‘Money Isn’t Everything’

Differently.

Let’s face it. Academia is living in the Dark Ages. It is becoming increasingly vulnerable to being brutally obsolete and passing by the way-side. As an example, look at the way that we apply for jobs at universities. They actually make us supply written recommendations! Some universities are so archaic that they make recommendations be mailed by the referees themselves. Maybe I should also have them delivered by the Pony Express!! That hasn’t been done in industry (read Steve Jobs) in 30 years. Everyone is writing their own recommendations and having their profs. just sign them anyway. Even if some academic HR departments accept online applications, look at the way you have to re-enter your work experience, C.V., etc., each time you apply to a different university. This antique way of doing business is not lost on the students. They expect an institution where they are learning cutting-edge technologies to behave that likewise, If your business practices are mired in the 1950s, students see that and will go elsewhere. 

Apple succeeded partly because . . .

Interesting article. I hadn’t heard about the “badges” concept before. Just a few reactions: 

1. This may well set off a “credentialing” vs. “educating” debate, and we can credit Mr. Selingo’s word choice for egging this on. I, for one, appreciate his implied perspective, namely, that colleges and universities depend on credentialing motives of the individuals who move through as students, whether the colleges and universities (or their students, for that matter) choose to admit it or not. 
2. If alternative forms of credentialing are to really take hold, higher education insiders (e.g., “those at traditional colleges”) are not the only people who will have to think different(ly). Mr. Selingo notes that employers would have to take a leap of faith. So, too, would prospective students need to maintain a different take on what it means to be appropriately credentialed. Colleges and universities hardly cater to every whim of students, but they surely respond to enduring market pressures, as the well-documented rise of vocational/professional academic programs demonstrates. Organizations that create or otherwise certify these badges cannot assume that there is a market, ready and waiting. 

3. Based on what Mr. Selingo observes above, what might make a badge experiment different from StraighterLine is that it may not necessarily depend on existing colleges/universities for legitimacy. StraighterLine’s product is not a stand-alone course but a stand-alone *transferable* course, which is why it must highlight its parter institutions (i.e., those signed on to receive StraighterLine courses) so prominently. Given this, I’m not sure Mr. Selingo’s assumption that the badge concept will bring out traditional college naysayers holds water. If badges don’t need to be owned by colleges and universities in any way, then the response from the traditional higher education sector may not amount to more than a collective sigh.

I think this is a very healthy development.  I feel strongly that learning can be acquired in many ways beyond taking classes and can be documented/authenticated in ways other than degrees and institutional certificates.  I believe that this kind of thinking could invigorate not only higher ed, but also high school, where fresh, creative options are desperately needed.

You’re right.  Everything you said is exactly right everywhere, and you have no errors in assumptions nor errors in logical reasoning.  I’m glad you’re are the voice for advancement.  Thus, the archaism of the University will be safe for years to come.

This is just the kind of crap that business model sycophants want to fob off on the world as something superior to higher education.  Education cannot be effectively run like a business because the outcomes, or deliverables, are often intangible and incredibly difficult to assess.  Just because something has been around for a long time does not make it necessarily out of date.  Of course, this apparently too-complex-to-be-understood idea is learned in college, so many of the people posting here either missed it, are choosing to ignore it (horror beyond belief), or didn’t go to college and are suffering diploma envy.

Only an idiot would assume that higher education is completely free from problems, but it would take a bigger idiot to impose a flawed model on it or to want to toss it out.  The system has worked effectively for centuries, and it is no more untenable in a modern context than the lever (another very, very old idea).  What’s frightening is the lust for novelty is even paid attention to, since some of the people on this thread would discard everything effective in higher education, simply because their experience didn’t fit something traditional.  Sadly, everyone, there is a whole world existing outside your extremely limited vision, and perhaps part of that is the deliberate and purposefully slow movement designed to preserve the best and excise the worst of a system that continues to evolve–though obviously not at the pace that some of you geniuses would like. 

The model is effective: learning theories, practicing them, and then applying them in preparation for whatever one tries to do.  It’s so simple and effective that to want to toss it out because higher education requires people to actually write things is the real horror.  This kind of vomitous thinking is what lies at the heart of most social ills.

Finally, what idiot thinks colleges aren’t thinking different from the onset?  Only the most embarrassing university–either one that never thinks different, or one that can only think different–would allow graduates to leave under the impression that this assertion is even credible.  No university worth its salt would ignore reasonable innovation, and no credible university would ever embrace change just for the sake of change.  There’s a reason for this: not all change is good, and much of it must be tried in order to establish its value.

Please, for the love of all that’s holy or reasonable, don’t let your puerile impatience try to be the standard for the world’s higher education.

I would argue that “the system”, as you put it, does not, and has not, “worked effectively for centuries” at what we’re trying to get it to work effectively for now.  A century ago, colleges and universities weren’t credentialing folks for your standard, run-of-the-mill jobs.  They were credentialing professionals – doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers.  

Today, however, we expect that salesmen and shopkeepers have degrees in business, that our bakers have degrees in baking, that our mechanics have degrees in automotive maintenance, etc.  500, 200 or even 100 years ago, colleges and universities weren’t trying to credential every – or even most – jobs in America.  I would challenge you to find a sizable number of careers for which there aren’t degree programs at some colleges.  You’d be amazed at what one can “major in” in higher ed.  My institution has degrees in construction (not to be confused with construction management), welding, baking, office assisting, medical office assisting, and painting/taping.  

Higher ed, as a system, is comprised of much more than just universities.  Its methods of teaching are quite effective for creating PhDs, doctors, lawyers and engineers.  I’d argue, though, that it may not be the only place – or even best place – to learn the vocational skills that would have been taught on the job 150 years ago.

I agree with 3rdtyrant when he says “This is just the kind of crap that business model sycophants want to fob off on the world as something superior to higher education.”

What gave me immediate pause was the following claim: “Badges could recognize, for example, informal learning that happens outside the classroom; “soft skills,” such as critical thinking and communication…..”

Since when are “critical thinking and communication” soft skills? At the university where I teach, critical thinking is taught in the Elementary Logic course, which is anything but “soft” and in fact a course that many students have difficulty doing well in. Logic is not the kind of thing students would learn well by taking self-paced introductory courses online. The fact that the author thinks this is a good example of such an approach suggests Mr. Selingo doesn’t understand what’s involved in learning such subjects. Further, I hardly think it makes sense for students to learn “communication” by taking an online class. Am I seriously to believe that students can learn how to do public speaking (say) without having to get up in front of their peers and actually practice public speaking? They are to do this in the comfort of their own homes? Seriously? The suggestion that these kinds of skills could be done online strains the imagination. It is not an accident, in case it needs to be noted, that the traditional Trivium in the Liberal Arts included Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. These are fundamental areas of study and difficult to learn well, as any instructor of these courses knows.

What is the purpose of a credential?  To indicate that its holder has royal blood, is a true blue AKA approved Cocker Spaniel or, perhaps, has gathered a valuable collection of intellectual traits, personal values and knowledge.  As ederieux has pointed out, colleges do not do an excellent job of certifying that their graduates are especially useful human beings.  One could argue that brand loyalty will solve this problem — simply choose a Princeton product over one from the University of Phoenix. 

It’s possible that part of the reason a graduate from a selective institution may be handier than an alum from a no-name school is the fact that, by definition, it’s  very difficult to get admitted to a selective college or university. Moreover, one of the keys to getting into a highly ranked school is to present great credentials such as high AP and SAT test scores and glowing recommendations.  Is the glory of Ivy League education build on a mean foundation of standardized tests and other non- collegiate credentials?

A legitimate and universally recognized nonprofit credentialing agency would solve many problems for self-directed learners and graduates of schools lacking wow power.  Here is a fine opportunity for a major foundation interested in reforming higher education.  Assemble a blue ribbon collection of eminent scholars who understand that it is possible to certify knowledge, skill, emotional intelligence, sensitivity and whatever else is deemed significant to society.  Charge them with designing a system for evaluating applicants who wish to demonstrate their potential value to others.  Figure out how to do it in a cost effective manner and then lobby the government to allow financial aid to be used for the process of demonstrating one’s competence as well as for attempting to develop it in the first place.

Imagine interviewing a personable young man or woman who was able to demonstrate conclusively that he or she could speak and read French and Spanish, use standard statistical analysis tools, solve basic math problems requiring a knowledge of calculus, write correct and concise English, work effectively in a team, play the alto sax at a semi-professional level, intelligently discuss the American Revolution, effectively evaluate the credibility of nontechnical written material as well as a host of other specific skills, knowledge or attributes needed for the position you were attempting to fill.  There is little doubt that such a state of affairs is attainable and that it would be transformational.  Even Harvard men and women might feel the need for a edging of certification gilt on their diplomas.

It’s like marriage, 3rdtyrant: the triumph of hope over experience.

Also, I’m a slow learner.

This is long past due. I’ve thought about getting an additional graduate degree in Edtech, just so I can have the credential for what I already know and have done, but when I look at the curriculum and credentials of the faculty, I’m very sure I could teach them a considerable amount.

I’m not entirely sure what the point of disagreement is, and I concede you all the points you make.  How is that any kind of indictment of the current system?  Perhaps your ideals for higher education are not the same as mine.  I am coming from the perspective of the ideals of a Liberal Arts Education.  If you are a credentialist, that’s another thing altogether.  If you’re a bottom-liner, of course the system hasn’t worked, because you value deliverables over people, justice, liberty, and everything else.  Even a florist needs to be a good person and citizen, so it might not be a bad idea to have them educated.

Years ago I was sitting in seminars orchestrated by administrators that aimed to show us recalcitrant faculty members that we should change our teaching in accordance with the latest research on learning styles. I was supposed to tailor my teaching to the needs of each student in my class. Now I am told (basically by bean counters, who run seminars orchestrated by administrators who are convinced we recalcitrant faculty members must change our teaching in accordance with the latest research on outcomes assessment) that I need to modularize every component of my teaching so that student progress can be evaluated by people who know nothing about what I teach. darccity, you seem to be closer to this more recent trend than to the remoter one. Are you saying the way you teach your courses is the way everyone should? Could you teach a course on the theater of the absurd that way (I have my Ionesco badge, now I’m working on Beckett!)? Epistemology (what I love about it is that it allows me to demolish all the presuppositions about knowledge that the latest education fads take/fake as certain). Human ecology (which can be taught at elementary levels in a way something like you describe but that wouldn’t work at all for the intermediate and advanced levels–although for any course you can always define some abstract “outcomes” that can be enumerated, as the subject matter becomes more advanced those outcomes have less and less to do with the course substance)?

I agree with cwinton: there are other longstanding and more conventional examples of non college occupational preparation and certification better tested than digital badges.  CPA Australia offers a CPA program which qualifies graduates for designation as a certified practising accountant and I think some bar councils may offer programs to prepare candidates for their exams.  

These programs haven’t overtaken college programs (yet?) because even instrumental students either feel they need the support of a college program or value education’s contribution to their personal development.

How does this practice differ from existing certificate programs at colleges and universities throughout the nation? 

One more thought: Let’s leave the term “badges” to the Boy and Girl Scouts. It seems ill-suited for an educational credential. 

An “online class” is hardly “informal learning”.  You do the author an injustice by assuming so.

Just being raised in the right family or community environment can enable a person to develop post-graduate levels of “critical thinking”, “communication” abilities, etc…without a formal education.  Having to rehash in university what one has already learned, just because one doesn’t have the formal credential, is not only a waste of time, but can deaden one’s delight in learning.

That’s pretty funny.  In fact, you’re hilarious, really ought to take your act on the road.

This is a positive move toward a free non-system of education.

Exactly, Theseus.  As you’ve implied, jargon-up an idea and present it as new, and who knows what glass-eyed moon-fish will swim up to the edge of the tank.  Great post.

I hope that’s ironic, because otherwise you just think I’m a baboon–an idea that, while not pleasant, I can live with–but wish there were some counter argument.  If it is ironic, the act is available every day on our campus :)

Hmm … Many of the posts so far have simply proved the author’s point:

“Whenever a new competitor enters the higher-education market and tries something different, those at traditional colleges criticize the newcomers as not understanding pedagogy.”

Those claiming higher ed has ‘always’ been this or done that, simply don’t have a firm grasp of the history or sociology of higher ed before the 20th century.

This ‘liberal education’ proposition is a misnomer – an idea that has only taken hold among the intelligensia, not among the many who now attend college, having been told by teachers, parents, counselors, and yes, higher ed, that it will indeed lead to better jobs.  Just note all the articles about how grads earn more money, or the latest Obama administration push to get more college students to be prepared for future jobs — lots & lots of talk about jobs, income, keeping up in the global economy, etc., ad nauseum.  Only bloggers here talk about ‘liberal education’ as if that was all higher ed was about.  It may be so for those few bloggers and ‘true’ students, but that ain’t by any means the majority, and certainly not how society as a whole sees it.

Higher ed may at one time have been a gentleman’s polishing school – the companion to gentle-women’s finishing schools – where one need only get a ‘liberal’ education, because one needn’t worry too much about actually getting a job.  Gentlemen were the only ones who could afford a ‘higher’ education, and need only get gentleman Cs to boot.  An academic degree only meant something to other academics, or as a sign of wealth & leisure.  Family would provide the job, if one were needed.

And as for credentialing – whether you call it a ‘badge,’ or a ‘certificate’ or a ‘degree’ they are all intended to serve as a credential of one sort or another.  In the not so distant past, medical doctors did not need a degree to be licensed, nor did lawyers or engineers or accountants.  In some jurisdictions, one still does not need a law degree (California – apprenticeship & pass the Bar); and in many one still does not need an engineering degree to get a professional license (my Dad being but one example); nor is a degree necessary for a Certified Public Accountant (CPA).  By the way, in many cases, the academic degree doesn’t really prepare one for the professional practice – certainly true for law.  The professional tests are often much more rigorous than the academic – being a professionally licensed engineer or a CPA is a much better credential than an academic degree in the world of practice.

If you want to see a view on why employers complain about the quality of graduates, log on to
http://user.pa.net/~kjclay/pages/credit%20def3.html.  Here you will see that our leading schools have been making it too easy to get the traditional credentials.

After three or four decades of using business models, what’s the solution for “fixing” the university system? Business! Not just business, but Apple, the company that has so successfully managed its PR that most folks have forgotten that its innovations are more about marketing and style than technological innovation. This “Applization” of the University has been going on for a very long time, and it has helped no one.

As a private college counselor, I think there is merit is what you say, but I doubt that it will happen in the near future.  When students are job hunting, a college degree seems to be the one document that gets them in the door.  Once they are in, they need to perform.  I believe it will be a while for a different kind of credential to gain that trust from employers.

Yabbut isn’t this “digital badge” another product to be sold along side parchment and calligraphy and  university seals?  And those replaced the itinerant scholar’s letter of intro printed on sheepskin so that it would withstand the rigors of travel on foot.  

This seems yet another round of the higher education industry… which makes jobs out of selling credentials that promise that the bearer can do a job.

I’ll grant you that college does diddly to make someone a good employee.  I’ll grant you that for the sake of the argument…. because I don’t care how employers find better and worse job candidates.  I’ll grant you that whether or not it is true…. which will depend on your definition of a good employee.

But it does bode ill that no one wants much more than a promise in any of these credentials that the bearer can do a job.  I, for one, would like to know that the bearer of any “credential” given after the high school diploma means that the person has been taught to think thoroughly, broadly and compassionately to be a decent and voting citizen.  Yup, the German university and its broad goals got some stuff right.

Digital Badges are a concept well overdue. Traditional brick and ivy Centers of Higher Education have too long suffered the misfortunes of long tradition and limited competition. I have little doubt that quality focused organizations, such as those offering Digital badges, who will add value to individual learning at fair prices will soon drive more effective and efficient leaning in all educational environments.