← Back to context

Comment by godelski

10 months ago

I was responding to the comment you wrote. But I also disagree with the other one.

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.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

5 comments

godelski

Reply
bumby  10 months ago

Nobody ever claimed the best fix is going after the proximate cause and not touching the root cause. That’s a narrative you contrived. I’m in favor of fixing both (which is how systemic improvements ought to work).

  • godelski  10 months ago

    Look back at the thread:

      - 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

    Well you're right, you never claimed that. But ebiester did and when alpinisme called bullshit you came to ebiester's defense. Forgive me if I got confused.

    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

    • bumby  10 months ago

      You realize employers are sometimes regulated by who they can hire, right? A nurse often must be licensed. An engineer who stamps designs (ie one who isn’t under an exemption) has to be licensed. One of the major steps in that process is getting an accredited degree. (Yes, there are edge cases where you may be licensed without an engineering degree, but those are so vanishingly rare as to not really be a factor).

      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.

      2 replies →