Credentials to Fix Credentials
No education. Less than 8 years. Pre-high school graduate. Some high school. High school graduate. Some college. Two-year/ Associate’s Degree. Four-year/ Bachelor’s Degree. Some graduate school. Master’s Degree. PhD. JD. MD. CPA. A&P.
These are our modern titles. We have forsaken the era of Lord John and Lady Jane for a new era of John Doe, MS and Jane Doe, PhD (potentially even Dr. Jane Doe, PhD). But what are the purpose of these titles? What gives these credentials any credit themselves? One may proffer as an answer that it indicates the level of education one has received. This description of purpose, in and of itself, may seem an adequate and very literal description; indeed, it is and shall be the only such description we shall endorse in this essay. Why? Because the modern education system on the whole simply tells us the number of years and level equivalency of those years that one has completed. In turn, why is this so?
One may argue that, of course, John Doe, a freshman at STU, is much less academically advanced than Jenny Smith, a doctoral candidate at STU. This is more likely be true, given the constraint of intra-university comparison. But this is not what we are arguing. The first of our two theses concerning credentialing in education is as follows: for each “level” of education, on a national scale, there is little significant different between the academic distribution of students in adjacent levels. What this means is, while the average Master’s student in the country is likely more academically advanced than the average Bachelor’s student, the distribution of Master and Bachelor students overall overlap. We must admit this is a poor thesis simply as it is untestable using unbiased methods. However, the principle may still apply. The implications of such is that students are advancing and learning at irregular rates.
At least from personal experience, I know of many undergrads that could easily show-up a doctoral candidate or industry professional. In the same vein, I know many high school students smarter than the average undergrad. However, it is less likely to find a significant number of high school students that are smarter than a significant number of post-docs. (I am using “smarter” in a semi-colloquial sense as to mean more intelligent, not necessarily having retained more various formulae.)
While the inquiry into comparisons of various academic levels is interesting, one must also inquire into potential solutions. The tl;dr version is simple: there is no solution. The longer version is still there is no solution, but, for the sake of argument, let us flesh-out that idea a little further. In doing so, the primary reason we give in questioning the ability to alter credentialing standards (referring to the ability of progression) is the sheer practicality of such a change. It is analogous to the prisoner’s dilemma in that no matter which party makes the first move, somebody is going to have to risk it all. Students pursuing alternative credentialing and progression risk not being able to find a job or advance down a more guaranteed track that would be provided by a 3.8 GPA in a Bachelor’s degree rather than “moderate-to-high-competency-in-73%-of-assessed-skills.” This is due to the fact that traditional degrees are like paper money — their value is part of a system that is intended to produce the same product with (relatively) the same value over and over again.
Breaking from these norms and taking the corresponding risks could be amazing but the potential negative outcomes are greater. The same is true on the side of educational and professional organizations. Accepting a student who has 3.4 out of 5 mastery of game theory (is that even good?) is enticing but is also an unknown quantity. The sad alternative is hiring the same old Harvard douche who is as interesting as drying paint (unless you’re a chemist, then the paint is more interesting). The problem with these posterboard-style individuals is that every employer or admissions officer knows exactly what they were getting. The sadder thing is that they have been satisfied in the past.
Moving on from the practical thought experiment to the pure principles of evaluation, the question becomes one of meaningfully and wholesomely assessing some of the student’s abilities in some areas somehow. This may sound vague but that is the unfortunate truth. On one side of the argument, individuals takes great pride and pleasure in chanting the benefits of systems such as standardized testing; the other forms its resistance to the monster in project-based and student directed learning, relying on accomplishing goals and skills. Nevertheless, neither system works. Students learning material don’t know how to think or do; students learning skills know how to do but less often know what to think. A step forward would be evaluating students based on skills and knowledge (a model popular in many business schools — practicum + theory). In this way, we could assess students on two metrics and create at least a two-sided result. We could use this to move students up or down accordingly and potentially micro-credential (providing certification for specific skills or subfields dependent on “mastery”). Regardless, there is no possible way to evaluate the person as that person. Due to the inherent complexity that makes up a human being, we must model, estimate, approximate, and sometimes simply guess certain qualities and abilities.
While we may never be able to perfectly evaluate and advance individuals, that does not mean we should try. The more dimensions we can afford in our model of a man, the greater amount of complexity we can capture in forming a picture of an individual. In our quest to find this perfection, we will never succeed. Nevertheless, as with most aspects of life, we weren’t designed to succeed, only improve.
