I have read both Roissy and Whiskey make the point that as society becomes more feminized, credentialism becomes more prevalent. Perhaps credentialism is at its zenith today, pushing the obedient overachievers straight to the top. Many of these obedient, overachieving types are women — in fact, given the gender disparity in college graduation rates, most of them probably are. Additionally, obedience and goal-orientation are often signs of an aching need to “fit in,” that is, to do what one feels is expected by society. There is nothing wrong with such people, of course, because they are a part of a healthy behavioral continuum in human society. However, things are becoming rather imbalanced.
A lot of creative types and leaders are not the most obedient people, nor do they always pursue the goals society expects them to strive for. Many have mediocre credentials from your typical corporate or professional standpoint. However, what they do tend to have is a great deal of experience or native charisma — the kind you can’t measure with diplomas (a lot of them are highly intelligent as well, but that’s another matter).
Some of our greatest generals, such as Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, had rather undistinguished performances at West Point, but went on to become essential to victory. Neither Steve Jobs nor Bill Gates finished college, and we all know what they went on to achieve. The examples go on and on, the point being that people can succeed and effect change through unconventional routes. And, given the great achievements of some of these unconventional types, it would be foolish to attempt to shut off all but the conventional paths to success.
Unfortunately, our society is becoming more and more obsessed with standardized credentials, even as there has been a broad devaluation of the credentials themselves. This means that although it no longer means all that much to have a higher degree (due to affirmative action, grade inflation and other factors), the degrees themselves have become more of a necessity for even entry-level jobs that require few skills beyond typing and filing. This is preventing plenty of talented people – mainly young men – from obtaining positions in organizations in which they could potentially contribute a great deal.
For example, the recently departed John Hughes, who directed a number of popular teen movies during the 1980s, got his start as a copywriter after dropping out of the University of Arizona at the age of twenty. After working on some successful ad campaigns, Hughes tried his hand at writing screenplays, eventually succeeding with films such as The Breakfast Club that those of us in my demographic grew up with.
Today, John Hughes likely wouldn’t have gone anywhere. He would have applied for a copywriting job and been passed over, most likely in favor of a young, single urban female with an MA in English. If he had eventually succeeded as a writer, it would have been in spite of the fact that he would have had to take jobs outside of the creative field, and probably later in life. It is doubtful that he would have enjoyed the same degree of success, even in the unlikely event that he did manage to support himself in a creative field.
Of course, there are fields where credentials are important, such as law, medicine and architecture, but even here we have a bit of a structural problem. Getting into these fields requires an initial four-year degree before specialization. Why not allow young people with two-year degrees to apply directly to law school or medical school? The truth is that the extra two years of college are redundant for those who go on to become high-level professionals, and might discourage unconventional types from following through and joining professions in which they could be quite successful. Additionally, most Americans do not obtain four-year degrees, and most that do do not need them.
All we are doing with this overemphasis on credentials is locking the door to talented young people and wasting the energy and money of others who could be gainfully employed or in training a couple years earlier than otherwise. For young men, many of whom are not suited to the culture of the modern educational institution, this is becoming an increasingly onerous burden. It is time to break the monopoly on young lives held by higher education, and cut it down to the proper size. We should give the young some more freedom to define themselves, and clear the path to a career and meaningful participation in society instead of shutting them off behind an ivy curtain.
23 responses so far ↓
1 someguy // Sep 10, 2009 at 3:18 pm
It is my first time to your website. I just happened to be thinking about these two women at work who are very PC and how they seem to be making a power grab by initiating more and more rules and regulations. I can already see the future where because I am fired for not abiding by section 4 byline 3 of the rules and regulations when the real reason is my politics.
I will let you guess who is more productive and creative, them or me.
2 Welmer // Sep 10, 2009 at 3:22 pm
It’s true, someguy — many of these rules and regulations are links in the chains that bind us.
3 Todd White // Sep 10, 2009 at 3:45 pm
This is a very good post, Welmer.
4 vino // Sep 10, 2009 at 4:02 pm
The truth is that law school is designed to encourage convention, a different ‘legal’ way of thinking rigorously enforced, and more creative, original thinkers often do not enjoy it.
That said, I agree there isn’t a need for 4 years of undergrad first. I’ve often said that today’s Bachelor’s degree is the equivalent to a HS diploma from 25-30 years ago.
5 Justin // Sep 10, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Welmer, you will probably cheer the fact that our higher educational system is in the midst of a massive bubble, one that will soon pop, to the general benefit of all. I just wrote post on this, you might enjoy:
http://cancelourdebt.blogspot.com/2009/09/economics-of-higher-education-system.html
6 jz // Sep 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm
absolutely agree.
7 Dave from Hawaii // Sep 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Tell me about it. I graduated with a Bachelors in Business Admin with a double-major in IT and Marketing. I thought for sure I’d land a job upon graduation because I had attained credentials.
Turns out my first job had nothing to do with all those years of studying, and everything to do with a 3 month internship I did in my senior year.
I used to think I would eventually go back to school for my MBA.
Now, I would never, ever consider such a ludicrous proposition. Unless you’re in a hard discipline like engineering, school is largely a waste of time (certainly it’s fun…but productive? I think not.)
8 novaseeker // Sep 10, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Nice post.
One trend that I expect will continue is that as women populate fields in majorities, the wages will fall, on average, in such fields. We’ve seen that to some extent in medicine, where women now outnumber men in the schools and will eventually do so in practices as a result. In law, we’re seeing a tremendous amount of pressure on law firms to switch from billable hours to flat rates, which will depress incomes, at a time when women are pushing past parity in the profession, too.
I expect that for men the options that will be more attractive will remain entrepreneurial endeavors, invention, technological creativity and the like, because these are areas where skillsets are relatively rare. Doctors and lawyers are pretty much a dime a dozen these days, and it was only a matter of time until the market woke up and began de-rewarding appropriately.
Hence the push by women’s groups for parity in STEM, regardless of abilities and bell curves. They see the same trends, and are looking out for their own.
9 Tarl // Sep 10, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Of course, there are fields where credentials are important, such as law,
I’m not a lawyer (hate ‘em), but my impression is that the law degree is a good example of credentialism. Not much they learn during that expensive three years is relevant to the actual practice of law – much of it is theory and other time-wasting BS. I believe in the past one could become a lawyer without going to law school, by doing an apprenticeship and then taking the bar exam. Needless to say, nobody’s going to be able to do that now, since the system demands the “credential” of a law degree. (There is also an even more stupid credential, the paralegal certificate, that a lot of firms require now, as if you have to go to school to be a glorified admin.)
10 miles // Sep 10, 2009 at 5:48 pm
The highest paying majors are still dominated by men.
Lots of women get humanities, teaching, and “ology” degrees. They do graduate, but they seldom face hard math or hard science in those majors. They learn new systems of nomenclature embedded in those classes that allow them to sound erudite when they talk (the post-structuralism, Judith Butler, etc.), but can’t perform basic algerbra, accounting, know how to do anything useful in a business, or fix any technical problem.
Yet that degree assures some companies will let them get their foot in the door. So what you have is someone who can dress and speak the part, but really can’t do much useful.
11 Elusive Wapiti // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:28 pm
My question is: “why did these barriers to entry pop up in the first place?”
Are credentials supposed to serve as some sort of proxy for training or experience or wisdom?
“…entrepreneurial endeavors, invention, technological creativity and the like, because these are areas where skillsets are relatively rare. “
This is a key observation. If Friedman’s thesis in The World Is Flat is to be believed, it is entrepreneurial, inventive, creative endeavors where the future money is to be made. Places where credentialism doesn’t hold much sway, and where credentialism is in force, look for low wages or government service to accompany it.
Nova, is the push for women’s representative parity in STEM limited to academia or is it trying to be forced upon the private sector too?
If so, I have one answer for that one. Okay, two: India and China.
To their credit, I understand that female scientists and engineers in academia are horrified at the prospect of AA to socially promote their less brainy sisters into their career fields. I think they know what it will mean to (a) their own credibility, and (b) the overall quality of the department.
12 ganttsquarry // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“Of course, there are fields where credentials are important, such as law, medicine and architecture, but even here we have a bit of a structural problem. Getting into these fields requires an initial four-year degree before specialization. Why not allow young people with two-year degrees to apply directly to law school or medical school? The truth is that the extra two years of college are redundant for those who go on to become high-level professionals, and might discourage unconventional types from following through and joining professions in which they could be quite successful. Additionally, most Americans do not obtain four-year degrees, and most that do do not need them.”
Amen.
13 Kevin K // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I recently interviewed for a science-y job and spent the entire day talking with people (almost all men) about my work experiences and research background and my motivations for wanting to take my career this particular direction. The one person who actually was concerned about the fact that my grades as an undergrad were mediocre (3.1 GPA) was the HR lady. I hope it isn’t a big factor.
Techno/science fields are threatened not by women (who don’t generally want these jobs), but by foreign men. If there are shortages they will just hand out student visas until there aren’t anymore. This is the problem with Charles Murray’s ideas about creditializing through testing rather through degrees.
14 Kevin K // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Also, I think there needs to be a general “health studies” degree that’s like 2 years. After the 2 years you can apply to go to medical school, dental school, dental hygenist school, nursing school or the 25-zillion other jobs in a hospital that need some dinky little certification. These jobs pay well and aren’t really all that demanding. Most people aren’t aware they even exist.
15 novaseeker // Sep 10, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Nova, is the push for women’s representative parity in STEM limited to academia or is it trying to be forced upon the private sector too?
EW –
For now the main push is in the academy. But in the private sector what seems to be happening is to try to place female supervisors (better with people skills, dontcha know?) over male engineers. That is a recipe for a big “F*** YOU!” after a time, if you ask me.
16 Niko // Sep 10, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Post of the year. Great observations.
I know of a poor bugger who is only functionally literate. His father owns a truck and he has been driving it since he was sixteen. He is as professional at heavy vehicle driving as it is possible.
He has tried sitting for his heavy vehicle license and has failed, owing to his inability to deduce the deliberately confusing syntax in the written test (this is in Australia, don’t know how it goes in the US).
I sat the test with him to try and help him get over the line. I passed but I can tell you I have nowhere near the driving ability of this young man nor would I remotely trust myself behind a heavy rig.
Alas the young man had to give up his dreams due to credentialism despite being more qualified for the job than 99.9% of the population.
17 codebuster // Sep 10, 2009 at 10:13 pm
And as an inevitable extension of this credentialism, what about regulationism and an assortment of nanny-state initiatives that should be of nobody’s business but the individual (cycle helmets, seatbelts come to mind).
18 emarel // Sep 11, 2009 at 6:13 am
Niko, any way that the system could be, how to say it, circumvented, to allow this young man to get his heavy vehicle license?
It may technically be cheating, but fuck the system. Ultimately, many men will either fuck the system by circumventing the rules, or work actively to destroy it.
Personally I would prefer the latter .
19 Tarl // Sep 11, 2009 at 7:08 am
The one person who actually was concerned about the fact that my grades as an undergrad were mediocre (3.1 GPA) was the HR lady. I hope it isn’t a big factor.
That’s amazing. In my experience, they may care about gpa if you’re interviewing for your first job, but after that, nobody cares what your gpa was or even where you went to school or (in many cases) what your major was. I remember at my first job they verified that I actually had the degrees I claimed, but that was it.
20 jz // Sep 11, 2009 at 4:58 pm
@nova above,
I agree with your thesis, that a labor market flooded with degree-holding women (and men) drive down incomes. However, you clearly don’t understand the market and incomes for doctors. There is a shortage (not “a dime a dozen”) of physician labor in the US. Despite this, our incomes are tethered to congress via MedPac. They set rates for Medicare, and the insurance companies follow their lead. Reimbursement is not connected, in any way, to the labor market, with the exception of a few hospital-based labor shortages (ex. pediatric surgery, trauma surgery, hospital-based neurosurgery, etc.)
I know I’m quibbling here, but your comment was so off.
21 Niko // Sep 11, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Emarel
I paid off a license tester (cost him a thousand bucks) and the kid was driving for two years before the tester was busted and all licenses provided through him were revoked.
22 Bhetti // Sep 12, 2009 at 4:26 am
I like this thought on the matter: http://defaultuserblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/the-real-beta-revolution/#comment-180
23 When in doubt, plug « In Mala Fide // Sep 13, 2009 at 9:03 am
[...] laments the rise of credentialism in our increasingly feminized world: Unfortunately, our society is becoming more and more obsessed with standardized credentials, even [...]
Leave a Comment