Uncredentialed Wonder
Jan 25, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
He has authored over a dozen books, written a syndicated newspaper column and countless essays and articles covering a broad range of subjects—sports, politics, mobsters, union thugs, cultural touchstones, booze, and blades of grass—all of it written in a smart, literate voice of the casual sophisticate who takes his subject, but not himself, seriously. And in the summer of 2010, Pete Hamill finally received an honorary graduate’s diploma from Regis High School, a Jesuit-run prep school from which he dropped out 59 years earlier. “It was the last period when you could do that and still have a life,” Hamill told the New York Times. “Try getting a job on a newspaper now without the résumé.”
True. We live in an era where a well-educated journalist can declare the Constitution to be “over a hundred years old” and therefore difficult to understand, and remain credibly employed; it does seem that credentials matter more than ability. Demonstrating that one is able to conform to curricula currently trumps boldness; seat hours in the auditorium count more than audacity.
I wonder if that’s really good for America, though. To become educated is a marvelous thing; to have the opportunity to study is a privilege too many take for granted. But have we become a society that places too much weight on the attainment of a diploma, which sometimes indicates nothing more than an ability to keep to a schedule and follow a syllabus, and underappreciates the ability to wonder, to strike out on an individual path, and to learn on one’s own? When did non-conformists become so unromantic and undervalued?
In the wake of the press’ post-Tucson attack on Sarah Palin, James Taranto, the puckish and observant editor of the Wall Street Journal’s Opinionjournal.com and a member of that paper’s editorial board, suggested that Palin’s humble bachelor’s degree from the University of Idaho has contributed to the overt hatred the credential-obsessed media consistently betray, whenever the subject of Palin arises. In sympathy, Taranto informs the reader that he possesses no college degree at all; “For the record,” he notes, “our high school diploma is a GED.”
Well, for nearly 60 years, a GED was more than Pete Hamill possessed. Or, for that matter, the late Peter Jennings, who managed to forge a distinguished journalistic career without a diploma. NBC news anchor and managing editor Brian Williams attended—like Sarah Palin—several universities in pursuit of a degree. Unlike Palin, he never did acquire one, but he is currently crushing the ratings against the noted University of Virginia graduate Katie Couric at CBS.
One of my sons graduated a few years ago from a very good college at which he performed poorly. From his sophomore year forward, he hated college and seemed to work very hard at getting his parents to pull him out, but we were adamant about that degree. Since graduating, he has read non-stop—philosophy, economics, theology, mathematical theory; he reminds me of Winston Churchill, the famously poor student who asked his mother to send him books while he was stationed in India (in the cavalry because he was considered too stupid for infantry duty) and educated himself until he was the equal of any Oxford graduate, and then some.
It is a wonderful thing to sit in a classroom and grow in knowledge, if one is in fact doing that, but often it seems that degrees should be awarded in going through the motions; they come without a genuine expansion of thought, or an enlargement of wonder. And, to paraphrase Gregory of Nyssa, it’s the wondering that begets the knowing.
Jeff “Skunk” Baxter dropped out of Boston University to start playing guitar in various local bands and became a founding member of Steely Dan and an occasional Doobie Brother. While he still accepts studio gigs, Baxter also chairs the Civilian Advisory Board for Ballistic Missile Defense and consults with the Pentagon, the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and various defense manufacturers. His expertise in the area of missile defense systems and tactics is considerable, and he is self-taught. An interest in recording technology got him to wondering about military hardware, and things took off from there.
Perhaps the over-reliance upon credentials is connected to the undervaluing of faith in society. In the past, people of faith had the examples of holy men and women who managed to exhibit enormous wisdom through grace, whether they were exceedingly well educated, like St. Augustine, or not educated at all, like St. Catherine of Siena. Saints are full of wonder; it is their ability to wonder, in fact, that allows them to be open to grace, the gate of all of their theological and philosophical brilliance.
And when faith was common to kings and paupers, self-evident brightness and acumen were appreciated and acknowledged. People understood that there was more than one way to learn, or that ideas could be burnished and gifts could be nourished by sheer curiosity sustained on a pilot-light of passion, even without the consent and certification of an appointed body.
As recently as sixty years ago society was willing to take some things on faith, and that habit-of-faith allowed room for instinct to have a voice; it permitted one to try people out—to give a guy a chance to prove himself. Lacking faith, lacking a mindset that can trust in possibilities, there is nothing to fall back on but credentials.
And if credentials are all we value, we miss out on the Churchill, or the Baxter, or the Hamill, to our great detriment. Education and certification, particularly in the hard sciences, is essential and good, and a broad education is life-enriching. But society needs a few people audacious enough to strike out, or to dare the system, if only to show us that it is still permissible to wonder.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here
Comments:
1.25.2011 | 3:44am
Peter Small says:
Amen.
1.25.2011 | 3:46am
Rick says:
Three cheers for an article that expresses so much of my own inchoate frustrations with the world of formal academia! You are quite right that many people gain high academic credentials simply by "flowing down the tube" of a school's fixed curriculum.
As a child, I was possessed of an almost uncontrollable sense of wonder about nature. At the same time, though, I was limping, reluctantly, through the American public school system. I was the science nerd at my Texas high school in the 1950s, but performed poorly even in science and math classes due to sheer boredom. I only finally got my university degree at the age of 50, after marrying a gifted poet and professor who encouraged me to finish it before our children were born.
But this is where I would caution you to avoid the "Old Oaken Bucket Syndrome." The good old days really weren't that good. My high school biology teacher informed us that the only cells in the human body that had genes and chromosomes were the sex cells. (No wonder I was largely self-educated!) The principal was a thug who regularly hauled boys, including me, into the back room for savage beatings over the most trivial infractions. The math and history teachers got into an argument one night about the Civil War and decided to settle it with a duel. They went outside with pistols, and the math teacher shot and killed the history teacher. By my recollection, school violence in those days was largely limited to the faculty. (We might consider, though, that it was, after all, a TEXAS high school.) The high school my sons now attend is light years ahead of the one I attended, but the sense of wonder can still be killed by the structure of a formal classroom.
I was particularly delighted by your affirmation that the sense of wonder is a hallmark of true saints. It is exactly that trembling anticipation that we are on the brink of some encounter with a reality utterly beyond our understanding that marks the difference between the saint and the ecclesiastical dogmatist.
There was only one element of your article that bewildered me. It is the notion that Sarah Palin could be an exemplar of a brilliantly self-educated person. Her simplistic populism may appeal to Joe Sixpack, but she should hardly be put alongside a truly brilliant autodidact like Churchill.
As a child, I was possessed of an almost uncontrollable sense of wonder about nature. At the same time, though, I was limping, reluctantly, through the American public school system. I was the science nerd at my Texas high school in the 1950s, but performed poorly even in science and math classes due to sheer boredom. I only finally got my university degree at the age of 50, after marrying a gifted poet and professor who encouraged me to finish it before our children were born.
But this is where I would caution you to avoid the "Old Oaken Bucket Syndrome." The good old days really weren't that good. My high school biology teacher informed us that the only cells in the human body that had genes and chromosomes were the sex cells. (No wonder I was largely self-educated!) The principal was a thug who regularly hauled boys, including me, into the back room for savage beatings over the most trivial infractions. The math and history teachers got into an argument one night about the Civil War and decided to settle it with a duel. They went outside with pistols, and the math teacher shot and killed the history teacher. By my recollection, school violence in those days was largely limited to the faculty. (We might consider, though, that it was, after all, a TEXAS high school.) The high school my sons now attend is light years ahead of the one I attended, but the sense of wonder can still be killed by the structure of a formal classroom.
I was particularly delighted by your affirmation that the sense of wonder is a hallmark of true saints. It is exactly that trembling anticipation that we are on the brink of some encounter with a reality utterly beyond our understanding that marks the difference between the saint and the ecclesiastical dogmatist.
There was only one element of your article that bewildered me. It is the notion that Sarah Palin could be an exemplar of a brilliantly self-educated person. Her simplistic populism may appeal to Joe Sixpack, but she should hardly be put alongside a truly brilliant autodidact like Churchill.
1.25.2011 | 8:04am
cyberdov says:
Palin's problem is not her formal education or CV, it is that she is ignorant.
1.25.2011 | 9:33am
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Many accomplished men - and more so, women - over the years have been autodidacts. Among geniuses, it may be a greater requirement to self-teach than to be taught. See Benoit Mandelbrot, for example - very spotty educational background. Or catch the online conversation and bios of the super-high IQ groups: many dropouts among the PhD's - and even the PhD's often have some oddity or interruption in their studies.
What we call "schooling" has always been nothing more than a method that works well for many, perhaps even most, people. It has never caught everyone in its net. It is a style more congenial to girls than boys (has been since the 19th C), but even if that were leveled, many of both sexes would be silently enduring a method that doesn't fit them.
This falls apart in one field or another at times. In the early 70's, computer firms wanted to hire only formally-educated, button-down types, because that is what they were used to. Within a decade, as the barefoot college dropouts were eating their lunch, the industry adjusted. In journalism, one perhaps can't get those jobs that used to be considered the only path to elite status without the right credentials, but new media is changing the rules.
For film school, few of you have even heard of Full Sail, but it is one of, if not the elite school now. Very different model of education, rapidly becoming the industry norm. These complete reworkings are going to happen in field after field. Meanwhile, elementary schools and highschools will continue to look completely recognisable to those who lived 200 years ago.
What we call "schooling" has always been nothing more than a method that works well for many, perhaps even most, people. It has never caught everyone in its net. It is a style more congenial to girls than boys (has been since the 19th C), but even if that were leveled, many of both sexes would be silently enduring a method that doesn't fit them.
This falls apart in one field or another at times. In the early 70's, computer firms wanted to hire only formally-educated, button-down types, because that is what they were used to. Within a decade, as the barefoot college dropouts were eating their lunch, the industry adjusted. In journalism, one perhaps can't get those jobs that used to be considered the only path to elite status without the right credentials, but new media is changing the rules.
For film school, few of you have even heard of Full Sail, but it is one of, if not the elite school now. Very different model of education, rapidly becoming the industry norm. These complete reworkings are going to happen in field after field. Meanwhile, elementary schools and highschools will continue to look completely recognisable to those who lived 200 years ago.
1.25.2011 | 9:47am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Actually, Rick, like a doting mother I only compared my self-educating son to Churchill. :-) Thanks for the comment.
1.25.2011 | 10:02am
Jeanne Grunert says:
I'd like to stand up and applaud. Loudly. I graduated summa cum laude from a small Catholic college and yet I learned at one major Manhattan company I worked for that I was turned down for a promotion because I did not graduate from an Ivy League school. My choice of college was predicated upon the fact that I needed to stay close to home; my mom died in my junior year. My large family had no money to send me off to an elite Ivy school and did not believe in student loans or debt. So I worked very hard at a small Catholic college, got straight A's, paid my own bills from two part time jobs, thanked God for my scholarships, and graduated summa. But that didn't matter. Only the fancy credential mattered. That was my first hint that we do indeed live in a credential-obsessed world and it is WRONG. It's like we have gone crazy branding our lives the way companies brand products.
1.25.2011 | 10:49am
Anne Hummel says:
Great article. I think the problem Ms. Scalia is seeing goes much further. For the past decade, if not more, I have been noticing not only the rise of credentialing, but the narrowing and standardizing of all activities.
As a mother of teens, bright, academic kids are discouraged from pursuing any "blue collar" activities. Shop classes, crafts, hobbies, sewing, cooking have all but disappeared. In the minds of school authorities and parents, these things do not shine on a college application. However, these "hard" skills form the backbone of understanding of how the world works. How can these kids go out and innovate if they do not understand how things are made and how hard it is to make things. When my father was in college for engineering, he had to work in a machine shop. This exposure gave him a priceless understanding of industry and the culture of the industrial world. Of course, the argument will be made that today's students are technologically savvy. But look at how their savvy is acquired. They, for the most part, merely purchase and master the newest iteration of a totally designed product. They really do not get into the guts of the technology.
In addition to academia, look around in the community. Not only are we narrowing the world for our children, we have narrowed it for ourselves. We purchase ready made, what past generation made from scrap. We design our homes based on resale. We cook with high end processed foods. We plant ourselves in front of ready made entertainment. We purchase craft kits rather than raw material. Gone are the days of the men who could solder and had bits of wire and scraps of wood in their basements. Gone are the women who looked to what they could produce at home before purchasing at a store. Gone are the boys who would tinker with their cars. What we do today may be easier, but lacks satisfaction. These people practiced and taught to others creativity and innovation--and they did so without an art degree or a state license. Creativity walks hand in hand with wonder. I think we need to get back to this.
As a mother of teens, bright, academic kids are discouraged from pursuing any "blue collar" activities. Shop classes, crafts, hobbies, sewing, cooking have all but disappeared. In the minds of school authorities and parents, these things do not shine on a college application. However, these "hard" skills form the backbone of understanding of how the world works. How can these kids go out and innovate if they do not understand how things are made and how hard it is to make things. When my father was in college for engineering, he had to work in a machine shop. This exposure gave him a priceless understanding of industry and the culture of the industrial world. Of course, the argument will be made that today's students are technologically savvy. But look at how their savvy is acquired. They, for the most part, merely purchase and master the newest iteration of a totally designed product. They really do not get into the guts of the technology.
In addition to academia, look around in the community. Not only are we narrowing the world for our children, we have narrowed it for ourselves. We purchase ready made, what past generation made from scrap. We design our homes based on resale. We cook with high end processed foods. We plant ourselves in front of ready made entertainment. We purchase craft kits rather than raw material. Gone are the days of the men who could solder and had bits of wire and scraps of wood in their basements. Gone are the women who looked to what they could produce at home before purchasing at a store. Gone are the boys who would tinker with their cars. What we do today may be easier, but lacks satisfaction. These people practiced and taught to others creativity and innovation--and they did so without an art degree or a state license. Creativity walks hand in hand with wonder. I think we need to get back to this.
1.25.2011 | 10:58am
PaulR says:
"cbyerdov:Palin's problem is not her formal education or CV, it is that she is ignorant."
did you read the article??? I'm tired of the drones who spout the same tired party talking points. Its been the theme of the left for 60 years - from Eisenhower through to Bush - every conservative is either a yokel, senile, or stupid. The propoganda is obvious, and shame on those willing to act as sewers to distribute the BS.
Palin can survive outdoors in -40 degree weather. She can disassemble a 30-06 rifle. She understands how to repair a boat engine, start a business, and knows the salmon run. Ohh - and she can also get elected Governor of a State.
I went to an Ivy-League School and Graduate School, and I found out that the first thing one learns is a condescending pose, and then how to match a good wine and cheese. One learns about politics too - because there is so little at stake in academia. Besides the attitude, the rest of it was nearly useless in real life.
did you read the article??? I'm tired of the drones who spout the same tired party talking points. Its been the theme of the left for 60 years - from Eisenhower through to Bush - every conservative is either a yokel, senile, or stupid. The propoganda is obvious, and shame on those willing to act as sewers to distribute the BS.
Palin can survive outdoors in -40 degree weather. She can disassemble a 30-06 rifle. She understands how to repair a boat engine, start a business, and knows the salmon run. Ohh - and she can also get elected Governor of a State.
I went to an Ivy-League School and Graduate School, and I found out that the first thing one learns is a condescending pose, and then how to match a good wine and cheese. One learns about politics too - because there is so little at stake in academia. Besides the attitude, the rest of it was nearly useless in real life.
1.25.2011 | 11:33am
Truth says:
Thanks for exploring this topic. Like you, I question the reliance on credentials in the form of a diploma or a recognizable company name on a resume. Gone are the days when one could start in the mail room and work one's way up. What you call out as a lack of faith, I label more harshly as intellectual laziness among the hiring decision-makers, but I think we're both talking about a lack of imagination, or as you so aptly put it, the inability to trust in the possibilities.
I agree with Anne Hummel that the situation is worsening. In the business world, it appears that the MBA is the new Bachelor's degree. Some postings go so far as to require the MBA from a "top-tier business school." Nevermind that it costs at least $50,000 to procure one. Similarly, I've seen job postings in the publications/public relations category that call for a Masters in Journalism, a credential carried by only 2 of the 40 or so professional journalists I know.
Companies need to realize that there are subtexts to these calls for credentials. One narrative might read, "We're looking for people who have had certain types of opportunities and privileges available to them in their childhood." Another: "Our ideal candidate will arrive to the position with a significant amount of student loan debt."
I agree with Anne Hummel that the situation is worsening. In the business world, it appears that the MBA is the new Bachelor's degree. Some postings go so far as to require the MBA from a "top-tier business school." Nevermind that it costs at least $50,000 to procure one. Similarly, I've seen job postings in the publications/public relations category that call for a Masters in Journalism, a credential carried by only 2 of the 40 or so professional journalists I know.
Companies need to realize that there are subtexts to these calls for credentials. One narrative might read, "We're looking for people who have had certain types of opportunities and privileges available to them in their childhood." Another: "Our ideal candidate will arrive to the position with a significant amount of student loan debt."
1.25.2011 | 11:54am
Vader says:
I don't know that I'd say Palin is ignorant. She obviously has a number of fascinating skills. But they are not the skills I look for in a President of the United States.
We are all ignorant, just on different subjects. I would be useless on a hunting expedition and would be nearly useless as ambassador to Russia or as a fashion critic. That does not mean I am useless at everything. For example, I know something about the design, employment, and effects of ginormous lasers.
I certainly do not believe every conservative is either a yokel, senile, or stupid. That the Left mistook Reagan for an amiable dunce is a negative reflection on them, not on Reagan. Thomas Sowell is the most brilliant living social philosopher in the country. Reagan had the knowledge to be an excellent President; Sowell would make a wonderful chief economic advisor. Reagan would not have been a wonderful chief economic advisor, except perhaps in comparison with the last couple, and Sowell would probably not be that good a President, except perhaps in comparison with the last couple.
Palin would make neither a great President nor a great chief economic advisor, except perhaps in comparison with the present alternatives. It's not because she's conservative. It's because an understanding of the fundamentals of micro- and macro-economics seems more important in a POTUS than understanding how to skin a moose.
I failed to learn how to match wine and cheese at my elite graduate school. (The fact I'm a teetotaler may have had something to do with it.) But I also learned how to program a vector supercomputer, and I had my first tastes of a computer language less archaic than Fortran-77. Those were useful things for me to learn. There are still graduate schools worth attending, if there is something you are hungry to learn; and I would rather have a President who attended such a school and shows evidence of having wanted to learn something there, ceteris paribus. Of course, Palin would be a considerable improvement on Obama; but I see little evidence that Obama's school deserves its reputation or that Obama went there actually wanting to learn something.
I will take Palin over Obama. But she is not my first choice. That's all.
We are all ignorant, just on different subjects. I would be useless on a hunting expedition and would be nearly useless as ambassador to Russia or as a fashion critic. That does not mean I am useless at everything. For example, I know something about the design, employment, and effects of ginormous lasers.
I certainly do not believe every conservative is either a yokel, senile, or stupid. That the Left mistook Reagan for an amiable dunce is a negative reflection on them, not on Reagan. Thomas Sowell is the most brilliant living social philosopher in the country. Reagan had the knowledge to be an excellent President; Sowell would make a wonderful chief economic advisor. Reagan would not have been a wonderful chief economic advisor, except perhaps in comparison with the last couple, and Sowell would probably not be that good a President, except perhaps in comparison with the last couple.
Palin would make neither a great President nor a great chief economic advisor, except perhaps in comparison with the present alternatives. It's not because she's conservative. It's because an understanding of the fundamentals of micro- and macro-economics seems more important in a POTUS than understanding how to skin a moose.
I failed to learn how to match wine and cheese at my elite graduate school. (The fact I'm a teetotaler may have had something to do with it.) But I also learned how to program a vector supercomputer, and I had my first tastes of a computer language less archaic than Fortran-77. Those were useful things for me to learn. There are still graduate schools worth attending, if there is something you are hungry to learn; and I would rather have a President who attended such a school and shows evidence of having wanted to learn something there, ceteris paribus. Of course, Palin would be a considerable improvement on Obama; but I see little evidence that Obama's school deserves its reputation or that Obama went there actually wanting to learn something.
I will take Palin over Obama. But she is not my first choice. That's all.
1.25.2011 | 11:55am
Rick says:
PaulR...Try not to jump to the conclusion that everyone who sees Palin as underqualified for the Presidency is a mindless leftist, a human sewer, or a person who must see all conservatives as ignorant yokels. (I personally enjoy listening to Pat Buchanan because he is smart, insightful, and thinks for himself.) Palin may be a capable person in the Alaskan wilderness, but the ability to field-strip a Kalashnikov is of limited use in the Oval Office. The President has the entire Department of Defense at his command to do those things. She simply doesn't have the knowledge or mental equipment for the job.
1.25.2011 | 12:16pm
C. Ehrlich says:
The university student learns alongside people from very diverse backgrounds. Such a student will invariably interact with people who are more intelligent than himself. And, if he is serious in his pursuit of the truth, he will soon realize that some of these more intelligent people are also more well-informed on the very topics about which they fundamentally disagree. Then, unless such a student is blinded by a dogmatic commitment to the superiority of his own point of view, he's likely going to seriously entertain the possibility that he might be wrong, and perhaps fundamentally so. At any rate, he will feel compelled to take very seriously other points of view, however uncomfortable as this might be.
The autodidact, following his own interests and self-guidance, often isn't exposed to the same pressure--at least not to the same degree. That strikes me as a significant difference between the two forms of education.
The autodidact, following his own interests and self-guidance, often isn't exposed to the same pressure--at least not to the same degree. That strikes me as a significant difference between the two forms of education.
1.25.2011 | 12:18pm
Coach Springer says:
I agree that there is a connection between undervaluing faith and an over-reliance on credentials. It also includes an unwillingmess to examine and think for ourseves and instead rely on crude substitutes. The result: faith in credentials. Faith is unavoidable, but faith in credentials is dim and lazy. That argument doesn't so much rely on the example of successful autodidacts as a proof as it explains the resistance to them.
Harvard can't teach you to think for yourself. Only you can do that, Harvard doesn't have an exclusive ability to challenge you, but it is exclusive in its dogma and its societal experiences. That's why people go there. It's what they want.
Speaking of autodidacts (sorry for repeating, but I just lernt that word from the article - and sorry U of I for not learning it there), what about that Lincoln guy? Where we would be without that "Baboon?"
Any body care to tackle George W. Bush? Yale degree. Despised as ignorant, and right about every big thing he took a stand on. Maybe you need coded credentials of a faith in progressivism to avoid the false stigma of ignorance.
Anyway, the door to wonder and opportunity is closing while the door to credentialed ignorance is opening.
Harvard can't teach you to think for yourself. Only you can do that, Harvard doesn't have an exclusive ability to challenge you, but it is exclusive in its dogma and its societal experiences. That's why people go there. It's what they want.
Speaking of autodidacts (sorry for repeating, but I just lernt that word from the article - and sorry U of I for not learning it there), what about that Lincoln guy? Where we would be without that "Baboon?"
Any body care to tackle George W. Bush? Yale degree. Despised as ignorant, and right about every big thing he took a stand on. Maybe you need coded credentials of a faith in progressivism to avoid the false stigma of ignorance.
Anyway, the door to wonder and opportunity is closing while the door to credentialed ignorance is opening.
1.25.2011 | 12:21pm
Amy Alkon says:
Matt Welch, the sharp-as-hell editor of reason magazine and Wendy McElroy are others who never graduated college. (Not sure if Wendy even graduated high school -- yet she's an insightful thinker, and one I very much respect.) I almost quit college to work in New York, but I realized the prejudice people have against those without college degrees. Hilariously, I found college easy (even the University of Michigan, and NYU, the school I graduated from) but work my ass off now to read studies, etc.
1.25.2011 | 12:22pm
Amy Alkon says:
Oh yeah...I think it was Investors Business Daily that wanted to hire Welch (based on his smarts and writing), then found out he had no college degree, and refused.
Dumb.
Dumb.
1.25.2011 | 12:28pm
Mark says:
And, pray tell, Rick, how do you know what knowledge Palin does or does not have? Admit it. You are making assumptions based on what those who are oh, so much smarter than the rabble are telling you. I would suggest that you read Ed Koch's recent observations about Palin.
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/ed-koch-palin-defense-palin-highly-intelligent-we-should-denounce-unfair-false-and-wicked-charges/
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/ed-koch-palin-defense-palin-highly-intelligent-we-should-denounce-unfair-false-and-wicked-charges/
1.25.2011 | 12:29pm
Scott says:
Part of the problem is the hiring bureaucratization in large corporation, government, and similar employers. Nobody will blame the human resources manager or the department head for hiring the Harvard MBA with 10 years experience. If that guy doesn't work out, it will simply be blamed on some idiosyncratic issue of personal fit. But whoa to the decision maker who approves taking a chance on someone who does not fit the exact mold of what was conceived for the position. Its all about CYA these days, and part of the problem is that, with few exceptions such as some types of sales or investment-related work, most employee management is not set up to reward superior accomplishment, but to heavily penalize mistakes, real or perceived.
1.25.2011 | 12:47pm
Peter Leavitt says:
America's two greatest presidents, Lincoln and Washington, lacked a high-school diploma. While diplomas are often valuable for vocational distinction, they are not a strict necessity, the bureaucrats notwithstanding
1.25.2011 | 12:51pm
Kari S says:
In defense of employers, it is so expensive to hire people because of all the government mandates, etc., and firing can be even more expensive because of unemployment, that I think many employers require degrees of various kinds in the hope that a certain level of competence comes with it. Not always true...
1.25.2011 | 12:59pm
SCSoxFan says:
Vader, do you really, truly, believe that Ronald Reagan had "an understanding of the fundamentals of micro- and macro-economics?" What President was an economist, or even had more than a rudimentary understanding of the subject?
I despise elitists with a passion. And it's not jsut the credentialed elites. The idea that only the cosmopolitians, the elect among us, are fit to lead is abhorent to the basic idea of America. Leadership, true leadership, has almost nothing to do with education, or talking like you know more than everyone else, or even ideas. Reagan was a great leader because he had common sense, good policy instincts that were based on an understanding of, and more important, an absolute belief in, the founding principles of the United States, a strong will, and the ability to communicate all of that in simple terms that he could get average Americans to understand and agree with. And, if you care to remember, in 1976 and 1980 he was also accused of pushing a "simplistic populism."
I despise elitists with a passion. And it's not jsut the credentialed elites. The idea that only the cosmopolitians, the elect among us, are fit to lead is abhorent to the basic idea of America. Leadership, true leadership, has almost nothing to do with education, or talking like you know more than everyone else, or even ideas. Reagan was a great leader because he had common sense, good policy instincts that were based on an understanding of, and more important, an absolute belief in, the founding principles of the United States, a strong will, and the ability to communicate all of that in simple terms that he could get average Americans to understand and agree with. And, if you care to remember, in 1976 and 1980 he was also accused of pushing a "simplistic populism."
1.25.2011 | 1:05pm
sds says:
At the age of 60 I have just been awarded a Ph.D. Although my family and friends applaud my achievement, I personally feel I have been educated stupid. To reach that goal I had to sit through classes in theory that were intellectually vacuous. I lost my ability to read (too much to read in grad school and had to skim). I lost my ability to write (pedantic academic jargon, passive voice). I was required to develop a silly theory for my dissertation and defend it. My committee was impressed. I was depressed. It will take my remaining years to relearn to think, to read for pleasure, and write simple coherent sentences. The only thing I have actually achieved is full citizenship within the university community where I work. And when the emperor walks by, I am amazed at his beautiful wardrobe.
1.25.2011 | 1:22pm
SuzyQ says:
Elizabeth, this is a topic that has been on my mind for some time now. It has become especially relevant as the price of education soars and unions reward degrees with higher salaries, rather than true accomplishments. As a professional who has sometimes had to hire people, I've always been incensed by degree requirements and have seen exceptional candidates passed over because they don't possess one. I have also seen people attain bogus PhDs (organizational leadership, anyone?)--people who are as far from scholars as they can possibly be--so they can become a school principal or jump a pay grade. The degree has become our litmus test for leadership and esteem, and it is a false test.
I think it's indicative of our disregard for the dignity of labor itself--certainly the quality of a faithless people.
(Is that Amy Alkon, the Advice Goddess?)
I think it's indicative of our disregard for the dignity of labor itself--certainly the quality of a faithless people.
(Is that Amy Alkon, the Advice Goddess?)
1.25.2011 | 1:29pm
Richard says:
Good point, Peter Leavitt. But Lincoln spent many hours educating himself. He was enormously ambitious about his education. What we see in our society today is many folks like Palin that clearly don't really care about educating themselves, particularly on a broad scale. Politics and culture have become nothing more than sound bites, and what now passes for discourse is nothing more than various groups' engaging in mutual therapy to substitute for real knowledge and understanding. Bush pretty well laid this out in his recent book. He was asked by a student if it was hard to make decisions. His answer in so many words was that it wasn't if you know what you believe. Man, that makes for easy decisions when complexities and challenges of the modern world are simply fed into the funnel of BELIEF! This is an age old dynamic and I believe leads to many bad decisions. Real education leads to the ability for critical analysis of life's problems. The education can be from Harvard or it can be by firelight in a log cabin. Whatever it is people like Sarah Palin consider it "elite" and thus not worthy of serious consideration.
1.25.2011 | 1:34pm
Coach Springer says:
In addition or extenstion to credentials, there might also be a tension between faith and compliance? Or faith and human control (complaince + credentials)? I say "tension" because they do not appear mutually exclusive in that you can seek some control in this world while maintaining faith, but we tend to confuse the two and get the balance wrong.
I'm iniitally thinking in terms of regulation that is expanding exponentially by reducing activities and characteristics to terms manageable only via a computer. In effect, you are allowed to function as long as you jump through every hoop. You might be a terrible doctor with a license or a lay person with a great discovery that won't be heard. In terms of fraud, you might have passed the compliance programs of the time, but you are Bernie Madoff and that is part of your con.
In each case, we can allow fearful desire to control to unnecessarily close doors. Is faith the antidote of fear and how do you put it into the issue of balancing restrisctions with liberty , truth, actual openmindedness and willingness?
I'm iniitally thinking in terms of regulation that is expanding exponentially by reducing activities and characteristics to terms manageable only via a computer. In effect, you are allowed to function as long as you jump through every hoop. You might be a terrible doctor with a license or a lay person with a great discovery that won't be heard. In terms of fraud, you might have passed the compliance programs of the time, but you are Bernie Madoff and that is part of your con.
In each case, we can allow fearful desire to control to unnecessarily close doors. Is faith the antidote of fear and how do you put it into the issue of balancing restrisctions with liberty , truth, actual openmindedness and willingness?
1.25.2011 | 1:35pm
Jason says:
No offense, but I find it ridiculous that one would equate finishing an academic program of study as being nothing more than sticking to a schedule of sitting in auditorium. Granted there are a number of institutions that are lowering the bar when it comes to the rigor of the academic programs they support but to suggest that education is of little value (which is precisely what those illusions and metaphors mean) is just silly. I would say that the average high school drop out is woefully unskilled to function beyond menial levels in today's society and just because you may come across those few exceptions that prove the rule doesn't mean you have discovered some counterintuitive, golden nugget of insight. It simply means that not every decision is approached in the same way. I will freely admit that many who do not pursue university degrees are perfectly intelligent and capable people. But that statement doesn't say anything about the value of education. It is simply an observation regarding the value of people. And that argument can be made without silly assertions that an education is useless.
1.25.2011 | 1:36pm
Corita says:
I think it is education itself that has been the most destroyed by this phenomenon. In many ways, it is a self-destruction, but it is a dynamice relationship with social forces that desire gods to worship.
And with the destruction of education, the chances that the problem will be solved are much, much smaller.
And with the destruction of education, the chances that the problem will be solved are much, much smaller.
1.25.2011 | 1:48pm
GlennB says:
George Washington was self-conscious of his lack of education. And then there is Lincoln, whom the press and Washington elites of his day treated like an idiot. Both had "virtue" and common sense that flowed from reflecting on experience. And G.K. Chesterton could take on any academic in a debate. A pity that our culture has made it impossible for men like that to even be considered as candidates. Same is true in the workplace. Idiot managers overlook great, experienced people because they don't have an MBA. All those credentials, and they've never learned how to think out of the box.
1.25.2011 | 1:57pm
Elizabeth, I know of a few conflagrations myself whose light is growing and changing the American misconception of what education means one teacher at a time. These are some amazing schools doing their part to reform the American educational system. Great Hearts Academies across Arizona ( http://www.veritasprepacademy.org/ ), Ridgeview Classical Schools in Fort Collins, Colorado (http://www.ridgeviewclassical.com/ ), and Trinity Schools in MN, VA, and IN ( http://www.trinityschools.org/meadowview/#single-sex-classes ) are living proof that believing a degree in Education or Education Administration or teaching credentials makes you into a good teacher is false. These schools desire to hire intelligent and passionate life-long learners who are helping to redefine what it means to be a teacher and an administrator. In fact, these schools have observed that a Master's Degree doesn't ensure intelligence or teaching ability nor is it even indicative of accurate knowledge in one's supposed area of expertise. Consequently, you will find these schools as some of the best in the country with many employees who lack grad. degrees and with professionals who are teaching a subject which they are not considered experts in by external facades. I appreciate your writing and this post. Thank you.
1.25.2011 | 2:21pm
Ye Olde Statistician says:
Some folks here are confused about set theory. The article was no in praise of dropping out of high school. Many kids drop out for a variety of reasons -- drugs, crime, disinterest in academics. The argument was that the diploma itself (or the degree, or the MBA) does not ensure competence and credentialism is not the same thing as mertiocracy. Those eager to learn can learn, even in an Ivy League school. But those with no curiosity or wonder can coast through on the fumes, earn their "gentleman's C", and have a nice framed diploma on the wall of their daddy's law office.
The problem is that credentialism makes no distinction between those who earned a degree and those who were given one; and cannot accommodate those able and even brilliant individuals who came by their skills and knowledge in some other manner. At root is the litigation society. A credential is something objective the decision-maker can point to. His own judgment and savvy about people will sink him the first time he turns down an applicant with excessive self-esteem.
The problem is that credentialism makes no distinction between those who earned a degree and those who were given one; and cannot accommodate those able and even brilliant individuals who came by their skills and knowledge in some other manner. At root is the litigation society. A credential is something objective the decision-maker can point to. His own judgment and savvy about people will sink him the first time he turns down an applicant with excessive self-esteem.
1.25.2011 | 2:42pm
mo says:
the inclusion of Palin has lead to an unwelcome and clearly unanticipated discourse away from the topic. "unintended consequences " for the win.
Including her name in any topic about misdirected criticism is a bit much- it is easy to see how people inferred that the author believes that Palin is somewhat more intelligent ( or smart ) than she appears to be. or at least deserves more credit. as the implication that Palin is being 'picked on " for having attended a lesser college or university to get her education.
And the inference was made because the people were lead in that direction.
AS with the other people who spoke about Palin and her assumed intelligence and/or lack thereof: it has been pointed out several times that it is not so much that she is not intelligent or not smart . it is that she is ignorant of so many things and appears to be apathetic about learning. when presented with any new information- she appears to be indignant and refuses to budge. never acknowledging that she doesn't know, doesn't want to know and is frankly , upset at having been told the truth.
it is the arrogance of her ignorance and the extent of her apathy.
any interest she does show appears to be contrived for maximum exposure and self benefit.
She lacks sincerity. But makes up for it ( and her other less than stellar quirks ) with her almost unbelievably limitless audacity at self promotion.
she is not really curious about much except for those things that reinforce her own limited vision of the world.
People argue non stop about her. and here we are. nit picking and much gnashing of teeth.
Including her name in any topic about misdirected criticism is a bit much- it is easy to see how people inferred that the author believes that Palin is somewhat more intelligent ( or smart ) than she appears to be. or at least deserves more credit. as the implication that Palin is being 'picked on " for having attended a lesser college or university to get her education.
And the inference was made because the people were lead in that direction.
AS with the other people who spoke about Palin and her assumed intelligence and/or lack thereof: it has been pointed out several times that it is not so much that she is not intelligent or not smart . it is that she is ignorant of so many things and appears to be apathetic about learning. when presented with any new information- she appears to be indignant and refuses to budge. never acknowledging that she doesn't know, doesn't want to know and is frankly , upset at having been told the truth.
it is the arrogance of her ignorance and the extent of her apathy.
any interest she does show appears to be contrived for maximum exposure and self benefit.
She lacks sincerity. But makes up for it ( and her other less than stellar quirks ) with her almost unbelievably limitless audacity at self promotion.
she is not really curious about much except for those things that reinforce her own limited vision of the world.
People argue non stop about her. and here we are. nit picking and much gnashing of teeth.
1.25.2011 | 2:57pm
BoogerSnacks says:
It is so refreshing to read an article such as this one that calls attention to one of the biggest failings of the school system. I am a person who revels in the logic of mathematics but failed miserably due to the breakneck speeds of which we had the material shoved down our gullets. There was and still is not enough time devoted to actually teaching a student until he/she actually absorbs the entirety of the material. I believe that is precisely the point. We are not taught material in order to inspire us to think about what we are being taught. We are taught to MEMORIZE material so we can make use of it and spew it out on command like trained parrots. One does not have to ascribe to conspiracy theories to realize that this is about mind control. I person who memorizes without understanding makes the perfect worker/consumer. One who must understand in order to learn is a dangerous citizen/independent thinker.
You completely lost me when you took a right turn towards the "F" bomb (faith) Replacing one system of control for another doesn't get people anywhere. I submit that the "faith" people have invested in Government/Capitalism to run our education system and the curriculum, is what has once again, led us all astray.
You completely lost me when you took a right turn towards the "F" bomb (faith) Replacing one system of control for another doesn't get people anywhere. I submit that the "faith" people have invested in Government/Capitalism to run our education system and the curriculum, is what has once again, led us all astray.
1.25.2011 | 3:04pm
Matt R says:
Actually I would argue that Palin's (and to an extent Bush's, as well) problem is (was) not ignorance, per se, but a lack of wonder, a lack of willingness to consider deeply the world around her (or him). In one of her early political debates, Palin laughed at her opponent's last minute perusal of notes stating that she would just be winging it, relaying on charm and a preset circle of beliefs. She did and she trounced her opponent. This is what makes Palin such a force on our modern political stage (yet is also remains her biggest vice). She has no desire for self-reflection (perhaps the liberal media has a point about needlessly violent language being wrong; while also being wrong to present her as a poster child for everything that is wrong with modern society), nor is she interested in actually understanding the proposals of her opponents (No, Sarah, Obama does not want to kill Grandma; Of course he may be wrong in his proposals but is not a killer).
The problem exists on both sides (conservative and liberal, theist and atheist). Members of both sides have set beliefs and often little desire to examine them. Conservative theists (like myself) often chirp about dogma and the authority of scripture without going to these beliefs and this Word without any sense of wonder, or desire to be confounded. In doing so we run the risk of being superficial Christians who acknowledge Christ with our words, but unfortunately are living that are in many ways quite unfaithful to his example and teachings. Likewise with the many of the liberal atheists (with whom I work). They make science a god and prostrate themselves before its shrines, but in no meaningful way exhibit any wonder or imagination about the world that surrounds them.
We need that sense of wonder that allows us to seek out Christ and ask Him what one thing more we may do to serve the Kingdom of God; and we need to be honest enough, and self-less enough to accept his answers to the fraught-filled question.
The problem exists on both sides (conservative and liberal, theist and atheist). Members of both sides have set beliefs and often little desire to examine them. Conservative theists (like myself) often chirp about dogma and the authority of scripture without going to these beliefs and this Word without any sense of wonder, or desire to be confounded. In doing so we run the risk of being superficial Christians who acknowledge Christ with our words, but unfortunately are living that are in many ways quite unfaithful to his example and teachings. Likewise with the many of the liberal atheists (with whom I work). They make science a god and prostrate themselves before its shrines, but in no meaningful way exhibit any wonder or imagination about the world that surrounds them.
We need that sense of wonder that allows us to seek out Christ and ask Him what one thing more we may do to serve the Kingdom of God; and we need to be honest enough, and self-less enough to accept his answers to the fraught-filled question.
1.25.2011 | 4:37pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
I have learned that the mere mention of Palin's name sets off a set of reflexive involuntary comments, a sort of political Tourette's.
Quick hitters - just the data. Reagan had an economics degree from Eureka College. Washington got a surveyor's license from the College of William and Mary. Both were considered pretty good stuff at the time, though history diminishes them.
As Scott and Kari noted, credentialing has causes other than snobbery. I will note additionally that academic credentials, especially at the graduate level, measure other qualities: persistence, incorporating jargon into one's thought, willingness to trim one's opinions to get along, willingness to intuit and adapt to unspoken social rules. You will see that all of these have their good and bad side in terms of character, but from an employer's perspective they provide a floor.
I will also caution the discussion that the worth of credentials varies from field to field. In some areas, they are nearly essential, not by convention but because of the training needed. In others, they are little more than a statement that the student has been trained to hold certain opinions. Even among the former, there are folks who really only learned to game the system and aren't very good; even among the latter there are individuals who have learned a great deal worth knowing.
Quick hitters - just the data. Reagan had an economics degree from Eureka College. Washington got a surveyor's license from the College of William and Mary. Both were considered pretty good stuff at the time, though history diminishes them.
As Scott and Kari noted, credentialing has causes other than snobbery. I will note additionally that academic credentials, especially at the graduate level, measure other qualities: persistence, incorporating jargon into one's thought, willingness to trim one's opinions to get along, willingness to intuit and adapt to unspoken social rules. You will see that all of these have their good and bad side in terms of character, but from an employer's perspective they provide a floor.
I will also caution the discussion that the worth of credentials varies from field to field. In some areas, they are nearly essential, not by convention but because of the training needed. In others, they are little more than a statement that the student has been trained to hold certain opinions. Even among the former, there are folks who really only learned to game the system and aren't very good; even among the latter there are individuals who have learned a great deal worth knowing.
1.25.2011 | 6:41pm
Mike Linton says:
This is a terrible, terrible article. How dare Elizabeth Scalia suggest having college credits and receiving a diploma isn't required for admission to the society of Ipwo-Knor-Co-Sat-Yai (or the Guild of "Important People Who Know Really Cool Stuff And Tell You About It"). To have a piece of paper, maybe with a Magnus Cum Poopie Doop on it, to have memories of sherry at the Masters Lodge of Silliman College--and--oh, cease my beating heart--the thrill of getting that glossy alumni magazine, these are the things that lie at the very foundation of civilization and which are threatened by the brain-rotted corruption of humanoids like Sarah Palin--not taking her personally of course, because that would be uncivil, but rather as an example, a "type," ah, yes, we all know THAT type.
Let us here, members of the Faculty Senate, at the fountain head of civilization's splendor, in this glorious company of the learned and thoughtful and honest and courageous and wise, silence Ms. Scalia's barbaric assaults on the beloved walls of our Alma Mater by rising and singing together the anthem (to the tune Gaudeamus igitur), "Ip-wo Knor Co Sat Yai. . . . " Dr. Sds? You can sing the second verse as a solo. You deserve the honor.
Let us here, members of the Faculty Senate, at the fountain head of civilization's splendor, in this glorious company of the learned and thoughtful and honest and courageous and wise, silence Ms. Scalia's barbaric assaults on the beloved walls of our Alma Mater by rising and singing together the anthem (to the tune Gaudeamus igitur), "Ip-wo Knor Co Sat Yai. . . . " Dr. Sds? You can sing the second verse as a solo. You deserve the honor.
1.25.2011 | 7:45pm
TXW says:
I believe Neuhaus didn't have a high school diploma, and went to work in Texas in his teens.
There are many carreers where one doesn't need to use anything related to their diploma, in fact, could have done the job just as well without a diploma, and without the student loans. We have also gone downhill in the respect for a liberal arts education (Cardinal Newman, where are you?), and the training to think about life with educated reason. Hence, if a mom on a blog says her child was killed by vaccines, why not believe her?
There are many carreers where one doesn't need to use anything related to their diploma, in fact, could have done the job just as well without a diploma, and without the student loans. We have also gone downhill in the respect for a liberal arts education (Cardinal Newman, where are you?), and the training to think about life with educated reason. Hence, if a mom on a blog says her child was killed by vaccines, why not believe her?
1.25.2011 | 10:14pm
Hortence Washington says:
Yes, too many degrees and no, or little, commonsense or business acumen. Reminds me of that guy, Ratzinger.
1.25.2011 | 10:16pm
Anne says:
I read Sarah Palin 's book and found that she speaks who she is when left unedited by others. I found the same of George Bush. They aren't speaking to be loved and agreed with by everyone. I challenge all voters to make the time to read and listen to unguarded speeches of candidates to judge what they are really about. It was you tube videos of Obama speaking in private planned parenthood events that gave me the measure of the man and caused a chill down my spine. Not to mention the copies of campaign letters Michelle Obama sent out to fundraising lunches on the topic of her husband and prochoice beliefs.
Funny that the experience of raising a family Is never talked about as real experience. I have degrees and found that five kids humbled me to calling out for God to grow in me virtue and character I never thought I was short of. That Sarah Palin gave birth to her son with downs in the face of discrimination that is rarely acknowledged by media is enough for me to speak of her with respect even if she wouldn't be my first pick.
Funny that the experience of raising a family Is never talked about as real experience. I have degrees and found that five kids humbled me to calling out for God to grow in me virtue and character I never thought I was short of. That Sarah Palin gave birth to her son with downs in the face of discrimination that is rarely acknowledged by media is enough for me to speak of her with respect even if she wouldn't be my first pick.
1.25.2011 | 10:16pm
Anne says:
I read Sarah Palin 's book and found that she speaks who she is when left unedited by others. I found the same of George Bush. They aren't speaking to be loved and agreed with by everyone. I challenge all voters to make the time to read and listen to unguarded speeches of candidates to judge what they are really about. It was you tube videos of Obama speaking in private planned parenthood events that gave me the measure of the man and caused a chill down my spine. Not to mention the copies of campaign letters Michelle Obama sent out to fundraising lunches on the topic of her husband and prochoice beliefs.
Funny that the experience of raising a family Is never talked about as real experience. I have degrees and found that five kids humbled me to calling out for God to grow in me virtue and character I never thought I was short of. That Sarah Palin gave birth to her son with downs in the face of discrimination that is rarely acknowledged by media is enough for me to speak of her with respect even if she wouldn't be my first pick.
Funny that the experience of raising a family Is never talked about as real experience. I have degrees and found that five kids humbled me to calling out for God to grow in me virtue and character I never thought I was short of. That Sarah Palin gave birth to her son with downs in the face of discrimination that is rarely acknowledged by media is enough for me to speak of her with respect even if she wouldn't be my first pick.
1.25.2011 | 11:57pm
Toan says:
"And if credentials are ALL we value, we miss out on the Churchill, or the Baxter, or the Hamill, to our great detriment" - true, but a straw-man argument for critical-thinking people, with and without credentials.
1.26.2011 | 3:19am
Cody says:
Don't disparage the University system too much, it does have it's origins in the Catholic school system (specifically cathedral schools).
1.26.2011 | 9:58am
Klaire says:
Correction in above first line: Should read, did NOT have the opportunity...
Thanks for allowing this Elizabeth. I know you are a humble soul but I also know many others feel as I do about you. :) It needed to be said.
Thanks for allowing this Elizabeth. I know you are a humble soul but I also know many others feel as I do about you. :) It needed to be said.
1.26.2011 | 12:18pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
I will simply echo that the opposite error is equally false. I don't have anything against degrees, even from purportedly snobbish elite universities. They can be fine things, and disparaging them generally is rather silly. The difficulty is that they are not quite what they claim to be.
1.26.2011 | 1:26pm
Alan Stewart says:
Has anyone else yet formulated what I would call the Palin Ubiquity Law: any Internet discussion about public affairs will at some point be transformed into a debate over Sarah Palin.
1.28.2011 | 8:24am
Chuck says:
Regarding cyberdov’s comment about the “ignorance” of Ms. Palin, it concerns me that we have our priorities wrong in assessing the qualities of a presidential aspirant.
Given a certain minimum of all qualities on this list, the first quality should be character, the second political philosophy, the third genius of the gut, the fourth communicative ability, and fifth intellect.
Sarah Palin clearly and demonstrably exceeds most rivals in the first three. This courageous, persistent, honest, self-sacrificing woman has the right moral instincts, and in her statements goes right to the gut of issues communicating powerfully deep into the heart’s core. And she clearly is quite bright in several species of intelligence.
Wilson was the most credentialed and “intelligent” president. He tended toward fascism and tried to take us in that direction.
The obviously false accusation of cyberdov is just a reproduction of the slanders of the Main Stream Media who are revolted by Sarah Palin. Ironically a person’s opinions of her have become a litmus test of that person’s intellectual independence.
Given a certain minimum of all qualities on this list, the first quality should be character, the second political philosophy, the third genius of the gut, the fourth communicative ability, and fifth intellect.
Sarah Palin clearly and demonstrably exceeds most rivals in the first three. This courageous, persistent, honest, self-sacrificing woman has the right moral instincts, and in her statements goes right to the gut of issues communicating powerfully deep into the heart’s core. And she clearly is quite bright in several species of intelligence.
Wilson was the most credentialed and “intelligent” president. He tended toward fascism and tried to take us in that direction.
The obviously false accusation of cyberdov is just a reproduction of the slanders of the Main Stream Media who are revolted by Sarah Palin. Ironically a person’s opinions of her have become a litmus test of that person’s intellectual independence.
2.3.2011 | 5:49pm
Vader says:
SCSoxFan:
"Vader, do you really, truly, believe that Ronald Reagan had "an understanding of the fundamentals of micro- and macro-economics?""
Yes.
Amazing how many even of his admirers underestimate Reagan's intelligence and knowledge base. Ironic in this case.
"Vader, do you really, truly, believe that Ronald Reagan had "an understanding of the fundamentals of micro- and macro-economics?""
Yes.
Amazing how many even of his admirers underestimate Reagan's intelligence and knowledge base. Ironic in this case.
2.3.2011 | 8:25pm
Danielle says:
I find it so tiresome that people, many commenting here, conveniently overlook the fact that two years ago Sarah Palin was the most popular governor in the country. She had an 82% approval rating after two years in office. She is only the second woman in American history to have been chosen as a Vice presidential nominee. You people who refuse to acknowledge these facts. and instead refer to her 'hunting prowess' as her grand achievement in life reveal your blind-disdain for the woman as well as the same condescending arrogance described in this article.
2.3.2011 | 9:02pm
Julie Mckinley says:
Full disclosure:
I have a Ph.D. and my husband has 2 years of college.One of the few things that Psychology has a grip on is IQ scores (whatever they mean) falling into a "normal distribution." Which means that half of people are above 100 on IQ tests and half are below 100.
Here is what it akes an IQ above 100 to do: Become a medical doctor, or a lawyer or a philosophy professor.
Here are a few things people with IQs below 100 can do:
Put put a fire, arrest a burglar, install a new lighting system, install a new floor, decorate a wedding cake, make bread, win the Superbowl, comfort a crying child, set a broken leg, repair a broken water line.
So, the question is: Who are you most likely to call in the middle of the night and be willing to pay $100.00 per hour:
A philosophy professor or competent plumber?
I thought so.
My husband is a carpenter. He built our house. I paid for the materials.
It's a win-win.
I have a Ph.D. and my husband has 2 years of college.One of the few things that Psychology has a grip on is IQ scores (whatever they mean) falling into a "normal distribution." Which means that half of people are above 100 on IQ tests and half are below 100.
Here is what it akes an IQ above 100 to do: Become a medical doctor, or a lawyer or a philosophy professor.
Here are a few things people with IQs below 100 can do:
Put put a fire, arrest a burglar, install a new lighting system, install a new floor, decorate a wedding cake, make bread, win the Superbowl, comfort a crying child, set a broken leg, repair a broken water line.
So, the question is: Who are you most likely to call in the middle of the night and be willing to pay $100.00 per hour:
A philosophy professor or competent plumber?
I thought so.
My husband is a carpenter. He built our house. I paid for the materials.
It's a win-win.
2.3.2011 | 9:42pm
Danby says:
I am reminded of Ivan Illych's argument that America, and the whole West, has lost the distinction between process and product. Schooling is not instruction is no education is not literacy, thinking ability, or wisdom. Insurance is not medical procedures are not medical care is not health care is not health.
The good that is desired (thinking ability, knowledge) might be obtained through a college education. More often what is learned is the shibboleths of a particular class and the jargon of the particular technical priesthood which the student is desirous to enter. These, as much as the credentials, are what is desired.
There was no such thing as J-school in this country until the late 60s. None of the great journalists, Pulitzer, Hearst, Horace Greeley, Hildy Johnson, Ernie Pyle, Edward R. Murrow, none of them had journalism school degrees. Many predated the fetishization of college education and had no degree at all. Do we think they somehow were deficient in their knowledge for that lack? Would they have been better journalists with a J-school degree?
The good that is desired (thinking ability, knowledge) might be obtained through a college education. More often what is learned is the shibboleths of a particular class and the jargon of the particular technical priesthood which the student is desirous to enter. These, as much as the credentials, are what is desired.
There was no such thing as J-school in this country until the late 60s. None of the great journalists, Pulitzer, Hearst, Horace Greeley, Hildy Johnson, Ernie Pyle, Edward R. Murrow, none of them had journalism school degrees. Many predated the fetishization of college education and had no degree at all. Do we think they somehow were deficient in their knowledge for that lack? Would they have been better journalists with a J-school degree?
2.3.2011 | 10:38pm
woodNfish says:
Nice article. It reinforces what I was telling my children before they went to college. A degree is way oversold today and it leaves many young people unhappy, unemployed, and in debt for something that is not worth the price.
For those of you who are so blinded by the media hit job done on Sarah Palin, all I can say is that an education has done nothing to increase your ability to think.
For those of you who are so blinded by the media hit job done on Sarah Palin, all I can say is that an education has done nothing to increase your ability to think.
2.4.2011 | 12:36am
Kay L says:
Well, I thought there were some pretty good points until you mentioned that it was a lack of faith generally to blame.
It's not.
It's cheap money--low interest student loans that were handed out like candy and the universities responded by coming up with meaningless degree programs that the unwashed masses could buy from them.
One of my sons is one semester from graduating with a degree in Chemical Engineering. For the four years that he has attended a well regarded state university, he has said that he has felt more like he was in high school, or what high school should have been.
He has educated himself on a number of subjects.
Anyway, tonight he compared the degree requirements for a BS in Chemical Engineering and a BA in Gender Studies.
Most of the reqs for Gender Studies were "Free Elective."
He figures that if he took 3 of the courses listed in the Gender studies curriculum and listed his ChemE reqs as "Free Electives" he'd have two degrees--as he put it
"One, a BS in ChemE and the other a degree in BS."
It's not.
It's cheap money--low interest student loans that were handed out like candy and the universities responded by coming up with meaningless degree programs that the unwashed masses could buy from them.
One of my sons is one semester from graduating with a degree in Chemical Engineering. For the four years that he has attended a well regarded state university, he has said that he has felt more like he was in high school, or what high school should have been.
He has educated himself on a number of subjects.
Anyway, tonight he compared the degree requirements for a BS in Chemical Engineering and a BA in Gender Studies.
Most of the reqs for Gender Studies were "Free Elective."
He figures that if he took 3 of the courses listed in the Gender studies curriculum and listed his ChemE reqs as "Free Electives" he'd have two degrees--as he put it
"One, a BS in ChemE and the other a degree in BS."
2.4.2011 | 1:22am
Spartan79 says:
An interesting side note to Ms. Scalia's excellent article. Another prominent Scalia refuses to interview anyone but Ivy League grads for clerkships at the SCOTUS, and has publicly defended this practice. He was one of my favorite justices, but I believe his position on this matter is a repulsive disgrace, and I think such a position should cause one to seriously question his ability to fairly judge issues presented to the court.
2.4.2011 | 7:27am
Kirk says:
I don't know how you write an article like this without noting that the greatest US president, Abraham Lincoln, was almost entirely self educated.
2.4.2011 | 7:39am
Eric says:
I can't believe that an article on the problems of credentialing didn't include the origin of the problem. Please so some more reading and write a follow up story.
GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER was the beginning of the credentialing problem. Because of this Supreme Court decision companies stopped using aptitude tests for employment decisions and started using credentials such as a college degree.
GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER was the beginning of the credentialing problem. Because of this Supreme Court decision companies stopped using aptitude tests for employment decisions and started using credentials such as a college degree.
2.4.2011 | 8:52am
Viator says:
It is a wonder that the smart people, the intellects condescend to Palin, sure in their knowledge of what constitutes smart and what is dumb. They believe, for instance, that the American "ruling class" in Codevilla's terminology, or "The Best and the Brightest" to use an earlier phrase, are the smart ones. Yet these are the same people who believe that the solution to unprecedented debt is more debt, that the cure to continual government failure is more government, that way to end a bubble is to create another bubble, the solution to decline is sovereignty of the bureaucrat, the path to peace is appeasement, that good economic policy is corporatism or even fascism, that the way to stop the second Shoah is blame the Jews, that the world is getting warmer when it is getting colder, that the path to electoral success is to cram social control down the throats of the country class, that they are the special custodians of natural science when in fact they loath the reality defined by natural science, that religious dogma is bad when they steeped in dogma.
“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities”
“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities”
2.4.2011 | 9:17am
Pete says:
I think partly the problem is the "Education Bubble". We as a society has seen the college education as the only good, the only acceptable path to success (and see an 18-21 year old not in college as some kind of a failure), that we spent a lot of resources to put kids there. In fact, whole industry is based on churning out college degrees (for profit institutions like Kaplan or Univ of Phoenix), with govt money to subsidize loans, etc. Just like any bubble, when there's too much out there, at some point the value goes down. And, when the actual end result of education does not show much in the product, the employers have no recourse but to use arbitrary means of sorting candidates. This is why our society poo-poo's the state colleges and hold the traditional Ivy's at high regard.
This is going to become worse, as our current govt can't get out of that paradigm of "must send kids to college" and not try to divert the focus from the usual pathways and highlight vocational education for those that are not college material. Colleges truly need to be a place of learning, and institutions need to increase their standards so that college degrees mean something other than a loan document and proof that you can drink a case of beer in one sitting.
This is going to become worse, as our current govt can't get out of that paradigm of "must send kids to college" and not try to divert the focus from the usual pathways and highlight vocational education for those that are not college material. Colleges truly need to be a place of learning, and institutions need to increase their standards so that college degrees mean something other than a loan document and proof that you can drink a case of beer in one sitting.
2.4.2011 | 10:09am
Bonnie Ramthun says:
Excellent discussion, to which I would only add that engineering degrees are different. I interviewed hundreds of electrical engineers, physicists, and computer scientists for positions in the company for which I worked, and their degree got them an interview and a hot dog for lunch and that was all. I wasn't a manager but the managers let the engineers do the interviews because they knew we'd weed out the incompetents.
I learned that MIT grads come in two flavors. One flavor earned their way into MIT by being crazy smart. The other flavor got in because their parents paid for it and they squeaked in, and they subsequently coasted on the grade curve until they achieved the beaver ring.
That got them an interview, a hot dog, and a nice handshake at the door. Thank goodness I'm in the hard sciences. How do you determine if a liberal arts major is competent?
I learned that MIT grads come in two flavors. One flavor earned their way into MIT by being crazy smart. The other flavor got in because their parents paid for it and they squeaked in, and they subsequently coasted on the grade curve until they achieved the beaver ring.
That got them an interview, a hot dog, and a nice handshake at the door. Thank goodness I'm in the hard sciences. How do you determine if a liberal arts major is competent?
2.4.2011 | 11:18am
Mike D says:
I'm a mid level manager at an internet marketing firm. I did not graduate high school. I enjoyed the article, however it splits a fine line that troubles me. In many quarters of the US ignorance is celebrated. Its terrific to be accomplished without the formal credentials, buts its mind numbing to witness ignorant rantings that are hoisted as correct simply because they emit from ones mind.
To be self educated is different than being ignorantly self righteous .
To be self educated is different than being ignorantly self righteous .
2.4.2011 | 6:04pm
Mike G says:
"I don't know that I'd say Palin is ignorant. She obviously has a number of fascinating skills. But they are not the skills I look for in a President of the United States."
So just what skills were the ones that impressed you so much about John Edwards?
So just what skills were the ones that impressed you so much about John Edwards?
2.4.2011 | 6:09pm
Rob Crawford says:
"Actually I would argue that Palin's (and to an extent Bush's, as well) problem is (was) not ignorance, per se, but a lack of wonder, a lack of willingness to consider deeply the world around her (or him). "
This statement reflects your prejudices more than it does reality.
This statement reflects your prejudices more than it does reality.
2.4.2011 | 6:10pm
jdm says:
I'm sorry if someone else mentioned this, but when I saw the first mindless drone mention Sarah Palin and how dumb she is, I really just sort of glossed over many of the intervening comments.
Credentialism is fueled by the need to protect oneself against a bad decision; to be able to say, it's not my fault.
Back when I started my career in the Computer business, I was informed in a number of situations that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". This is, in essence, the meaning behind the mindless dependence of credentials in the hiring process: nobody ever got fired for hiring a graduate from an Ivy League school. Or a college graduate.
On the other hand, just as IBM's dominance dwindled to the point that it now has to prove the worth of its machines like evryone else, so too will the value of credentials in education. Many educational institutions seem to trying to hasten this process, however, by graduating the less than qualified.
Credentialism is fueled by the need to protect oneself against a bad decision; to be able to say, it's not my fault.
Back when I started my career in the Computer business, I was informed in a number of situations that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". This is, in essence, the meaning behind the mindless dependence of credentials in the hiring process: nobody ever got fired for hiring a graduate from an Ivy League school. Or a college graduate.
On the other hand, just as IBM's dominance dwindled to the point that it now has to prove the worth of its machines like evryone else, so too will the value of credentials in education. Many educational institutions seem to trying to hasten this process, however, by graduating the less than qualified.
2.4.2011 | 6:16pm
John C says:
Sarah Palin reminds me of a young Teddy Roosevelt, I bet she would do well as Secretary of The Interior and expand her credentials.
2.4.2011 | 6:25pm
agathis says:
Great article. I attended the Catholic University of America in DC for graduate school (despite being Protestant), and though the department I was in was largely conservative in both political leaning and theology, it astounded me how many arguments we got into. It is indeed true that the more stratified into the intellectual world I went, the more there was disagreement (even of the amicable variation).
But it seems that most students go to college diverse and come out homogeneous. A bachelor's degree doesn't mean much. Most students never engage the material, only learn to regurgitate facts. There's not much actual education going on unless the student really wants to learn.
The rest are there just to check off the necessary credential and move on to the next step. Hell, that's exactly what I did. I didn't realize until after I was out of graduate school that I was too young (24 or 25) to really appreciate what knowledge was being thrown at me, or how to make it fit into the world we live in.
I always have been largely self-educated. The one thing I learned in graduate school is that self-educated is often far more effective than formal education. Many people go to college and become less intellectually curious--after all, they were just taught all the answers, right? College is not for everyone, and I think many who go would be better off if they didn't, and instead bent their natural talents toward things which truly inspire them. High School ought to be a time for students to find out what things they love. Instead it's been turned into a four-year-long SAT prep course. Mostly, it's a waste of time, energy and talent, turning out under-educated kids who feel that they deserve something just for going through the motions.
But it seems that most students go to college diverse and come out homogeneous. A bachelor's degree doesn't mean much. Most students never engage the material, only learn to regurgitate facts. There's not much actual education going on unless the student really wants to learn.
The rest are there just to check off the necessary credential and move on to the next step. Hell, that's exactly what I did. I didn't realize until after I was out of graduate school that I was too young (24 or 25) to really appreciate what knowledge was being thrown at me, or how to make it fit into the world we live in.
I always have been largely self-educated. The one thing I learned in graduate school is that self-educated is often far more effective than formal education. Many people go to college and become less intellectually curious--after all, they were just taught all the answers, right? College is not for everyone, and I think many who go would be better off if they didn't, and instead bent their natural talents toward things which truly inspire them. High School ought to be a time for students to find out what things they love. Instead it's been turned into a four-year-long SAT prep course. Mostly, it's a waste of time, energy and talent, turning out under-educated kids who feel that they deserve something just for going through the motions.
2.4.2011 | 6:40pm
Dan H says:
SCSoxFan:
"Vader, do you really, truly, believe that Ronald Reagan had "an understanding of the fundamentals of micro- and macro-economics?""
Ronald Reagan had a degree in economics. He could explain the fundamentals of micro and macro economics better than any President of the 20th century.
He was also well read in political philosophy, and could explain his beliefs right down to the core philosophical principles behind conservatism and liberalism. He could lecture you all day on the differences between Locke and Rousseau, expound on Bastiat, and explain exactly why Hayek disagreed with Keynes.
When it comes to economics and political science, Reagan was actually the most intellectually engaged President in my lifetime. He was a voracious reader and a good writer who wrote or rewrote many of his own speeches and addresses.
The fact that anyone today thinks he was stupid or uneducated is the result of a combination of his 'aw shucks' demeanor and the hatchet job done to him by the left and the media.
"Vader, do you really, truly, believe that Ronald Reagan had "an understanding of the fundamentals of micro- and macro-economics?""
Ronald Reagan had a degree in economics. He could explain the fundamentals of micro and macro economics better than any President of the 20th century.
He was also well read in political philosophy, and could explain his beliefs right down to the core philosophical principles behind conservatism and liberalism. He could lecture you all day on the differences between Locke and Rousseau, expound on Bastiat, and explain exactly why Hayek disagreed with Keynes.
When it comes to economics and political science, Reagan was actually the most intellectually engaged President in my lifetime. He was a voracious reader and a good writer who wrote or rewrote many of his own speeches and addresses.
The fact that anyone today thinks he was stupid or uneducated is the result of a combination of his 'aw shucks' demeanor and the hatchet job done to him by the left and the media.
2.4.2011 | 6:41pm
Mick Langan says:
This is part of why business has so badly overtaken government and academia as a fount for change and innovation. Government prizes credentials -- business prizes results.
2.4.2011 | 6:47pm
Frank D says:
Another problem is turning over the hiring decisions to the person from the Human Resources office. Those people have no way to evaluate the abilities of people for the position to be filled, so they focus on the credentials.
2.4.2011 | 6:55pm
Jason says:
"How do you determine if a liberal arts major is competent?"
Easy. The competent ones graduated with a degree in the hard sciences.
Easy. The competent ones graduated with a degree in the hard sciences.
2.4.2011 | 7:15pm
moose says:
1. Why do so many of us value intellect over common sense? As i've grow older I find myself deprecating "intellect" based on my life experiences and have an ever growing respect for common sense. I graduated in the top 1% of my class in Law School and as I look back I have come to realize what a fool my "intellect" has lead me to be on more than one occasion. In the decisions that really really matter, not only has intellect failed me, it has actively sabotaged me. Do you think Bill Clinton a good president due to his intellect or due to his street smarts? Given what I've seen over the last 50 years, we could do with a little more common sense in government and a little less intellect.
2. I think a lot of people conflate "chirpyness" or "blondness" with ignorance? Why is cynicism and pessimissim associated with "intellect"?
3. If you had the choice between being ruled by someone who shares your values but was not "intellectually curious" or someone who found your values to be an anathema but is "intellectually curious" who would you choose?
2. I think a lot of people conflate "chirpyness" or "blondness" with ignorance? Why is cynicism and pessimissim associated with "intellect"?
3. If you had the choice between being ruled by someone who shares your values but was not "intellectually curious" or someone who found your values to be an anathema but is "intellectually curious" who would you choose?
2.4.2011 | 7:20pm
Monk Chanan Magdalen says:
Love your bleebs and blobs, but even more than credentials nowadays is politically correct screening...race, gender, sexual preference - these are the things that count now. I, white anglo-saxon male, had 15 teaching interviews with an actors skill and a stanford and oxford education and a love of subject and children...but it meant nothing, in fact was opposed and superceded by the criteria of political correctness i mentioned.
2.4.2011 | 7:21pm
Valjean says:
Good article, but I couldn't get over the false alternative at the end:
"Lacking faith, lacking a mindset that can trust in possibilities, there is nothing to fall back on but credentials."
Having a "mindset that can trust in possibilities" does not have to be exclusively based on faith: a fervent imagination and a true love of knowledge are certainly enough. I've not found those to be exclusively the domain of the religious -- far from it.
And thereafter maintaining the *sole* alternative to this equation as "credentials" is equally untrue. One "falls back on" them -- as I think dozens of comments on this article will attest -- when knowledge, not faith, is lacking. (The relationship between knowledge and faith I'll delicately sidestep for the purpose of commenting -- but I trust my point is clear regardless.)
"Lacking faith, lacking a mindset that can trust in possibilities, there is nothing to fall back on but credentials."
Having a "mindset that can trust in possibilities" does not have to be exclusively based on faith: a fervent imagination and a true love of knowledge are certainly enough. I've not found those to be exclusively the domain of the religious -- far from it.
And thereafter maintaining the *sole* alternative to this equation as "credentials" is equally untrue. One "falls back on" them -- as I think dozens of comments on this article will attest -- when knowledge, not faith, is lacking. (The relationship between knowledge and faith I'll delicately sidestep for the purpose of commenting -- but I trust my point is clear regardless.)
2.4.2011 | 7:38pm
Philo says:
Great article. I find it interesting that there is more focus on credentials outside academia than inside. America's greatest philosopher, Saul Kripke, has nothing beyond a BA. The same was true of my dissertation director, a great American philosopher of his day. In my department, in graduate admissions, we pay very little attention to the school someone has attended. In hiring people straight out of graduate school, we do focus on which graduate program they've attended, because that's such a useful filter, but after the initial career stage that doesn't make any difference either. We pay attention to what people write, not to what formal credentials they have.
2.4.2011 | 7:59pm
ErikZ says:
Palin's problem is not her formal education or CV, it is that she is ignorant.
Everyone is ignorant. EVERYONE. Now that I've pointed that out to you, you're ignorant about one less thing.
Palin may be a capable person in the Alaskan wilderness, but the ability to field-strip a Kalashnikov is of limited use in the Oval Office.
Listen to yourself. You act like they found her wandering the Alaskan wilderness instead of working her way up to Governor.
(No, Sarah, Obama does not want to kill Grandma; Of course he may be wrong in his proposals but is not a killer).
It doesn't matter what Obama wants. That is where we will end up if we follow his proposals. He may even think that they've come up with a way to defeat that problem. He would be wrong.
Did she actually say "Obama wants to kill your Grandma?" Because if she didn't, then you're giving an illusion of Palin that's untrue.
Everyone is ignorant. EVERYONE. Now that I've pointed that out to you, you're ignorant about one less thing.
Palin may be a capable person in the Alaskan wilderness, but the ability to field-strip a Kalashnikov is of limited use in the Oval Office.
Listen to yourself. You act like they found her wandering the Alaskan wilderness instead of working her way up to Governor.
(No, Sarah, Obama does not want to kill Grandma; Of course he may be wrong in his proposals but is not a killer).
It doesn't matter what Obama wants. That is where we will end up if we follow his proposals. He may even think that they've come up with a way to defeat that problem. He would be wrong.
Did she actually say "Obama wants to kill your Grandma?" Because if she didn't, then you're giving an illusion of Palin that's untrue.
2.4.2011 | 8:19pm
Rich says:
Okay I got my BS in 1974 and then two masters and later a PhD at 58. I teach at a state Research University. There is a ton of things that I know and can do but many of the younger faculty can not do a thing and do not know a thing outside their area of research. My dad wanted me to go to college but he also wanted me to be able to do. Do what? Plumbing, electrical wiring, carpentry and a ton of other things, most of which I can do.
Teaching I have seen everyone go for a degree whether they should of not, hey some of the wealthiest people I know are plumbers and they are a hell of a lot happier.
Teaching I have seen everyone go for a degree whether they should of not, hey some of the wealthiest people I know are plumbers and they are a hell of a lot happier.
2.4.2011 | 8:41pm
Junk Science Skeptic says:
-Rick "She (Palin) simply doesn't have the knowledge or mental equipment for the job."
Anybody who could make such a statement clearly has issues with their own mental equipment. Less than 1,000 people on the entire planet have worked close enough with Palin to make an informed statement with regard to her knowledge or mental ability. Those who do know her hold her in fairly high esteem in both regards.
Please document (parroting hearsay is not documentation) the presidential qualifications of Clinton, Obama, Carter, Gore and Kerry before posting any judgments of Palin. She's not perfect, but she's far closer than the alternatives, and that is what so scares the sniveling lefties.
Anybody who could make such a statement clearly has issues with their own mental equipment. Less than 1,000 people on the entire planet have worked close enough with Palin to make an informed statement with regard to her knowledge or mental ability. Those who do know her hold her in fairly high esteem in both regards.
Please document (parroting hearsay is not documentation) the presidential qualifications of Clinton, Obama, Carter, Gore and Kerry before posting any judgments of Palin. She's not perfect, but she's far closer than the alternatives, and that is what so scares the sniveling lefties.
2.4.2011 | 9:04pm
James Bradley says:
Not sure if you covered this already: It is pertinent in analysing the current style of education and its drawbacks, and excellent in both substance and presentation. All should take the time to watch.
http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/10/14/rsa-animate-changing-education-paradigms/
http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/10/14/rsa-animate-changing-education-paradigms/
2.4.2011 | 9:19pm
Mike S says:
One must remember that credentials are awarded, not earned. They may take a lot of work to get but they only indicate that you kissed the correct asses for the required period of time, here's your sheepskin. Certifications on the other hand, certify that the individual has proved competency in a field via testing or examination.
2.4.2011 | 9:30pm
Bruce Hayden says:
Probably to no one's surprise, the two guys I know from high school who have done the best financially in their lives, probably have a year of college between them. It is always humorous seeing lists of successful people who didn't graduate from college.
I, on the other hand, did graduate in 4 years with a BA degree, followed, ultimately, with 2 other graduate degrees and much of a third. For what I do, they are essential as credentials (I am a patent attorney). I have long viewed my degrees, and those of most people who have them, as substitutes for actual outstanding performance.
What I mean by that is that while I do well at what I do, and did very well when I was designing software, what opens doors for me is not the wealth that I have earned, or the awards that I have received, but my mostly paper credentials.
I say this with a bit of cynicism, since the one job that I didn't have the paper credentials for (computer programmer) was the one where I excelled the most. My undergraduate degree was in mathematics, and not computer science, and so had to fudge a bit to get my initial job.
One other tale of credentialing - back in the mid-1980s, I had a DoE clearance and was supporting telecommunications for a number of their national labs. At Sandia, our on-site analyst did not have a bachelor's degree,but did great work. They were requiring a master's degree for their employees AND their contractors. By then, I had an MBA, which had no relevance to the job at hand. But, it was a master's degree. And, so, he was made to tokenly report to me, and everyone was happy. In real life, and to our employer, we were peers. But to Sandia, I was his supervisor, who came by every month or so - to actually work in a different area of technology, but that wasn't apparently important.
I would have to say that the majority of our systems analysts at that time did not have college degrees. Mostly, they had military training. And, they probably did a better job than the average CS grad at that time. But, even by then in the 1980s, new software analysts needed college degrees.
Finally, as to Sarah Palin - I marvel that the woman who consistently runs the left around in circles and into frothing lunatics, is considered either stupid or ignorant. This woman constantly catches her critics with their pants down, from partying like it is 1773, to Blood Liable, and throwing in Death Panels. She even got them on C.S. Lewis. By now, I figure that anyone who calls her either ignorant or stupid is going to pay the price of seriously misunderestimating her.
I, on the other hand, did graduate in 4 years with a BA degree, followed, ultimately, with 2 other graduate degrees and much of a third. For what I do, they are essential as credentials (I am a patent attorney). I have long viewed my degrees, and those of most people who have them, as substitutes for actual outstanding performance.
What I mean by that is that while I do well at what I do, and did very well when I was designing software, what opens doors for me is not the wealth that I have earned, or the awards that I have received, but my mostly paper credentials.
I say this with a bit of cynicism, since the one job that I didn't have the paper credentials for (computer programmer) was the one where I excelled the most. My undergraduate degree was in mathematics, and not computer science, and so had to fudge a bit to get my initial job.
One other tale of credentialing - back in the mid-1980s, I had a DoE clearance and was supporting telecommunications for a number of their national labs. At Sandia, our on-site analyst did not have a bachelor's degree,but did great work. They were requiring a master's degree for their employees AND their contractors. By then, I had an MBA, which had no relevance to the job at hand. But, it was a master's degree. And, so, he was made to tokenly report to me, and everyone was happy. In real life, and to our employer, we were peers. But to Sandia, I was his supervisor, who came by every month or so - to actually work in a different area of technology, but that wasn't apparently important.
I would have to say that the majority of our systems analysts at that time did not have college degrees. Mostly, they had military training. And, they probably did a better job than the average CS grad at that time. But, even by then in the 1980s, new software analysts needed college degrees.
Finally, as to Sarah Palin - I marvel that the woman who consistently runs the left around in circles and into frothing lunatics, is considered either stupid or ignorant. This woman constantly catches her critics with their pants down, from partying like it is 1773, to Blood Liable, and throwing in Death Panels. She even got them on C.S. Lewis. By now, I figure that anyone who calls her either ignorant or stupid is going to pay the price of seriously misunderestimating her.
2.4.2011 | 9:43pm
buick60 says:
Wake up and smell the coffee you noobs.There are lots of people that never got (1) a degree who could tell you why you are wrong and for what reason.....I may not be one of them,but don't ever get so full of yourself that you think you are....without looking in the mirror first.It's nice of you to pick and choose to anoint,but is it really your place??
2.4.2011 | 10:48pm
Beth Donovan says:
I have a liberal arts degree from a small Jesuit college. I graduated in 1975. My major was psychology.
I only had one job remotely related to my major, and even stayed home to raise a child until his 8th birthday. Then, I started from scratch, at age 40, and did manage to work my way up from telephone sales to billing to help desk to knowledge engineer to enterprise system management to consulting without the required "credentials".
My salary went from 16,000 in 1994 to 80,000 in 2007(and in Kansas, that's good money!). I did not go back to school to get a more appropriate degree. I just worked really hard and long hours.
And... most importantly, I could write coherently and communicate well with our customers. That is what my liberal arts degree gave me - writing skills.
That is why I did better than those with engineering degrees. Hard sciences do not teach people to write or to speak.
And now, I have my farm and I am what I always wanted to be - a fiber artist and a photographer. All made possible by my liberal arts degree.
College should teach one to learn and to be flexible. I'm afraid it no longer does that.
I only had one job remotely related to my major, and even stayed home to raise a child until his 8th birthday. Then, I started from scratch, at age 40, and did manage to work my way up from telephone sales to billing to help desk to knowledge engineer to enterprise system management to consulting without the required "credentials".
My salary went from 16,000 in 1994 to 80,000 in 2007(and in Kansas, that's good money!). I did not go back to school to get a more appropriate degree. I just worked really hard and long hours.
And... most importantly, I could write coherently and communicate well with our customers. That is what my liberal arts degree gave me - writing skills.
That is why I did better than those with engineering degrees. Hard sciences do not teach people to write or to speak.
And now, I have my farm and I am what I always wanted to be - a fiber artist and a photographer. All made possible by my liberal arts degree.
College should teach one to learn and to be flexible. I'm afraid it no longer does that.
2.4.2011 | 11:05pm
GFFM says:
The piece is off the mark. Ezra Klein is not educated. Most of what passes today for a college education is not really education; it's attitudinizing--of the politically correct kind. As an academic, I see new Ph.Ds who are not educated in the true sense of that word. We have teachers teaching high school and grade school students who have been taught the appropriate attitudes; few are really educated. Credentialism is very real; it always has been. It seems to be much worse now because of the clear elitism of the coasts and the corruption of education at all levels.
2.4.2011 | 11:13pm
JeanE says:
I was struck by your remarks about your son's college experience. I have a son in college right now, and like your son he seems to get much more out of devouring literature than he does out of his classes. Like you, I keep arguing the importance of sticking with it to earn his degree, even while recognizing that he is spending his time checking off boxes. Undoubtedly he would prefer pursuing his own interests right now, but in the long run would he be better off? The choice must be his since he is the one that will live with the consequences, but do we encourage him take the risks of charting his own course or to prepare for an uncertain future by stocking up on the basics of diplomas and credentials? Decisions about school have little to do with education, and instead involve anticipating which hoops we may be required to jump through in the future in order to pursue our goals.
2.4.2011 | 11:17pm
Ritchie The Riveter says:
As a degreed electrical engineer, I learned early on to deeply appreciate those whose academic credentials were not as voluminous as my own ... the assemblers and technicians who taught me the myriad details that turn theory into practical, producible application. They have saved my reputation countless times. Good thing too ... for you don't stay employed, especially in hard times, if the seeds of your understanding of theory don't produce fruit in practice -- no matter how understanding your boss may be, because sooner or later they'll run out of money under these circumstances.
I've seen others, outside the workplace, who exhibit an intimate familiarity with the fundamental principles of human interaction, along with wisdom when it comes to their application in civil society ... yet lack any credentials from academia and/or the professional/political complex.
OTOH, I've seen a lot of highly-educated people with the willingness, as Rick (I think) put it, to deeply consider the world around them ... to the point of paralysis by navel-gazing analysis, unable to grasp fundamental truth in front of them simply because it was the Same Old Truth, and therefore not suitable as a reflective surface for their self-perception of intellect.
I then see them repeatedly try and apply their "new" ideas (which are too often anything-but-new ... not "change" but change BACK) to our socio-economic system, then learn nothing from the socio-economic failures that result -- in part, because they systems they operate within lack the harsh, but corrective feedback that limits the persistence of errors in the endeavor of product development.
The difference between such as these, and those like Ms. Palin and GWB, is not that the latter have refused to consider the world around them. That error in observation has been reflected well beyond Sarah and Dubya ... to the smearing of those who listen to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative voices.
I submit instead that the vast, vast majority of the latter -- from dittohead to Dubya to Mama Grizzly ... HAVE considered carefully the world around them ... observed with reason that most of the tried-and-true answers are still true ... and don't see the need to preen for the masses by embracing "new thinking" just because it's "new", or take nuanced analysis to the level of enumerating cherubim on pinheads (the real kind, not those so designated by Bill O'Reilly).
They instead act to apply and/or encourage the application of what they have already learned well before some public figure gave voice to it, to the objective of establishing a societal environment where people can and will thrive ... whether or not it meets some cultural-elite litmus test.
And that just drives those who are highly invested ... in terms of time, of money, and/or self-esteem ... in the conventional wisdom of the cultural elite bonkers! That is because they have become acclimated to over sixty years of a society where we have been encouraged to replace a respect for expertise -- while keeping control of our own decision-making -- with the blind worship of the trappings of expertise, to the point that we are expected to subordinate our decision-making authority and resources to the credentialed without recourse, because their credentials are "validation" of possessing intelligence.
They don't like being knocked off their pedestals, and walking among the rest of us as equals ... after all, they are the ones they have been waiting for.
*************************************************
But when they tell you all you need to do is show up for work
They're so smart they will not let you fall
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand
... That's the Biggest Lie of All ...
Despite their erudition
And academic pedigree
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me
Shame on me for not standing up sooner
To stop this repetitive insanity
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me ...
... Like a box of dim bulbs to me ...
... Like a box of dim bulbs to me
*************************************************
I've seen others, outside the workplace, who exhibit an intimate familiarity with the fundamental principles of human interaction, along with wisdom when it comes to their application in civil society ... yet lack any credentials from academia and/or the professional/political complex.
OTOH, I've seen a lot of highly-educated people with the willingness, as Rick (I think) put it, to deeply consider the world around them ... to the point of paralysis by navel-gazing analysis, unable to grasp fundamental truth in front of them simply because it was the Same Old Truth, and therefore not suitable as a reflective surface for their self-perception of intellect.
I then see them repeatedly try and apply their "new" ideas (which are too often anything-but-new ... not "change" but change BACK) to our socio-economic system, then learn nothing from the socio-economic failures that result -- in part, because they systems they operate within lack the harsh, but corrective feedback that limits the persistence of errors in the endeavor of product development.
The difference between such as these, and those like Ms. Palin and GWB, is not that the latter have refused to consider the world around them. That error in observation has been reflected well beyond Sarah and Dubya ... to the smearing of those who listen to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative voices.
I submit instead that the vast, vast majority of the latter -- from dittohead to Dubya to Mama Grizzly ... HAVE considered carefully the world around them ... observed with reason that most of the tried-and-true answers are still true ... and don't see the need to preen for the masses by embracing "new thinking" just because it's "new", or take nuanced analysis to the level of enumerating cherubim on pinheads (the real kind, not those so designated by Bill O'Reilly).
They instead act to apply and/or encourage the application of what they have already learned well before some public figure gave voice to it, to the objective of establishing a societal environment where people can and will thrive ... whether or not it meets some cultural-elite litmus test.
And that just drives those who are highly invested ... in terms of time, of money, and/or self-esteem ... in the conventional wisdom of the cultural elite bonkers! That is because they have become acclimated to over sixty years of a society where we have been encouraged to replace a respect for expertise -- while keeping control of our own decision-making -- with the blind worship of the trappings of expertise, to the point that we are expected to subordinate our decision-making authority and resources to the credentialed without recourse, because their credentials are "validation" of possessing intelligence.
They don't like being knocked off their pedestals, and walking among the rest of us as equals ... after all, they are the ones they have been waiting for.
*************************************************
But when they tell you all you need to do is show up for work
They're so smart they will not let you fall
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand
... That's the Biggest Lie of All ...
Despite their erudition
And academic pedigree
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me
Shame on me for not standing up sooner
To stop this repetitive insanity
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me ...
... Like a box of dim bulbs to me ...
... Like a box of dim bulbs to me
*************************************************
2.4.2011 | 11:36pm
Plutarch says:
We are not all ignorant. Ignore-ance is exactly that; to ignore.
No one knows everything and by virtue of the same, no one knows it all. There is always more. There is always a "Maybe So" lurking in the shadows of what is and is not see, whether the instant question is of correctness or incorrectness.
How ironic the postmodern hegemony of "Education" most embodies the epidemic of ignorance which plagues our era. Who else could transmute "progressiveism" and "social justice" into a license to commit Bigotry; and the granting of franchises to commit mass murder via systematic democide during the peaceful intervals of the 20th Century when war was not officially in season.
To avoid the condition of ignorance one must have first learned the discipline to use their knowledge as an unfailing expression of good faith.
There is little room for good faith or disciplined mutualism in the concretized secular orthodoxy of Education's true believers. Remember? Is this not the same subculture that patted Pol Pot on the head, handed him a Ph.D. in Economics and proudly sent him off to Cambodia in the spirit of social justice and multiculturalism to “correct and perfect” the hapless volk who lacked the credentials that would have otherwise entitled them to be left alone?
What comes of knowledge separated from good faith and genuine mutualism?
Our present Congress and White House are full of examples.
No one knows everything and by virtue of the same, no one knows it all. There is always more. There is always a "Maybe So" lurking in the shadows of what is and is not see, whether the instant question is of correctness or incorrectness.
How ironic the postmodern hegemony of "Education" most embodies the epidemic of ignorance which plagues our era. Who else could transmute "progressiveism" and "social justice" into a license to commit Bigotry; and the granting of franchises to commit mass murder via systematic democide during the peaceful intervals of the 20th Century when war was not officially in season.
To avoid the condition of ignorance one must have first learned the discipline to use their knowledge as an unfailing expression of good faith.
There is little room for good faith or disciplined mutualism in the concretized secular orthodoxy of Education's true believers. Remember? Is this not the same subculture that patted Pol Pot on the head, handed him a Ph.D. in Economics and proudly sent him off to Cambodia in the spirit of social justice and multiculturalism to “correct and perfect” the hapless volk who lacked the credentials that would have otherwise entitled them to be left alone?
What comes of knowledge separated from good faith and genuine mutualism?
Our present Congress and White House are full of examples.
2.5.2011 | 12:01am
Plutarch says:
To the good and decent commenter "Philo" --- how I wish what you wrote could be true: "... I find it interesting that there is more focus on credentials outside academia than inside. ..."
Apply for an open faculty position and you shall see the vicious truth.
They are most Victorian at the core, devotees of Life lived as a condescension.
Apply for an open faculty position and you shall see the vicious truth.
They are most Victorian at the core, devotees of Life lived as a condescension.
2.5.2011 | 1:08am
Anonymous Jerk says:
No discussion of uncredentialed greatness would be truly started, much less completed, without mention of Eric Hoffer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer
Dead now almost 30 years Mr. Hoffer's insightful clear thinking would be sorely missed if tested by those who demand all their thinkers come with systematic stamps of approval.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer
Dead now almost 30 years Mr. Hoffer's insightful clear thinking would be sorely missed if tested by those who demand all their thinkers come with systematic stamps of approval.
2.5.2011 | 1:34am
TV guy says:
I don't why this is true, but commercial Television broadcasting at all levels is staffed by non-degreed people doing electrical engineering ... that is design, construction and service of TV stations and all the electronic and mechanical systems used in them.
In my engineering experience (35+ years) at TV networks and big-city stations, some of my employers had no degreed electrical engineers at all on staff, others had perhaps a few, mostly in management. Of my co-workers who have four-year college degrees, their degrees tend to be in various liberal arts subjects.
Where do broadcast engineers come from? Some learned electronics in the military. Some were musicians who learned electronics. Many of the top broadcast engineers started as electronic hobbyists or ham radio operators at a young age, and learned electronics by building their own equipment.
In fact, at the Super Bowl, the Academy Awards and pretty much every major TV production ham radio operators turned broadcast engineers perform many of the key highly technical jobs.
This is not to disparage Electrical Engineers, whom I greatly respect, just an observation.
In my engineering experience (35+ years) at TV networks and big-city stations, some of my employers had no degreed electrical engineers at all on staff, others had perhaps a few, mostly in management. Of my co-workers who have four-year college degrees, their degrees tend to be in various liberal arts subjects.
Where do broadcast engineers come from? Some learned electronics in the military. Some were musicians who learned electronics. Many of the top broadcast engineers started as electronic hobbyists or ham radio operators at a young age, and learned electronics by building their own equipment.
In fact, at the Super Bowl, the Academy Awards and pretty much every major TV production ham radio operators turned broadcast engineers perform many of the key highly technical jobs.
This is not to disparage Electrical Engineers, whom I greatly respect, just an observation.
2.5.2011 | 1:45am
Elementary Teacher says:
I have been an elementary school teacher for the last 20+ years. I cry in frustration that the "TEST" is what I'm forced to teach. No more do my first graders get to sing, paint, color, dance, jump for joy. Rarely do they get to listen wide-eyed and entranced to stories read aloud. If it isn't on the "TEST" then there isn't time for it in the classroom, for without the "TEST" the little 6 year olds will not make it into the "BEST" colleges. We are told that the "TEST" will lead to the "DEGREE" and the "DEGREE" will lead to happiness and prosperity. Why does society insist on this?
2.5.2011 | 2:13am
John Scotus says:
Great article, but you lost me at the last point. It is hard to see how the over-reliance on credentials relates to the undervaluing of faith in society as a whole.
The time period of which you speak--"when faith was common to kings and paupers"--was largely before university educations were common. Yet, the very people who had this faith saw fit to build universities. Nearly all of the great western universities were created by people of faith to help spread the faith. If a university diploma were not valued, these universities would never have been created to begin with.
The need for credentials has always been with us, even if these credentials were not always university diplomas. The problem is that the value of university diplomas has been debased by the poor education being given, and that the contribution and insight of those who do not have credentials--but who nevertheless have something to offer--has been devalued by those very same people who hold credentials, but who are appallingly ignorant.
This has nothing to do with the decline of faith in society as a whole, but everything to do with the decline of faith within universities. Universities once existed because of faith and to uphold faith, but they have lost their mission and purpose.
Can a person really be learned to begin with if he/she does not have faith? This is a better question, I think.
The time period of which you speak--"when faith was common to kings and paupers"--was largely before university educations were common. Yet, the very people who had this faith saw fit to build universities. Nearly all of the great western universities were created by people of faith to help spread the faith. If a university diploma were not valued, these universities would never have been created to begin with.
The need for credentials has always been with us, even if these credentials were not always university diplomas. The problem is that the value of university diplomas has been debased by the poor education being given, and that the contribution and insight of those who do not have credentials--but who nevertheless have something to offer--has been devalued by those very same people who hold credentials, but who are appallingly ignorant.
This has nothing to do with the decline of faith in society as a whole, but everything to do with the decline of faith within universities. Universities once existed because of faith and to uphold faith, but they have lost their mission and purpose.
Can a person really be learned to begin with if he/she does not have faith? This is a better question, I think.
2.5.2011 | 4:10am
DonM says:
With regard to human resources departments: a company I worked for hired a Chemical Engineer with a degree in ChemE from Johns Hopkins. She asked "Is it acredited?"
brilliant guy, now a VP at a fortune 500 company. Works next to my old West Point roommate
brilliant guy, now a VP at a fortune 500 company. Works next to my old West Point roommate
2.5.2011 | 4:40pm
Moneyrunner says:
It is amazing, isn’t it that Sarah Palin has no supporters on the Left and few on the Right, but manages to highjack virtually every discussion on the internet and the MSM. What is her unique gift? What is it about a woman who her enemies characterize as dumb, uneducated and incurious, yet lives in their heads rent-free? Most mainstream Republicans are looking for Mr. “Anyone-but-Palin.” Palin detractors are now comparing her – unfavorably – to Ronald Reagan whom they pretend to admire. The man who left office with an approval rating lower than Palin’s during her governorship was classified as an “amiable dunce” by “Whiz Kid” Clark Clifford. He was accused on “Sleepwalking through History” by veteran newspaperman Haynes Johnson. SDI was ridiculed as “Star Wars” by Senator Kennedy because as everyone knows, you can’t shoot down ICBMs. Meanwhile, we are reminded that Jimmy Carter was touted as smart because he was a nuclear engineer and had a degree for Evelyn Wood’s speed reading class. Credentials are everything until you want something done.
2.5.2011 | 6:09pm
J. Pulley says:
Thanks, Elizabeth. Your article is a welcome contrast to this bit of nonsense on Insty. (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/114388/).
2.6.2011 | 12:07am
Clyde Baker says:
Thanks for such a thoughtful article. I am a carpener, homebuilder, cabinetmaker, father, and grandfather, and the proud owner of an un-earned high school diploma from the late 60's. I was a very curious child and would take apart toasters and fix them, could replace burnt-out tubes in the TV, and began working with wood in the 7th grade in woodshop. I had a few good teachers in school, but was generally bored out of my mind. After a stint in the military, my curiosity revived, and I became a reader, with wide interests such as history, philosophy, theology, economics, politics, and literature.
I believe that one of the greatest failings in modern education is having teachers at almost all levels who get degrees, and advanced degrees, then move on to teaching, often with "education" degrees, andwithout training or practicle experience in the subject matter they are teaching. They are un-equipped with the 'wonder" needed to excite the curiousity in their students, and to pass on that wonder of God and His creation to them, hence they lack the passion of their subject matter to inspire their imaginations.
I believe that one of the greatest failings in modern education is having teachers at almost all levels who get degrees, and advanced degrees, then move on to teaching, often with "education" degrees, andwithout training or practicle experience in the subject matter they are teaching. They are un-equipped with the 'wonder" needed to excite the curiousity in their students, and to pass on that wonder of God and His creation to them, hence they lack the passion of their subject matter to inspire their imaginations.
2.7.2011 | 12:27am
vinron says:
Your thoughtful article was a breath of fresh air for me. This morning, I became irritated while watching a CBS interview of Aaron Sorkin who has no patience for the supposed 'glamorization of dumbness' and believes that 'We need the smartest guys, the best Ph.D.s around to be solving [our country's] problems.' No place for the uncredentialed in Mr. Sorkin's narrow mind.
2.14.2011 | 3:59am
Strobl Sulema says:
The problem exists on both sides (conservative and liberal, theist and atheist). Members of both sides have set beliefs and often little desire to examine them. Conservative theists (like myself) often chirp about dogma and the authority of scripture without going to these beliefs and this Word without any sense of wonder, or desire to be confounded. In doing so we run the risk of being superficial Christians who acknowledge Christ with our words, but unfortunately are living that are in many ways quite unfaithful to his example and teachings. Likewise with the many of the liberal atheists (with whom I work). They make science a god and prostrate themselves before its shrines, but in no meaningful way exhibit any wonder or imagination about the world that surrounds them. Great article. I find it interesting that there is more focus on credentials outside academia than inside. America's greatest philosopher, Saul Kripke, has nothing beyond a BA. The same was true of my dissertation director, a great American philosopher of his day. In my department, in graduate admissions, we pay very little attention to the school someone has attended. In hiring people straight out of graduate school, we do focus on which graduate program they've attended, because that's such a useful filter, but after the initial career stage that doesn't make any difference either. We pay attention to what people write, not to what formal credentials they have.
2.20.2011 | 6:33pm
Irby Ellen says:
Speaking of autodidacts (sorry for repeating, but I just lernt that word from the article - and sorry U of I for not learning it there), what about that Lincoln guy? Where we would be without that "Baboon?" I say this with a bit of cynicism, since the one job that I didn't have the paper credentials for (computer programmer) was the one where I excelled the most. My undergraduate degree was in mathematics, and not computer science, and so had to fudge a bit to get my initial job.
