Thanks for posting this article, Stephen. "professional proletariat" - love it.
Randall does a good job of describing the process as it evolved, along the lines of "the house that jack built", so that I was reminded of supply chain management of the academic world. Is that a fair description? If so, I have to confess to a cynical opinion of management in the nonacademic world becoming an exercise in balancing "just in time" inventory of qualified credentialed hires against noncredentialed hires. Oh well, people as commodities. It's not a new thing. I guess if you accept the following early paragraph, the rest of the article can be accepted whole: For example, in the 1960s and '70s, as competition for managerial positions grew among those who held bachelor's degrees, M.B.A.'s became increasingly popular and eventually the new standard for access to corporate jobs. Holders of such degrees have attempted to justify the credential by introducing new techniques of management - often faddish, yet distinct enough to give a technical veneer to their activities. Similarly, credentialed workers in other occupations have redefined their positions and eliminated non-credentialed jobs around them. THUS, THE SPIRAL OF COMPETITION FOR EDUCATION AND THE RISING CREDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR JOBS HAVE TENDED TO BE IRREVERSIBLE. ...especially if the closing paragraph is not challenged: Eventually, the inflationary trend gets going again. As a society grows richer, it can afford to allow more people to spend time competing in the education marketplace instead of directly in the workplace. BUT CREDENTIAL INFLATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ARE NOT PERFECTLY SYNCHRONIZED. In an era of poor job prospects, the educational system plays an important role in warehousing people and keeping them temporarily off the job market - thus holding down unemployment. It may even serve as a hidden welfare system, doling out support in the form of student loans and subsidizing work-study programs. Such results occur whether government budget-makers are aware of what they are doing or not. In that sense, we may have entered a period in which we can't politically afford to stop the processes that feed credential inflation I will leave it to the others who have more personal investment in this discussion to argue whether we should intervene with policy or allow the free market to takes its course. Great food for thought - and your timing couldn't have been better. - Karen Watters Cole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why do we think that people earn higher degrees to earn more money? Maybe > the love of learning and understanding drives them. > >> From: William B Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> I have been associated with some good schools and some mediocre ones and >> can attest that doctoral degrees are more a measure of tenacity than any >> basic intelligence. Why is it that Michael Dell and Bill Gates could drop >> out as undergraduates and do so well? ... >> >> I remember some years ago a Canadian article that pointed out that >> not one >> of the Canadian bank presidents across the Dominion had completed >> university... >> high IQ's as related to professional competence >> are not the be all, and end all, of the discussion. >> Keith had written: >>> the pace of innovation means that high-IQ >>> individuals with high level technocratic skills is becoming >>> increasingly required. Here's an interesting piece that seems to me to put things into a useful perspective. (I pass it on since it may not be readily available to all.) It raises the question whether we only think we see high level skills and high IQs, whereas they are really a mirage caused by a steady inflation in credentials (which tends to be accompanied by a devaluation of each credential itself). I know for a fact that my father studied Botany, German, Latin, mathematics, etc in his rural Ohio high school almost 100 years ago at a level now only available in college or university. One of his boyhood friends who dropped out in Grade 10 to go sweep up at the bank became - you guessed it - president of the bank and a very succesful man. In any case, the discussion below seems to get many things right while remaining at the level of socialized individuals and not requiring any hypotheses from evolutionary psychology or biology, not needing Pinker or Dawkins. best wishes, Stephen Straker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vancouver, B.C. [Outgoing mail scanned by Norton AntiVirus]
