When I graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, the state board that licensed engineers had only in the last 20 years removed the old path to engineering of experience and passing the licensing test. Abe Lincoln got a law license by "reading the law," which consisted of study and experience. In his piece entitled The Cult of Credentialism J. B. Shurk notes that many American novelists had no college experience, yet were literary geniuses:
I once saw a celebrated American author give a class of literature majors one of the best lessons they could learn. He was speaking about the English language when he noticed that all of the students were busy taking notes rather than listening. He paused and asked how many planned on being writers. All hands went up. He asked how many expected to be successful in their pursuit. Most hands went up. Then he looked them in the eye and told them that majoring in literature is not the way to do so. The students were shocked (as were some of their professors), but the famous novelist continued. He listed his favorite writers of the last century and noted that most had spotty educations and work experiences that had nothing to do with writing. Prestigious college degrees and straight As, he told the students, are no substitute for creativity and life experience.
It was interesting watching some of the reactions in that auditorium. Surely literature majors had noticed that for every Ralph Waldo Emerson, T.S. Eliot, or John Updike with a Harvard degree, there were ten Mark Twains, Ernest Hemingways, Hunter S. Thompsons, or William Faulkners whose academic achievements were rather modest. Still, many of the young students had gotten it in their heads that if they attended the fanciest schools and read the great works of literature with enough enthusiasm, they would one day be recognized for their own literary genius.
I have noted several times over the years that society has become over credentialed. Journalism is a classic example of this over credentialism. What one needs to start journaling is a combination of ability to write well, curiosity, persistence and persevirance and a heathy dose of common sense. It helps to be somehwat witty, but that is not what is needed. What one doesn't need is a college degree. The Brooklyn Bridge was designed and built by John Roebling, who had much experience with engineering, though he only spent two semesters in formal studies. (I hereby apolgize to David Miller, and engineer I worked with a Cherry Point who thought we needed less non essential courses in engineering training. Sorry, I was wrong)
As with so much else in our culture today, we have been taught to value the wrong things. Education, critical thinking, and intellectual growth are vitally important. A degree is only as important as it assists an individual in these pursuits. If a person advances toward an academic degree without becoming a better thinker, then the degree is just window dressing. Everybody likes an attractive store window, but if the merchandise inside is shoddy, no customer will return. Today, a college degree is advertised as the essential accoutrement for every successful person. Unfortunately, a college “education” has been responsible for producing a surplus of shoddy minds.
A few years back, I watched an argument unfold online. People were debating the emergence of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” departments in schools and corporations. The back-and-forth was spirited but respectful. Many voices pointed out that DEI initiatives are a legalized form of discrimination that do nothing but divide Americans and aggravate pernicious tribalism.
Then a Boston professor jumped into the debate. She explained that she had advanced degrees in these subjects, that her education had cost several hundred thousand dollars, and that she had been the recipient of several illustrious university grants. She concluded that her C.V. proved not only that she knew more than everyone else, but also that those reading should feel lucky to be the beneficiaries of her free “expertise.” The professor’s patronizing tone conveyed such an appalling appeal to (undeserved) authority that the episode seemed the perfect encapsulation of academia’s collapse. Knowledge and critical thinking skills have been jettisoned in favor of lofty yet hollow titles connoting unearned prestige.
This little incident was an ominous precursor to the “Reign of COVID Terror,” the greatest outbreak not of disease, but rather of crimes against humanity. Rampant junk science and detestable appeals to authority coalesced into a ghastly form of totalitarianism that gave us lockdowns, injection mandates, religious persecution, mass surveillance, and the glorification of “expertise.” In the end, most of what the “experts” told us (with regard to COVID’s origin, transmission, lethality, and treatment) turned out to be spectacularly false. But the “experts” touted their credentials, pointed to all the exalted prefixes and suffixes surrounding their names, and expected everyone else to obey. Authoritarianism thrives when “the credentialed” presume to know best. Credentialism, after all, is sister to aristocracy.
Here is the problem with over-credentialism os that it breeds authoritarianism and totalitarianism. After all, if a highly credentialed person claims to know, can ordinary people with only common sense prevail in a debate? The meaning of PhD after a persons name is Doctor of Philosophy. But as my uncle, who has a PhD in mathematics noted, what it really means is "piled higher and deeper. One learns more and more about less unless until one becomes and expert on nothing." Not literally true, but it is a far cry from the idea of the Renaissance Man such as Issac Newton. In truth, we need both kinds of people and knowledge in our debates. The COVID lockdowns and idiotic requirements show what happens when highly credentialed people quickly shut down all debate. As we learned, Sweeden did none of these things and suffered no more that those of us that did as the credentialed said.
Please read all of Shurk's article.
