This seems to be the general feeling of students right now.
Academia put itself as a gateway and barrier to the middle class. Why would we be surprised when people with no interest in anything but the goal are not enthralled by the process?
Academia put itself as a gateway and barrier to the middle class. Why would we be surprised when people with no interest in anything but the goal are not enthralled by the process?
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.
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.
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.
- 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
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
There is certainly room for employers to stop over-credentialing jobs, but there’s also room for universities to improve their role in the process. Employers don’t have “complete autonomy”; we can’t just suddenly decide we’re going to create more nurses, doctors, engineers, and lawyers because we’ve found a loophole in the pipeline.
Depending on the type of nurse, you do not need a degree. Some will need to pass an exam though. You can become a lawyer without a degree, only needing to pass the BAR. An engineer doesn't need a license. You are thinking of a Professional Engineer, which is a specific job title that has legal ramifications. This requires a degree but it also requires you working under another PE for some time and then passing state competency exams.
The cases we're talking about here are jobs where if you do something wrong you can kill hundreds or thousands of people and destroy millions or billions of dollars worth of assets. *You've just completely moved the goalpost to try to make your point.*
Do you really honestly believe that these jobs shouldn't require a formal education?
I'm not going to take anyone seriously that is going to argue that medical doctors shouldn't receive formal educations. Come on, don't be dumb. Just have a normal fucking conversation. You don't have to double down and back yourself into a corner.
I know you're not that dumb, so stop bring disingenuous.
We agree on most, I just think you tend to think on absolutes and I do not. I don’t think most current degree progressions need degrees, but I’m willing to recognize there is a large subset what do. And colleges still hold a monopoly on those degree. But the fact you can’t follow HN guidelines because you’re proved to argue makes further discussion boring and fruitless.
It also recognized the GI Bill as an opportunity and also sent lobbyists for the HEA in 1965.
We could make it less meaningful if employers weren’t so keen on using credentials as their own gateway. That may have more of a chance of happening if the OPs perspective becomes more prevalent and the credential becomes an increasingly worse signal for meaningful skills.
You can start issuing your own credentials tomorrow.
Accreditation is regulated by NGOs who need government approval and without that you cant received financial aid (or participate in some programs) — but you can hand out pieces of paper for completing your program.
https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and...
But it wasn't about credentials even. It was about inculcating a culture. You knew that someone had the knowledge and ability to reach university, and you knew that they had a shared common culture with you. Shared common culture and norms increases trust. Credentials mattered for doctors, but universities, in the end, were selling something far more intangible: culture.