Talk:Credentialism

Just a word definition?

Is this topic really large enough for a wikipedia entry, or is it just a word definition? -- User:Tjic

It doesn't even make sense! Dell Adams 00:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have run into it a few times while looking into various 'schools of thought' ;) on educational philosphy, autodidacticism, and homeschooling and it seems to be that it's a significant supporting concept in alternative education. On the other hand, even if the topic is large enough to be wiki'd, this article itself is still on the puny side. I'll see if the wikəmmunity can build it up a bit. Mang 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iceberg

This topic merely touches the tip of the iceberg because credentialism is alive and well and is here to stay. I predict the term will take a front row seat in the news as more individuals are separated into categories of the "haves" and "have nots". As any other term of such magnitude, it will become part of the dictionary to use as a household name. In time, it will take on such great meaning that the most popular word processing software will be compelled to add it to their list of words in spell check.

As you peruse want ads and online job search web sites, it increasingly outlines a set of credentials with the bar rising ever fast. I have noted many jobs that are specifying the need for a bachelor’s degree and in fine print include the statement, “master’s preferred”. Colleges and Universities are rapidly increasing enrollment because individuals are aware of the need for such credentials. They realize that without such credentials they are squeezed from employment opportunities. You ask, “Is this topic really large enough for a wikipedia entry.” My reply, “Yes, indeed!” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.136.233.38 (talk • contribs) (on 13 October 2006).

OVER reliance? LOL

Credentialism is the bias of over-reliance on credentials regardless of qualification. COMMENT: So *some* reliance is okay, but only OVER-reliance is bad? Well, I think we all agree that OVER anything is bad. But so what? Over-eating is bad. Over-reliance on anything is bad by defintion, because that's what we mean by "over". But I think the definition is torpedoed right here. If any reliance is okay, then it mearly devolves into a discussion of how much formal documentation and authentication of qualification (which is all a credential is), is worth. S B H arris 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic credentials prove some things desirable to a prospective employer. Even a high school diploma shows that someone has the willingness to put up with a bureaucratic organization and follow instructions and think beyond immediate frustrations. People can graduate from high school even with sub-normal intelligence... but people who drop out suggest unflattering things about themselves, such as the inability to obey instructions. Even if the person who graduates from high school is a dullard, that person might be suitable for some the vast majority of jobs because the diploma suggests some foresight and character -- including the willingness to put up with the nastiness of dealing with customers.

Even beginning a course of college education shows that one is likely smarter than the high school graduate who doesn't start. College board scores suitable for college indicate intelligence and mental flexibility to some extent. People who drop out of college might do so for financial reasons as well as academic reasons -- but generally those who drop out of college don't ask for much more but offer more.

Specific education seems a bare minimum for certain jobs. What other than an engineering degree shows that one can do engineering? A fresh graduate might need to be taught a few things, but far less than someone with a degree in something else. It's quite clear that only a degree in law or medicine is an adequate preparation for law or medicine; the degree is one way in which to sort out the opportunistic quacks.

Does society overemphasize the need for academic credentials? Perhaps it has too many well-educated people for the jobs that it has available. A society that offers education as the cure-all for its social ills finds out soon enough that other things matter -- like capital investment and entrepreneurialism, neither of which have much connection to formal education. The economic order generally benefits best by employees offering more and demanding less -- which is difficult for people who have huge college loan balances but end up in jobs that don't need college educations.

Would someone with a PhD in mathematics be happy as a parking-lot attendant? Not likely -- but the capitalist order is not a respecter of persons except to the extent that they have assets to sell or can turn over a profit. People might need to adjust to the seemingly-harsh order... with declining expectations.

If anything, credentialing systems might suggest that some people grossly unsuited to the routines and expectations on the job be rejected. If people with college degrees typically have IQs in the 110s or higher and the optimum IQ for performance on the job is around 90, then an employer might have good cause to reject the college graduate as a prospective employee. Someone who "will leave when a better opportunity arises" is a poor candidate for a job that requires few skills and can be taught to almost anyone because that person is likely to leave.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair and imbalanced

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the dominion of self-described anti-credentialist Jimbo Wales would have such a lopsided, biased article on credentialism. I'll be back with a big broom to do some major cleanup. Groupthink 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing References

"Does Education Matter", Alison Wolf,Penguin Books 2002 "The Diploma Disease", Ronald Dore, Publisher ?? I have sensed that Wikipedia has become more credentialist over the years! Geoff and Majed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.51 (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't precision testing an alternative to "credentialism"?

In the actuarial field, extensive testing is required to be qualified to do the work. You could say this is a credential of sorts, but it avoids all the problems with and complaints against "credentialism". You could pass all the actuarial exams by studying materials downloaded for free by yourself, and then paying 175 dollars for each test. (You only need a couple to start working). Yet if you pass the test, it is certain that you are very knowledgable.

The article doesn't seem to mention this alternate approach.

response to above

Precision testing and credentialism are both ways of achieving a certain minimum standard in an occupation or profession. However, credentialism appends onto precision testing a superfluous checklist. (response to above). I would assume that many people who oppose credentialism might not oppose the "precision testing" that you mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.209.80 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this article?

It used to be much longer and all the statements were well sourced. Unfortunately, it looks like the credentialists are above criticism and have hijacked this article. 76.120.17.197 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larger, yes. Well sourced? I can't say I agree. The largest version of this article (before much of it was removed) has one one inline references for the many statements it makes. It's good that it had a solid list of sources at the bottom. But there's no indication which sources provide which of the statements the article makes comes from. So the article reads very non-NPOV or very much like original research. Korval (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]