Being Credentialed

[Birdjaguar]

Another problem is experts can and have been wrong.

Would you take investment advice from Jim Cramer? He has plenty of credentials. Harvard degree, Goldman Sachs alum. He's also been spectacularly wrong so many times that he became a meme.

Vioxx must be safe. Experts said so - the experts at Merck who developed it and the experts at the FDA who approved it for sale.

Saying that "some experts get things wrong" is no argument at all. More non experts get more things wrong. Credentials while not perfect or free from charlatans is a huge improvement of not having them.

I'm pretty sure those who are against them are just looking for shortcuts into higher paying jobs they are unwilling to make an effort to learn and become an expert. One measure of expertise is 10,000 hours of work. That is about 5 years of effort. Those for whom such a commitment is too hard, long, expensive, or whatever, want the rewards without the work. They are petty, small-minded, jealous, lazy and not very smart people. They are also probable poor employees and job hoppers.

 

[Lexicus]

A lot of trade unions exist by substantially controlling the credentialing process (usually limited in geographic scope) for someone to be able to work in a given trade.

 

[Hygro]

That's policy arena stuff; the backlash against credentialism has more personal causes. I look at the issue a bit more holistically.

Let's say a position on the floor opens. It is equivalent to a sergeant. Worker A, 20 year vet, knowledgable and respected, applies, and so does B, 2 year vet, 4 year degree applies, and so does C, outside the company, master's degree, no experience whatsoever. HR usually goes with C or B, in my experience, while all those without credentials seethe. In many if not most fields, I would add, A is most often strongest by advantages of experience(some more forward thinking fields begin to recognize this, fortunately)

It's a social phenomenon. Our society is getting a little carried away with the credentialism, and it's having really weird effects. Tax the rich is cool, but kinda reeks of state adjustment of a playing field that remains rigged, rather than fairer play. Fairer play is what builds the trust and that can only be established societally. It's a cultural question, not a policy one.

It's in my field too. The 2010s were quite meritocratic: if you can code you get the job.
Educating people how to code changed from theory driven CS degrees to varying qualities of bootcamps, the best of which were far better at training and educating a new developer than CS degrees, and for a while the bootcamps had the superior reputation when there was a shortage of labor vs money for ideas. Companies like Google had begun hiding which college you went to on your resume from its hiring managers so as improve the quality of its engineers.

In the great layoffs of 2022, the re-hiring of developers is extremely gated. CS degrees, top schools, and bootcamps screen you out even if you have the CS degree. It's objectively bad.

But this abuse of credentialism is, like your example, not a conspiracy by the credentialed, but by the moneyed in a time of poor bargaining by labor.

The question is how to fix it. And what fix is needed. The cause isn't a mass conspiracy by the credentialed, although there was a sentiment that, in the inverse of your example, bootcampers were cutting in line and the degreed had paid their dues. But that's not enough to change how owners choose to engineer their profit.

The most meritocratic systems are credential driven, from the outset. The weights and measurements stay the same. You know going what you need at every level. These types of organizations also help train you to that level. For example, a guy needs a degree for internal promotion. Many companies pay for you to get that degree. But only in some industries.

 

[Voidwalkin]

But this abuse of credentialism is, like your example, not a conspiracy by the credentialed, but by the moneyed in a time of poor bargaining by labor

I'm skeptical. Somewhere out there I'm sure there is a study that checks the amount of bias in Ivy League grads evaluating Ivy League applicants.

I'm also wondering if college grads heavily favor other college grads. I suspect the answer is yes. I'll look it up later.

 

[Hygro]

I don't think that's evidence of a conspiracy of credentialism for its own sake. Even when it's as tight knit as an Ivy Leaguers in-house bias.

That can just be the first-hand value of knowing what that difference is beyond credentials. You would have to disambiguate a lot of other correlates.

The thing that makes it all so weird, is that the rising "in-group" wagon circle during this period of layoffs and slow re-hires started as CS degrees and anti elite college, and has swung toward elite colleges as the auto-filter with CS degrees as the "preferred". But understand these same startups are hiring people with the explicit expectation of 6 days in office per week. Something is up.

 

[amadeus]

I would have to differentiate between credentials for people working in some kind of technical skill like an electrician versus a social skill like being an attorney—there are plenty of valid arguments in law, but you can’t really dispute that my phone needs to be plugged in to charge its battery.

I’d have to judge based on the individual certifications rather than make a broad statement about all of them.

Is an economist with a degree an unarguable qualification? I don’t think so. I don’t think you can look at the field and say that all of them, or even a supermajority of them, can agree on a set of ideas. There are parts individually here and there, but not all over.

 

[Angst]

the problem is that real economics entail a lot of abstraction and theory that requires study for the equivalent of a university degree. the # of hours needed to be fluent in it is nuts. technically, you don't need the credentials from a university to learn it, but it's the same for all skills within that sphere, time needs to be spent.

i'm unsure of where the distrust towards economists and general people with credentials come from. so, economics is kind of more divination than math a lot of the time, but that doesn't take away from the difficulty of it (that's why it's divination), and most people aren't acquainted with the actual mechanics described in economics, which still have incredible powers of prediction. it's not something you can just "vibe" your way through when working with it properly, and most theoretical communication you are presented (such as some politician saying financial advisor A supports this argument) is usually veiled rhetoric. a meme about the economists in the university i attended (which they joked about themselves) that when studying economics, bachelors go work in finance, while masters are all marxists (in the economic theoretical sense, not the political alignment sense). now, it's absolutely just a joke, but the spirit of it still stands; people have no idea what real economics look like, they're usually much more sympathetic towards the common plight than what people make it out to be. but people visualize white guys in suits, Democrat advisors, finance bros. who are indeed often carrying a lot of their profession on being able to convince people of it, rather than knowing it well.

so when you see a very public economist tell you something that you learned in high school and carrying it by vibes of professionalism, always remember that the following may apply: a) they know more than what they're saying, and they're explaining stuff to you on your level, b) as a political hire, they're a career hire, so they're hired to say something specific and c) if they're actually not particularly competent, real economics are still more complicated than your grasp of it.

credentials may mean nothing to a person, but it's also important to realize that if you're listening to something you feel is purely an expression of social skill, maybe you're listening to the wrong people. a credential is proof that you put in an amount of hours to earn it. the pure amount of stuff you need to master to get a masters is learned with the intensity of a full time job over years - unless, of course, the university sucks.

idk. that was a bunch of random musings i thought about after the latest post. for amadeus' post specifically, personally i would never take an attorney that didn't have a law degree, because the specific language and amount of pure stuff you need to know to do that correctly is just massive. i don't think disagreement within the field argues against the validity of the field. rather, it just as much shows that the field is complicated. linguistics is similarly something that just requires a crapton of knowledge to work with, and people disagree within it all the time, there's nothing scarier than an etymologist flame war.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I'm not sure how the Pope's hat works in day-to-day situations, but I really like that West Point military graduates tap their ring to show dominance.

United States Military Academy class ring - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The term "ringknocker" refers to the alleged custom of some graduates to gently rap their ring against a hard surface in social situations; this serves as an unobtrusive signal of their status to any other graduates in the vicinity. However, a negative social-networking connotation is also associated with the term, in that the term "implies that if there is a discussion in progress, the senior (West) Pointer need only knock his large ring on the table, and all Pointers present are obliged to rally to his point of view."[5]

So direct and refreshing!
Much better than a diploma glued to one's chest.

How powerful are they though?
From 2020:

How the ‘West Point Mafia’ Runs Washington

From Congress to K Street, a small cohort of men exert immense influence on American political life.

www.thenation.com

How the ‘West Point Mafia’ Runs Washington
From Congress to K Street, a small cohort of men exert immense influence on American political life

​

 

[EnglishEdward]

How powerful are they though?

That depends upon whether they use Hobbit technology.

 

[amadeus]

@Angst I’ve broken up your post here to address items specifically.

i don't think disagreement within the field [of law] argues against the validity of the field.

I agree. The issue that I take is when an authoritative statement is made and the credential is used as a bludgeon to stifle disagreement. I think a layperson like myself can have a valid disagreement with something that is said, and while I’m not as educated as someone in the field, I don’t want my opinion to be dismissed outright solely because of my lack of formal certification.

for amadeus' post specifically, personally i would never take an attorney that didn't have a law degree, because the specific language and amount of pure stuff you need to know to do that correctly is just massive.

This is a little bit of legal inside baseball for the U.S. but there are still a few states where one can become a licensed attorney, providing they pass the bar exam, without having to go to law school: this is called “reading law,” where they are basically an apprentice to a bar certified attorney. This is also regulated by the state governments, so it’s not a willy-nilly kind of thing where any hayseed can become an attorney overnight. If I remember correctly, both Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow become lawyers this way.

i'm unsure of where the distrust towards economists and general people with credentials come from.

I think part of this is the same problem which has been highlighted in the medical field, the ability to empathize with patients and explain things in clear language without coming across as condescending. It is especially disheartening to people who never had the opportunity to attain a higher education.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

I think part of this is the same problem which has been highlighted in the medical field, the ability to empathize with patients and explain things in clear language without coming across as condescending. It is especially disheartening to people who never had the opportunity to attain a higher education.

One big factor in being a good practitioner is the ability to get through to the patient. You're wasting both people's time if the patient doesn't listen.

 

[amadeus]

One big factor in being a good practitioner is the ability to get through to the patient. You're wasting both people's time if the patient doesn't listen.

I’ve been to a few doctors in my time in this country that were exactly like this, and I saw them once and only once.

 

[Hygro]

I agree Amadeus that laypeople regularly have valid opinions, and remind us the classic fact that when there’s a good democratic aggregation of diverse viewpoints, a singular unity will usually point closer to the truth than the assertion of any randomly sampled expert.

You point to recognizing economists can be wrong and there’s a lot of viewpoints, so what are you going to do?

Herein lies the thesis of this thread: of those who know the news is fake, let’s say economic news, they are still doing worse than the news. The news is doing worse than the ranked mainstream university undergrads, who are doing worse on up.

But fake news scales up too, and economics is a particularly bad actor filled field of “spies” (werewolves, mafia, the imposter etc, pick your game). It’s just that below every level is more wrong overall than the level above it.

The individual below any rung has to consider a few things but knowing there’s wrongness above doesn’t mean there’s less wrongness at the current rung or below in the information-expertise of the topic.

And the further down you are, sure that the field as a whole has corruption or bought interests or laziness etc can be obvious from that distance, but who to follow who is right from that field is still less clear. And, in fact, a main point of spies in the field is to abuse credentials to lie to those below, generally selected for their ability to present themselves more convincing.

Contrary to adding diversity, they end up herding large chunks of laypeople into singular positions, distorted governance, changing what news sells, it’s bad.

So while it may be socially advantageous to be a flat earther for example, for some, skeptical laypeople are frequently providing a bought and paid for take dressed as independence. The defense against the lies above is to rise above.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And one can easily apply that logic to the US Dept. of Health under RFK jr.