An important step in breaking higher education’s credentialing monopoly?

by Grace

On the road to the dismantling of  higher education’s expensive monopoly on credentialing comes an announcement of new online testing options for students.  

First, a review of economics.

If the price of something rises a lot, people look for substitutes. Resources (dollars) are scarce, and individuals want to make the best use of them. They “maximize their utility” by shifting away from high-priced good or service A to lower-priced good B.

Students and employers are stuck in our current system, where colleges hold credentialing monopoly.

With regards to colleges, consumers typically have believed that there are no good substitutes–the only way a person can certify to potential employers that she/he is pretty bright, well educated, good at communicating, disciplined, etc., is by presenting a bachelor’s degree diploma. College graduates typically have these positive attributes more than others, so degrees serve as an important signaling device to employers, lowering the costs of learning about the traits of the applicant. Because of the lack of good substitutes, colleges face little outside competition and can raise prices more, given their quasi-monopoly status.

As college costs rise, however, people are asking: Aren’t there cheaper ways of certifying competence and skills to employers?


New competency tests as college alternatives:

The search for alternative ways is leading to other entities offering credentials for much less than the $30,000-$60,000 per year that colleges charge.  New agreements between Burck Smith’s StraighterLine, the Education Testing Service (ETS), and the Council on Aid to Education (CAE) to offer online competency tests have just been announced.

Students can tell employers, “I did very well on the CLA and iSkills test, strong predictors of future positive work performance,” and, implicitly “you can hire me for less than you pay college graduates who score less well on these tests.”

Will it be more “fair”?
The suggestion is that employers will be a driving force in the move to alternative credentialing as a way to keep salary costs in line.  This could be true, pointing to a possible increasing class divide between high and low earners, with only graduates of elite residential colleges in the running for top salaries.  On the other hand, employers would be able to spurn the graduates of the many expensive-but-mediocre colleges in favor of alternatively credentialed employees who would be able to compete for jobs on a true merit basis.

More:  How quickly will the Higher-Ed Revolution happen?

It’s happening, almost overnight: what could be the collapse of the near-monopoly that traditional brick-and-mortar colleges and universities currently enjoy as respected credentialing institutions whose degrees and grades mean something to employers.

Related:  Higher education is a prisoner’s dilemma

10 Responses to “An important step in breaking higher education’s credentialing monopoly?”

  1. In the software field, companies have operated their own ad hoc testing system for years, by screening candidates extensively with technical tests. And for many years, hiring managers in software have cared less about college degrees and more about experience and a candidate’s ability to pass these tests, which can be very grueling. There have also long been alternative certification programs, such as the entensive series of Java certifications, that people can acquire. Still, this hasn’t changed anything. Students still enroll in computer science courses in college. Why? Because it is a more effective way of learning the material, and thus being able to get through the employer screens, than do-it-yourself methods (which is essentially what a lot of those online courses are).

  2. Hmm, so in software students are actually LEARNING something during their college years and getting some value for their money. That may be different from some other fields of study.

    I think initially these do-it-yourself competency options will be the route taken mainly by poor but ambitious students.

  3. One of the interesting things in the software world is that I am seeing more emphasis on the traditional computer science degree on the part of employers than I have in the past. That is kind of going in the opposite direction, wouldn’t you think? My sense is that it is because the skills needed these days are in fact “harder” than they used to be. In the late 90′s dot com bubble, companies needed people who could hack together a web site, which isn’t exactly rocket science. Today, they need people with deep quantitative skills to do data mining, or with knowledge of cutting edge research in bioinformatics or social network analysis or cloud computing.

    Poor but ambitious students are exactly the wrong people to be taking that path. I find that even the most serious and ambitious students from poor backgrounds need a lot of mentoring. I suspect more likely, it will be older, working class adults who want to get their college degrees finished so they can get a salary boost. Those students have long been the bread and butter of degree programs that offer credit for life experience, or Saturday only programs, or online programs.

  4. “That is kind of going in the opposite direction, wouldn’t you think?”

    I don’t know, but perhaps employers are simply facing reality about their need for actual skills.

    I was thinking “poor but ambitious” students would be the ones with the initiative and persistence to seek out mentoring (or maybe already have it) and other factors important for their success. I’m not in the trenches to see if these kids really exist, but I’m hopeful.

  5. Poor but ambitious 18 year olds don’t even know they need mentoring. Honestly, does any 18 year old know that? I don’t think I even knew what a mentor was at 18. The difference is that middle and upper class kids have been mentored, and will continue to be mentored, by the people around them. The uncle who gets them the good internship, the guidance counselor who is familiar with the colleges and financial aid programs, the orchestra teacher who encourages an otherwise mediocre musician to practice hard for a contest – kids from bad neighborhoods don’t have any of these things. And like any 18 year old, they don’t know they need it.

    Two days ago, I had a 45 minute meeting with every single teacher who teaches my son, as well as the guidance counselor, simply to discuss how to get him organized. I can’t imagine that happening in a school in a poor neighborhood, where the counselors are overwhelmed simply trying to keep kids out of jail, or figuring out where to place the homeless kid who suddenly moved to a shelter in their district. In those schools, the top students are often ignored because they aren’t causing any trouble.

    Here is an example – I have been working with a student who is in our McNair Scholars program, which is aimed at really top students from poor backgrounds. They are usually kids who are the first in their family to go to college. This particular student is really smart. He has already done a summer research program at a top research university, and is aiming at graduate school. But he is amazingly clueless about all things academic. When I first met him, he wasn’t sure what a syllabus was, didn’t realize he could ask professors for help, and thought due dates were advisory only. The McNair Scholars program teams him up with a mentor (me) and forces the kids to do research work and write at least one paper to submit to a conference. That is great, because that is what it takes to get into a good grad school. A kid who tries to accumulate his credits in an online program like StraighterLine misses all of that. For a kid from an upper class or professional background, that is OK because he or she is getting that advice someplace else. But the child of a homeless mom does not have access to that help outside of formal programs like McNair Scholars.

  6. It occurs to me that having a mentor has become more important, even vital, than in years past. I just a few days ago read something about how having a mentor was the single most important factor in academic success, or something like that.

    Maybe it used to be less important to have a mentor because the demands of school didn’t require so much parental oversight. You didn’t used to need parents helping you with homework, whether it meant taking you to the craft store for school project materials or helping you navigate the Internet for your 3rd grade puffin report. Similarly, applying to college wasn’t as complicated as it is now. I speak as a former “poor but ambitious” student who did not have parents, wondering if I would be able to navigate today’s academic landscape as successfully as I did back then.

  7. Well…I think mentors were important when I was in high school too, at the end of the 70′s. Some of the opportunities I had came about only because of the interest of teachers at my school. I wasn’t from a poor family, but my interests were completely outside the area of expertise of my family. I also know of some things that were messed up when there wasn’t someone outside the family giving advice.

  8. I think mentors have always been important, but nowadays mentors seem to be needed for the most basic of academic needs, like making a smart student understand that a “due date” is when an assignment is actually due. Believe me, I learned that just fine in high school without a mentor. I just think K-12 schools have changed to the point that they’ve curiously lowered standards while at the same time raising expectations, if that makes any sense. :???:

  9. I think there is just an incredible split among K12 schools. Schools in elite districts have raised both expectations and standards. The problem in those districts is that the parents end up doing too much hand holding, so the students don’t learn how to manage themselves.

    However, there are also lots of schools that have neither raised expectations or standards. They are a disordered mess. The kids come from such chaotic backgrounds that the schools end up focusing on things that the elite districts just take for granted. They are trying to deal with kids who are moving between schools constantly, as they move between homeless shelters, or kids who are living in unstable foster care situations, or kids who come from cultures that do not understand our ways of doing things. I just read an article in the NYTimes that was describing the fact that the public schools in lower Manhattan and in Queens have to deal with the fact that many kids are out of school for several weeks during Lunar New Year. And when the families return, they often have extra kids with them who now are suddenly enrolling in the public school. I immediately recognized this, because I have to deal with it too – I have several students who have shown up several weeks late into the semester because they were in China for LNY. Now these students are madly trying to catch up, and I don’t think they will be able to do it. At least I have the luxury of being able to encourage them to drop. The public schools can’t do that.

    In the old days, kids from those schools largely just did not go to college, so we didn’t have to deal with them. Now, they are arriving in droves, and they do need more support than kids from the elite districts.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.