the credential-based university system, but you have actually touched on one of the reasons I do that. Credential

I can't speak for everyone here who criticizes the credential-based university system, but you have actually touched on one of the reasons I do that. Credentialism creates artificial, unnecessary barriers that hurt the poor even more than it hurts the middle class. You are looking at a story about a few of the "lucky" ones and declaring the system a success. What the story doesn't mention is the incredible damage credentialism causes in the first place.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
Interesting...can you expound on this? Specifically on the "credentials" portion...are you talking about the granting of degrees, the barriers to entry to starting a university, or the barriers to attend university?
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  All of the above, combined with the legal privileges conferred on holders of credentials, which necessarily result in legal barriers for those without credentials. Not to mention the credentialism (a focus on credentials rather than actual ability) that is encouraged throughout society, which adds more obstacles even where legal barriers don't exist. While this hurts everyone, the poor are especially affected because it's more difficult for them to obtain credentials. Offering more and more state assistance to try to help them obtain credentials is akin to holding someone's head underwater and providing some dirty air once in a while.
  - endtime 17y ago
    >Not to mention the credentialism (a focus on credentials rather than actual ability) Well, the idea is that credentials are a measure of actual ability. A company looking for new hires can't give everyone a month-long trial to see what their ability is firsthand, so credentials like GPA and degree serve as a heuristic. It's not a perfect system, and in some respects you could even call it broken...but until someone comes up with a better way for companies to work out who to interview, it's necessary. Personally, I think it would be better to fix the problems than to remove the system entirely.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      Well, the idea is that credentials are a measure of actual ability. Sure, that's the idea, but they're not. I'm not saying people should use any one system to evaluate people, but a variety of different ones instead. The one-size-fits-all approach is inherently broken and extremely expensive to boot.
      - endtime 17y ago
        I disagree with you. They may be a noisy measure, but they are not meaningless. If I have ten technical positions, and for each one I interview someone from MIT and someone with a two-year degree from community college, I'm pretty sure that at least 9 of those 10 positions are better filled by a MIT grad.
        johnnybgoode 17y ago
        OK, but the fact that you said, "at least 9 of those 10" instead of "10 out of 10" suggests that we're not really disagreeing. I'm not saying they're completely meaningless, but they are extremely noisy, to use your term, and very expensive to obtain, in terms of time and money.
        DougBTX 17y ago
        90% signal is far from "extremely" noisy.
        johnnybgoode 17y ago
        Don't focus too much on the S/N analogy. Remember, a legal barrier is equivalent to a claim of 100% accuracy, so even 90% (which wasn't my number, anyway) is terrible. What he and I apparently agree on is that the accuracy is less than 100%.
        ryanwaggoner 17y ago
        How is it a legal barrier? He's free to hire someone with the CC degree, or no degree at all. Degrees serve as an indication of knowledge (not to mention commitment), just like experience, test scores, or any other means of evaluating someone's merit. And I don't know anyone who thinks that a degree from any school is 100% proof of anything. It's just an indicator. I think it's ridiculous to think that utopia is a world in which credentials are ignored. And they're only part of what helps people get jobs...this argument is like saying that we shouldn't use interviews for jobs because some people aren't very friendly and are therefore at a disadvantage.
- MaysonL 17y ago
  My mother was a schoolteacher in the '30s - in a one-room schoolhouse - teaching all elementary grades. She didn't have a college degree - but her students all learned to read, write, and do arithmetic. After working as a secretary in New York during WW II, she got married, had kids, and when we were all in school, wanted to go back to teaching. Unfortunately, by then that required a college degree in education, which she was unable to acquire (financial difficulties after my parents split). She ended her working career as the secretary to the director of special education (who had an EdD) for a small school district. The irony of that was that she had to write all his correspondence for him, as he was incapable of composing a coherent paragraph. I'd submit that it's possible the kids in that school district would have been better served if he was the janitor, and she a teacher or administrator.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

Interesting...can you expound on this? Specifically on the "credentials" portion...are you talking about the granting of degrees, the barriers to entry to starting a university, or the barriers to attend university?

johnnybgoode 17y ago
All of the above, combined with the legal privileges conferred on holders of credentials, which necessarily result in legal barriers for those without credentials. Not to mention the credentialism (a focus on credentials rather than actual ability) that is encouraged throughout society, which adds more obstacles even where legal barriers don't exist. While this hurts everyone, the poor are especially affected because it's more difficult for them to obtain credentials. Offering more and more state assistance to try to help them obtain credentials is akin to holding someone's head underwater and providing some dirty air once in a while.
- endtime 17y ago
  >Not to mention the credentialism (a focus on credentials rather than actual ability) Well, the idea is that credentials are a measure of actual ability. A company looking for new hires can't give everyone a month-long trial to see what their ability is firsthand, so credentials like GPA and degree serve as a heuristic. It's not a perfect system, and in some respects you could even call it broken...but until someone comes up with a better way for companies to work out who to interview, it's necessary. Personally, I think it would be better to fix the problems than to remove the system entirely.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    Well, the idea is that credentials are a measure of actual ability. Sure, that's the idea, but they're not. I'm not saying people should use any one system to evaluate people, but a variety of different ones instead. The one-size-fits-all approach is inherently broken and extremely expensive to boot.
    - endtime 17y ago
      I disagree with you. They may be a noisy measure, but they are not meaningless. If I have ten technical positions, and for each one I interview someone from MIT and someone with a two-year degree from community college, I'm pretty sure that at least 9 of those 10 positions are better filled by a MIT grad.
      - johnnybgoode 17y ago
        OK, but the fact that you said, "at least 9 of those 10" instead of "10 out of 10" suggests that we're not really disagreeing. I'm not saying they're completely meaningless, but they are extremely noisy, to use your term, and very expensive to obtain, in terms of time and money.
        DougBTX 17y ago
        90% signal is far from "extremely" noisy.
        johnnybgoode 17y ago
        Don't focus too much on the S/N analogy. Remember, a legal barrier is equivalent to a claim of 100% accuracy, so even 90% (which wasn't my number, anyway) is terrible. What he and I apparently agree on is that the accuracy is less than 100%.
        ryanwaggoner 17y ago
        How is it a legal barrier? He's free to hire someone with the CC degree, or no degree at all. Degrees serve as an indication of knowledge (not to mention commitment), just like experience, test scores, or any other means of evaluating someone's merit. And I don't know anyone who thinks that a degree from any school is 100% proof of anything. It's just an indicator. I think it's ridiculous to think that utopia is a world in which credentials are ignored. And they're only part of what helps people get jobs...this argument is like saying that we shouldn't use interviews for jobs because some people aren't very friendly and are therefore at a disadvantage.
MaysonL 17y ago
My mother was a schoolteacher in the '30s - in a one-room schoolhouse - teaching all elementary grades. She didn't have a college degree - but her students all learned to read, write, and do arithmetic. After working as a secretary in New York during WW II, she got married, had kids, and when we were all in school, wanted to go back to teaching. Unfortunately, by then that required a college degree in education, which she was unable to acquire (financial difficulties after my parents split). She ended her working career as the secretary to the director of special education (who had an EdD) for a small school district. The irony of that was that she had to write all his correspondence for him, as he was incapable of composing a coherent paragraph. I'd submit that it's possible the kids in that school district would have been better served if he was the janitor, and she a teacher or administrator.