Limits of Credentialism
Schools in the United States have long followed the mantra of “college for everyone.” Since at least mid-century, the trend has been for ever larger enrollments in public and private four-year colleges and universities. Yet after 60+ years of this motivation from K-12 educational planners, we still see only about 35-40% of the U.S. labor force with four-year degrees or more. In recent decades, average costs of college have spiraled, both in state-supported higher education, and especially in private institutions. Degrees have become the primary class signifiers in American society. And credentialism , the reliance on diplomas for hiring decisions, has become the dominant labor market bias over this period.
Responding to the general increase in the pool of potential workers possessing four-year degrees, the market has ratcheted up its credential requirements for hiring. Professionalization has proliferated, credential inflation seems unchecked – former hires with a B.A. now must compete with those possessing graduate and post-graduate credentials. These barriers to entry aren’t erected to increase demand for socially beneficial occupations. Their purpose is to benefit an elite class of degree holders, a higher education and professional school cartel.
Industrial Policy
Industrial policy, defined as government intervention with both incentives and disincentives for the purpose of stimulating growth in certain sectors of the economy, lets government policy determine which sectors are “socially beneficial.” There is something of an ideological component to this. One side of our divided political constellation adamantly opposes government intervention in the economy for any reason. But for those who don’t possess religious zeal against Keynesian economics, it follows that educational incentives for tomorrow’s workers ought to reflect the mid-to-long-term goals of society. So where does credentialism fit into a national industrial policy – if we even have one?
It may be that college is NOT for everyone. Diplomas should not be a requirement for a middle-class lifestyle! They weren’t required until the rush to credentialism got underway in the second half of the 20th century. I grew up in the center of the auto industry in Michigan, in the 1950s and ‘60s – we were all middle class then, regardless of level of education. Thanks to the UAW and mass investment in home ownership (wealth creation), assembly line workers lived just as well as teachers. Middle managers in GM plants in Flint, like my father with his engineering degree, were only a couple notches above the hourly workers on the line. Those days are long gone, however. Flint died as a city — despite its U of M branch campus. There was no way that a college degree could be required for hourly workers on an assembly line. The expanding pool of such credentials prevented GM from finding a labor force in Flint willing to work for what GM (or the UAW) was willing to pay! GM left the city in the 1990s along with many of its workers.
Credential Inflation
Many see technical education (at Community Colleges and trade schools) as an integral component of industrial policy. This may, over time, diminish the surplus of B.A.s, but what of the higher levels? The proliferation of those terminal Masters programs all openly advertise their value as financial, career-oriented, projects. Their pitch is to wholly selfish material desires – I know because I foolishly pursued such a degree myself at American University in the early ‘80s. Though no longer offered at American University, my M.S. in “the Technology of Management” (MSTM) has been copied at other institutions, like UVa’s McIntire School. And they become even more inflated when Ph.Ds are placed on top of the previously non-existent Masters programs. If this isn’t bad enough, many research universities are now requiring some post-doctoral project or certification before consideration for tenure. Is this kind of credential inflation socially beneficial? Or is its main beneficiary only the degree provider? While research universities do play a key role in both social progress and economic growth, should granting tenure to professors be subject to the same barriers to entry as other white collar workers? Is there any end to credential inflation — too many Ph.Ds causing more postdocs?
If we reject any industrial policy, leaving all decisions to the market and the market alone, we might expect more credential inflation – when the supply of credential holders increases, wages are lower. Employers benefit. But does that approach really optimize growth? I have always been skeptical of rent-seeking behavior as a growth strategy. We endure it in many areas of life, but extending that behavior to higher education has too much of a “greased palms” aura, like NYC taxi medallions!
One way around this problem could be more generous government subsidies for higher education programs, either scholarships or student loan forgiveness. This would stimulate more enrollment in relevant programs. It would focus on certain programs, not others. A postdoc in biological sciences might lead to a new wonder vaccine, but a similar mentorship in history or English literature has more questionable value. It wouldn’t do anything to reduce the total number of degrees but would channel them into certain fields.
Credentialism has a long history. J.D. degrees have been requirements to practice law and M.D.s for practicing medicine far longer than any of us have been alive. But those are professional credentials, previously known as “first-professional degrees” in established professions. Some lesser professional degrees also have long histories: e.g., M.S. programs for librarians and social workers. But as all these professions matured, incentives seemed to lead toward credential inflation. If some competitors for a job posting have a certain credential and others don’t, the degree holders will be deemed “more qualified” – even if the degree is not “required” to apply! Also, as bureaucracies develop, advancement through career ranks requires ever higher educational credentials – an administrator of a large academic library needs a Ph.D., like the professors, and a physical therapist needs a Ph.D. for certification, because of their relationship with M.D.s. In neither of these cases does the research required for a dissertation, the traditional sine qua non of Ph.Ds, clearly contribute to the practitioner’s effectiveness. Academic librarians want to influence the curriculum of the university, and P.T.s want to collaborate with doctors on their techniques. Client expectations and peer review may also play a role, and perhaps there is social benefit here, but is class consciousness so baked into these bureaucratic relationships that collaboration is impossible without equivalent educational credentials?
What to Tell the Kids …
Looking at the other end of the continuum, when we ask a child what they “want to be when they grow up,” are we assessing the probability of success for that child through the many years of schooling that might be required in pursuit of their dream? Teachers know the odds, but parents won’t if they haven’t been deeply enmeshed in the educational system themselves. This is the tyranny of meritocracy!
Perhaps an important goal of industrial and educational policy is to soften the blow of the tyranny on children who wouldn’t be able to make it otherwise. Credential inflation is, after all, first about barriers to entry. If the only way you can achieve your dreams is through education, then make education more accessible!
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 