The Insufferable Hubris of the Well-Credentialed
October 4, 2020 7:54 AM Subscribe
A four-year university degree has become necessary for dignified work. Michael Sandel says that’s a huge mistake. "The meritocratic hubris of elites is the conviction by those who land on top that their success is their own doing, that they have risen through a fair competition, that they therefore deserve the material benefits that the market showers upon their talents. Meritocratic hubris is the tendency of the successful to inhale too deeply of their success, to forget the luck and good fortune that helped them on their way. It goes along with the tendency to look down on those less fortunate, and less credentialed, than themselves."
I have quite a few thoughts about higher education. For now, I'll just mention imposter syndrome and its relationship, however tangential, to the premise of the article. And also that I'm pleased to report that my company's HR hiring training explicitly instructs people on the interview panels to be mindful of education bias.
Anyway, as someone who has managed a degree, heh, of success without a four-year sheepskin, I'm wholly onboard with reassessing the value and purpose of higher education. Which dovetails nicely with a push for normalization/equity for trade schools and significant action taken vis-à-vis massive student loan debts.
posted by Godspeed.You!Black.Emperor.Penguin at 8:36 AM on October 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
Anyway, as someone who has managed a degree, heh, of success without a four-year sheepskin, I'm wholly onboard with reassessing the value and purpose of higher education. Which dovetails nicely with a push for normalization/equity for trade schools and significant action taken vis-à-vis massive student loan debts.
posted by Godspeed.You!Black.Emperor.Penguin at 8:36 AM on October 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
The meritocratic hubris of elites is the conviction by those who land on top that their success is their own doing, that they have risen through a fair competition, that they therefore deserve the material benefits that the market showers upon their talents.
I had to bail out on this article when the author made it through this paragraph without so much as a nod towards legacy admissions.
posted by mhoye at 8:38 AM on October 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
I had to bail out on this article when the author made it through this paragraph without so much as a nod towards legacy admissions.
posted by mhoye at 8:38 AM on October 4, 2020 [12 favorites]
I had to bail out on this article when the author made it through this paragraph without so much as a nod towards legacy admissions.
I know many legacy admissions, I can assure you that they think their success is meritocratic too. They're somehow worse, combining a weird philosophy that they're better people with the notion reinforced by the schools themselves insuring everyone that it is a meritocracy. There is a belief at some level they have "good genes" that is reenforced my the elite institutions insisting that they don't just admit anyone.
posted by geoff. at 8:42 AM on October 4, 2020 [32 favorites]
I know many legacy admissions, I can assure you that they think their success is meritocratic too. They're somehow worse, combining a weird philosophy that they're better people with the notion reinforced by the schools themselves insuring everyone that it is a meritocracy. There is a belief at some level they have "good genes" that is reenforced my the elite institutions insisting that they don't just admit anyone.
posted by geoff. at 8:42 AM on October 4, 2020 [32 favorites]
There must be a gatekeeping system for gainful employment, however arbitrary and unfair, because there are too many people for too little money paid for not enough good work. Thanks, capitalism! Something must sort the worthy-to-earn from the unworthies who will be stuck in service jobs, and the criteria we have for "person is allowed to earn lots of money" is "person already has lots of money."
I recognized this bullshit in the early 80s when no one would hire my sorry ass to program computers without an obviously worthless degree, despite the fact that I was teaching other people to program computers.
It's only gotten worse since then.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:58 AM on October 4, 2020 [25 favorites]
I recognized this bullshit in the early 80s when no one would hire my sorry ass to program computers without an obviously worthless degree, despite the fact that I was teaching other people to program computers.
It's only gotten worse since then.
posted by seanmpuckett at 8:58 AM on October 4, 2020 [25 favorites]
68 pullups in 60 seconds!
posted by doctornemo at 9:02 AM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by doctornemo at 9:02 AM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is also a means of generating unnecessary debt to shackle people to abusive, underpaid workplaces, a huge subsidy to terrible employers.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2020 [40 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2020 [40 favorites]
I am recalling an old article from an ivy league econ professor lamenting Wall Street firm hiring practices. Wish I could find it, but his argument was that Wall Street needed to artificially limit their hiring pools (because finance work is disproportionately rewarding and not actually intellectually difficult) so they prioritized ivy league graduates. For their part, his students often didn't know what to do with themselves upon graduating after a lifetime of helicopter parenting. The easy money recruiting of big firms was an attractive way to meet continued expectations without staring too deeply into the abyss of their own futures. Taken together this has concentrated wealth into a self-perpetuating legacy loop of elites with excessive self-regard.
posted by migurski at 9:11 AM on October 4, 2020 [30 favorites]
posted by migurski at 9:11 AM on October 4, 2020 [30 favorites]
To be fair, I haven't read his new book, so I'm only going off of this interview.
Wrt higher ed, I agree with much of what he says. Passages like this match what I see in my work:
Society as a whole has woefully underinvested in the forms of education that most Americans rely upon. That includes state colleges, two-year community colleges, and technical and vocational places of learning. It’s not only a matter of money. We also need to reconsider the steep hierarchy of prestige that we have created between four-year colleges and universities, especially brand-name ones, and other institutions of learning. This hierarchy of prestige both reflects and exacerbates the tendency at the top to denigrate or depreciate the contributions to the economy made by people whose work does not depend on having a university diploma.
And you can see that hierarchy within higher education professionals very, very clearly. (We used to raise chickens. Professors can do a very good imitation of pecking order)
Put another way, I do like the point about American academia recapitulating meritocracy's worst habits internally, then doing its job to escalate inequality in society.
Agreed on mhoye and geoff on legacy admits. I'll have to check the book to see if the author touches on that problem.
posted by doctornemo at 9:17 AM on October 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Wrt higher ed, I agree with much of what he says. Passages like this match what I see in my work:
Society as a whole has woefully underinvested in the forms of education that most Americans rely upon. That includes state colleges, two-year community colleges, and technical and vocational places of learning. It’s not only a matter of money. We also need to reconsider the steep hierarchy of prestige that we have created between four-year colleges and universities, especially brand-name ones, and other institutions of learning. This hierarchy of prestige both reflects and exacerbates the tendency at the top to denigrate or depreciate the contributions to the economy made by people whose work does not depend on having a university diploma.
And you can see that hierarchy within higher education professionals very, very clearly. (We used to raise chickens. Professors can do a very good imitation of pecking order)
Put another way, I do like the point about American academia recapitulating meritocracy's worst habits internally, then doing its job to escalate inequality in society.
Agreed on mhoye and geoff on legacy admits. I'll have to check the book to see if the author touches on that problem.
posted by doctornemo at 9:17 AM on October 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
I had to bail out on this article when the author made it through this paragraph without so much as a nod towards legacy admissions.
That must explain the uncommonly humble attitudes of MIT graduates, their lack of legacy admissions. Note: those stalwart institutions of egalitarianism, Oxford and Cambridge colleges do not typically have any kind of legacy policies either. There is no legacy policy at the ENA, the French elites it produces are probably the most self-assured of their right to rule of any in the world.
More seriously, the legacy system as it exists does just enough to ensure that legacy admits believe they also deserve to be there (after all, didn't they compete with non-legacy admissions on a level playing field once they got in), being a small enough percentage of admissions so that the meritocratic brand is no contaminated, and connecting the non-legacy admissions into elite networks if they weren't already and lets be real - most non-legacy admissions to elite institutions are also the children of the graduates of elite institutions.
When Young coined the term "meritocracy" he warned that this is exactly what would happen. First, since there is no such thing as "merit" existing elites would use any "meritocratic" system to launder their status. Second, even people who were not part of any elite before would be completely sucked into the system since it would justify their future status. Finally an elite that believes that it has been elevated through its own efforts simply cannot help seeing people who are outside it as being made up of the people who had not "made it". The working class therefore becomes to the elite a kind of catch-all category for failures.
This culture continues after undergraduate: everyone wants to get into the most selective law school / investment bank / consulting firm / business school / grad school because it's the next badge to collect. Thus we end up with a whole bunch of people who don't even like those jobs doing them by default. I once spoke to a McKinsey recruiter who told me that many people spent a few years at the firm because they weren't sure which grad school to go to. It seemed pretty natural at the time - I worked for a similar firm rather than going to grad school and I was in fact deciding between those options. If you think about it in terms of work content it doesn't make any sense at all though. Might it not have made more sense for me, if interested in the sciences, to be considering between taking a lab tech job, a teaching job, or going to science grad school? Or if interested in numbers and business to choose between consulting and getting a job as a bookkeeper? When elite graduates want to go into "banking", would they be considering a job as a teller, or a loan officer at a regional retail bank? No, of course not because these are fundamentally status decisions.
This is seen very clearly in the favourite schemes of the American elites (and many in the British elites for that matter) which are all about elevating more people into the category of "success". More people should have academic tertiary education because that is what the path to success looks like and "success" defined as elite credentials is what we're all striving for, right?
posted by atrazine at 9:25 AM on October 4, 2020 [21 favorites]
That must explain the uncommonly humble attitudes of MIT graduates, their lack of legacy admissions. Note: those stalwart institutions of egalitarianism, Oxford and Cambridge colleges do not typically have any kind of legacy policies either. There is no legacy policy at the ENA, the French elites it produces are probably the most self-assured of their right to rule of any in the world.
More seriously, the legacy system as it exists does just enough to ensure that legacy admits believe they also deserve to be there (after all, didn't they compete with non-legacy admissions on a level playing field once they got in), being a small enough percentage of admissions so that the meritocratic brand is no contaminated, and connecting the non-legacy admissions into elite networks if they weren't already and lets be real - most non-legacy admissions to elite institutions are also the children of the graduates of elite institutions.
When Young coined the term "meritocracy" he warned that this is exactly what would happen. First, since there is no such thing as "merit" existing elites would use any "meritocratic" system to launder their status. Second, even people who were not part of any elite before would be completely sucked into the system since it would justify their future status. Finally an elite that believes that it has been elevated through its own efforts simply cannot help seeing people who are outside it as being made up of the people who had not "made it". The working class therefore becomes to the elite a kind of catch-all category for failures.
This culture continues after undergraduate: everyone wants to get into the most selective law school / investment bank / consulting firm / business school / grad school because it's the next badge to collect. Thus we end up with a whole bunch of people who don't even like those jobs doing them by default. I once spoke to a McKinsey recruiter who told me that many people spent a few years at the firm because they weren't sure which grad school to go to. It seemed pretty natural at the time - I worked for a similar firm rather than going to grad school and I was in fact deciding between those options. If you think about it in terms of work content it doesn't make any sense at all though. Might it not have made more sense for me, if interested in the sciences, to be considering between taking a lab tech job, a teaching job, or going to science grad school? Or if interested in numbers and business to choose between consulting and getting a job as a bookkeeper? When elite graduates want to go into "banking", would they be considering a job as a teller, or a loan officer at a regional retail bank? No, of course not because these are fundamentally status decisions.
This is seen very clearly in the favourite schemes of the American elites (and many in the British elites for that matter) which are all about elevating more people into the category of "success". More people should have academic tertiary education because that is what the path to success looks like and "success" defined as elite credentials is what we're all striving for, right?
posted by atrazine at 9:25 AM on October 4, 2020 [21 favorites]
Our credentialing function is beginning to crowd out our educational function. Students win admission to these places by converting their teenage years — or their parents converting their teenage years — into a stress-strewn gauntlet of meritocratic striving. That inculcates intense pressure for achievement. So even the winners in the meritocratic competition are wounded by it, because they become so accustomed to accumulating achievements and credentials, so accustomed to jumping through hoops and pleasing their parents and teachers and coaches and admissions committees, that the habit of hoop-jumping becomes difficult to break.
By the time they arrive in college, many find it difficult to step back and reflect on what’s worth caring about, on what they truly would love to study and learn. The habit of gathering credentials and of networking and of anticipating the next gateway in the ladder to success begins to interfere with the true reason for being in institutions of higher education, which is exploring and reflecting and questioning and seeking after one’s passions.
i'm close to finishing a BA and a masters at an Ivy. I'm only here because I work at the University and constructed a complicated series of backdoors in order to achieve admission and afford the tuition. My experience is therefore highly atypical - it's unlikely that there's anyone else at this place in my situation.
But I do listen, and hang out in the uni subreddit, and I have to say that this reflects what I have seen among the students here. They are mostly miserable, constantly feeling like they are behind, depressed, anxious, too often suicidal. The damn director of the student mental health services org jumped off a roof. No one really seems very happy. Granted, I do not have any ears or eyes on the actual 1% here, who actually are millionaire / billionaire scion types and live in a literal tiny castle on campus, but for the rest of the (still highly privileged, mostly) student body, this description seems right.
I'm just hoping that the inevitable backlash against elite credentials holds off long enough for me to exploit the credentials I am close to earning here, as that was the point of going here in the first place. Beyond earning my first higher ed degree as I approach 40, I really was hoping to leverage the credentials as ballast against the ageism of the tech industry.
posted by lazaruslong at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2020 [39 favorites]
By the time they arrive in college, many find it difficult to step back and reflect on what’s worth caring about, on what they truly would love to study and learn. The habit of gathering credentials and of networking and of anticipating the next gateway in the ladder to success begins to interfere with the true reason for being in institutions of higher education, which is exploring and reflecting and questioning and seeking after one’s passions.
i'm close to finishing a BA and a masters at an Ivy. I'm only here because I work at the University and constructed a complicated series of backdoors in order to achieve admission and afford the tuition. My experience is therefore highly atypical - it's unlikely that there's anyone else at this place in my situation.
But I do listen, and hang out in the uni subreddit, and I have to say that this reflects what I have seen among the students here. They are mostly miserable, constantly feeling like they are behind, depressed, anxious, too often suicidal. The damn director of the student mental health services org jumped off a roof. No one really seems very happy. Granted, I do not have any ears or eyes on the actual 1% here, who actually are millionaire / billionaire scion types and live in a literal tiny castle on campus, but for the rest of the (still highly privileged, mostly) student body, this description seems right.
I'm just hoping that the inevitable backlash against elite credentials holds off long enough for me to exploit the credentials I am close to earning here, as that was the point of going here in the first place. Beyond earning my first higher ed degree as I approach 40, I really was hoping to leverage the credentials as ballast against the ageism of the tech industry.
posted by lazaruslong at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2020 [39 favorites]
Agreed on Wall Street, migurski.
Plus firms can brag about having Ivy hires. This works well in the consulting biz, too.
posted by doctornemo at 9:36 AM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Plus firms can brag about having Ivy hires. This works well in the consulting biz, too.
posted by doctornemo at 9:36 AM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Atrazine - thank you for your point on legacies which are far more a matter of angering-up than of substance in any discussion about higher education equity or efficacy.
I am strongly in support of removing college degrees, other than those few that double as bona fide professional qualifications (accountancy, engineering) as pre-requisites for employment. It misallocates mind-boggling large amounts of public and private funds and wastes equally vast amounts of what should be intensely useful person-years. It functions as a barrier to entry to good careers for people whose talents are not attuned to the particular demands of non-professional bachelor degrees.
I don't think, however, that such a system would in any way reduce the inegalitarianism of elite meritocracy, or even, for the most part, who are the elite meritocrats. In other words, if we change what qualifies you to interview for a job at McKinsey, Goldman or Google from a fancy undergraduate degree to some other uniform metric of assessment (say a general knowledge and quantitative methods test), well, the people who can do well on the metric of assessment are now the elite meritocrats ... and I would predict that they will overlap pretty heavily with those who would have had the fancy undergraduate degree under the present system.
posted by MattD at 9:41 AM on October 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
I am strongly in support of removing college degrees, other than those few that double as bona fide professional qualifications (accountancy, engineering) as pre-requisites for employment. It misallocates mind-boggling large amounts of public and private funds and wastes equally vast amounts of what should be intensely useful person-years. It functions as a barrier to entry to good careers for people whose talents are not attuned to the particular demands of non-professional bachelor degrees.
I don't think, however, that such a system would in any way reduce the inegalitarianism of elite meritocracy, or even, for the most part, who are the elite meritocrats. In other words, if we change what qualifies you to interview for a job at McKinsey, Goldman or Google from a fancy undergraduate degree to some other uniform metric of assessment (say a general knowledge and quantitative methods test), well, the people who can do well on the metric of assessment are now the elite meritocrats ... and I would predict that they will overlap pretty heavily with those who would have had the fancy undergraduate degree under the present system.
posted by MattD at 9:41 AM on October 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Dammit, now how will I make up for being a little overdressed?
posted by Hypatia at 9:45 AM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Hypatia at 9:45 AM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Society as a whole has made a four-year university degree a necessary condition for dignified work and a decent life.
No it bloody well hasn't. Blue collar work is not by its nature undignified. That assumption is pernicious, insulting, and a huge part of the problem.
I've been one of the lucky millennials to land a safe, stable, reasonably lucrative career - software development in a small corner of the financial sector. Good, dignified, societally-approved white collar work. In almost 2 decades I've done nothing of any real benefit to anyone. The ultimate purpose of my work has been to direct more of the money siphoned off by the investment industry into the pockets of my company's owners instead of another company's owners. Is that a decent life? How can you say that my career has been dignified, but a job that actually contributes to the world - farmer, hairstylist, plumber - hasn't?
To be fair, I bought into it too. That's why I've been in this hateful career for 18 years. I've hated it from the start, but never considered looking for something where I can do what I actually find engaging - building, fixing, working with my hands. Why? Because I absorbed the idea that physical labour is somehow less than mental labour, and blue collar work is not for the sort of people who have a university education. Talk about insufferable hubris!
It took ten years longer than it should have, but Friday was my last day. I don't intend to go back to a desk.
posted by Turbo-B at 9:48 AM on October 4, 2020 [110 favorites]
No it bloody well hasn't. Blue collar work is not by its nature undignified. That assumption is pernicious, insulting, and a huge part of the problem.
I've been one of the lucky millennials to land a safe, stable, reasonably lucrative career - software development in a small corner of the financial sector. Good, dignified, societally-approved white collar work. In almost 2 decades I've done nothing of any real benefit to anyone. The ultimate purpose of my work has been to direct more of the money siphoned off by the investment industry into the pockets of my company's owners instead of another company's owners. Is that a decent life? How can you say that my career has been dignified, but a job that actually contributes to the world - farmer, hairstylist, plumber - hasn't?
To be fair, I bought into it too. That's why I've been in this hateful career for 18 years. I've hated it from the start, but never considered looking for something where I can do what I actually find engaging - building, fixing, working with my hands. Why? Because I absorbed the idea that physical labour is somehow less than mental labour, and blue collar work is not for the sort of people who have a university education. Talk about insufferable hubris!
It took ten years longer than it should have, but Friday was my last day. I don't intend to go back to a desk.
posted by Turbo-B at 9:48 AM on October 4, 2020 [110 favorites]
that's awesome, turbo-b. good on you for making the big change to improve your life.
in a discussion regarding this paper on a class piazza board recently, i told my colleagues (the vast majority of which are 20 somethings who will soon work for FAANG companies) that working for facebook means they are complicit in genocide. most likely will not have an effect on choices, but maybe one person will think twice about accepting an offer there, who knows.
posted by lazaruslong at 10:16 AM on October 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
in a discussion regarding this paper on a class piazza board recently, i told my colleagues (the vast majority of which are 20 somethings who will soon work for FAANG companies) that working for facebook means they are complicit in genocide. most likely will not have an effect on choices, but maybe one person will think twice about accepting an offer there, who knows.
posted by lazaruslong at 10:16 AM on October 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
you can't be a total dunce and get in on legacy admissions (although you can if you are related to royalty/billionaires/heads of state). the legacy admits still have to take the AP classes, get the SAT scores, do the fake community service, play the weird niche prep sports, and so on -- it's just that having jumped through the hoops they are more certain to be admitted. rich kids who can't hack it go to lower tier expensive private schools, or else do a 5th year as an athlete at a boarding school to build up their resume. the point is not that it's a fair system but that even with legacy admits the appearance of meritocracy is preserved.
posted by vogon_poet at 10:24 AM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by vogon_poet at 10:24 AM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
don't worry minimal remaining dignity is being strip-mined from white-collar work as we speak
posted by lalochezia at 11:13 AM on October 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 11:13 AM on October 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
Blue collar work is not by its nature undignified.
Well, of course. If the article were attempting to claim that it were, the line you're objecting to would necessarily imply that blue collar jobs only exist because of universities.
The whole point of the interview is that it's not, intrinsically, undignified to do blue collar work, but that we live in societies which, because of a meritocratic myth, disregard the value and skills of those jobs, and so render them undignified and under-rewarded. On the specific 4 year degree point: "We also need to reconsider the steep hierarchy of prestige that we have created between four-year colleges and universities, especially brand-name ones, and other institutions of learning. This hierarchy of prestige both reflects and exacerbates the tendency at the top to denigrate or depreciate the contributions to the economy made by people whose work does not depend on having a university diploma."
You're getting mad at someone who agrees with you.
posted by howfar at 11:18 AM on October 4, 2020 [25 favorites]
Well, of course. If the article were attempting to claim that it were, the line you're objecting to would necessarily imply that blue collar jobs only exist because of universities.
The whole point of the interview is that it's not, intrinsically, undignified to do blue collar work, but that we live in societies which, because of a meritocratic myth, disregard the value and skills of those jobs, and so render them undignified and under-rewarded. On the specific 4 year degree point: "We also need to reconsider the steep hierarchy of prestige that we have created between four-year colleges and universities, especially brand-name ones, and other institutions of learning. This hierarchy of prestige both reflects and exacerbates the tendency at the top to denigrate or depreciate the contributions to the economy made by people whose work does not depend on having a university diploma."
You're getting mad at someone who agrees with you.
posted by howfar at 11:18 AM on October 4, 2020 [25 favorites]
Society as a whole has made a four-year university degree a necessary condition for dignified work and a decent life.
No it bloody well hasn't. Blue collar work is not by its nature undignified. That assumption is pernicious, insulting, and a huge part of the problem.
You're both saying the same thing and just messing up on semantics.
Blue collar work is not undignified. But when society refuses to dignify it, it's not dignified either. And that's where we are today.
posted by ocschwar at 11:18 AM on October 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
No it bloody well hasn't. Blue collar work is not by its nature undignified. That assumption is pernicious, insulting, and a huge part of the problem.
You're both saying the same thing and just messing up on semantics.
Blue collar work is not undignified. But when society refuses to dignify it, it's not dignified either. And that's where we are today.
posted by ocschwar at 11:18 AM on October 4, 2020 [15 favorites]
I think what's interesting about American-style "liberal" political philosophy is they try to imitate/reinvent Marx and/or leftist arguments, without truly having to giving up any of their own philosophical privileges. I suspected this after reading the interview, so a Google query shows the foundational split between the arguments of this sort—ones that are made more palatable for the mainstream—versus the arguments of more critical political philosophers. Sandel isn't wrong, he's just doing it in a way as if he invented this criticism without crediting leftist thinkers who are already deeply familiar with these arguments, as well as more radical ones too.
posted by polymodus at 11:38 AM on October 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 11:38 AM on October 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
This hierarchy of prestige both reflects and exacerbates the tendency at the top to denigrate or depreciate the contributions to the economy made by people whose work does not depend on having a university diploma.
Interesting to see who exactly had jobs in this pandemic which were regarded as essential. I hope maybe there's an object lesson to be gained here for our culture that will be properly absorbed.
posted by hippybear at 11:39 AM on October 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Interesting to see who exactly had jobs in this pandemic which were regarded as essential. I hope maybe there's an object lesson to be gained here for our culture that will be properly absorbed.
posted by hippybear at 11:39 AM on October 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
I like this interview (and am horrified by that Larry Summers interview) and I don’t disagree that dignity and resentment are a huge part of the political landscape in America. But it does make me wonder what the antidote is. I’m also a software engineer and find my work incredibly undignified most of the time; the money and benefits, however, are dignified. But if money and benefits were all it takes to restore dignity, most of this interview would be irrelevant, and I don’t think it is.
posted by stoneandstar at 11:51 AM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by stoneandstar at 11:51 AM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
To quote Jerry Farber, "School is where you let the dying society put its trip on you."*
I won't name the 1967 essay/book, as it is, from our vantage point, rather unfortunately titled, but it is an excellent piece besides this
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:07 PM on October 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
I won't name the 1967 essay/book, as it is, from our vantage point, rather unfortunately titled, but it is an excellent piece besides this
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:07 PM on October 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
The higher education institutions have positioned themselves as the gatekeepers to prosperity; if you don't get a degree, you're destined to a future of ridiculously low-wage jobs. Pay the schools and get a degree, and you're all set.MrVisible, Metafilter, February 2009
And then they act all surprised when the people who are paying good cash money for the degree that functions as a ticket to the middle class want to just pay the money and get the degree.
The universities' function as a class barrier is interfering with their ability to act as educational institutions.
Color me shocked.
posted by MrVisible at 12:21 PM on October 4, 2020 [20 favorites]
It's only gotten worse since then.
I think you are right. I have had older friends who didn't have college degrees, but who had always managed to talk their way into decent jobs based on their brains and experience and hard work, find that suddenly they couldn't get interviews anymore. My mother became a technical writer in the early 80's when academia didn't work out - the company who promoted her to that seemed to think that she had credentials for writing and could learn the domain field quickly. Now, they have graduate degrees in technical writing, and i don't think she'd have a chance today, without re-credentialing.
posted by thelonius at 12:27 PM on October 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
I think you are right. I have had older friends who didn't have college degrees, but who had always managed to talk their way into decent jobs based on their brains and experience and hard work, find that suddenly they couldn't get interviews anymore. My mother became a technical writer in the early 80's when academia didn't work out - the company who promoted her to that seemed to think that she had credentials for writing and could learn the domain field quickly. Now, they have graduate degrees in technical writing, and i don't think she'd have a chance today, without re-credentialing.
posted by thelonius at 12:27 PM on October 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Now, they have graduate degrees in technical writing, and i don't think she'd have a chance today, without re-credentialing.
The costs shifted, I guarantee you that your mom was trained to a certain extent. The training shifted to the burden of the graduate schools so companies can get highly specific roles instead of taking the risk of training someone up. If you drill down and assume that some money was federally backed student loans it means at some point, through some unobservable market force, we shifted years of training from companies that use it to the citizens paying taxes.
In other words, if we change what qualifies you to interview for a job at McKinsey, Goldman or Google from a fancy undergraduate degree to some other uniform metric of assessment
I work with McK and ex-McK extensively on projects, though I myself have never worked there. I always am shocked that during sales pitches people who haven't worked at McK for 10+ years and only worked there for a year still put "ex-McKinsey" as if it were somehow relevant. Like any other top tier path people I've worked they're generally smart. Some are arrogant, some are not, most everyone speaks "business" really, really well. Again, I work with them everyday so the mystique is not there for me but I'm still amazed how they can take an industry or really any business topic in casual conversation and turn it into a Ted Talk level of conversation. Not just dropping buzzwords but leaving you like you're learning while you're listening to them speak.
I assume it is like if I was in a beer league softball team with Mahomes and he plays baseball at a professional level and you roll your eyes and you're like, "Of course he's going to be superior at all sports he touches."
posted by geoff. at 12:46 PM on October 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
The costs shifted, I guarantee you that your mom was trained to a certain extent. The training shifted to the burden of the graduate schools so companies can get highly specific roles instead of taking the risk of training someone up. If you drill down and assume that some money was federally backed student loans it means at some point, through some unobservable market force, we shifted years of training from companies that use it to the citizens paying taxes.
In other words, if we change what qualifies you to interview for a job at McKinsey, Goldman or Google from a fancy undergraduate degree to some other uniform metric of assessment
I work with McK and ex-McK extensively on projects, though I myself have never worked there. I always am shocked that during sales pitches people who haven't worked at McK for 10+ years and only worked there for a year still put "ex-McKinsey" as if it were somehow relevant. Like any other top tier path people I've worked they're generally smart. Some are arrogant, some are not, most everyone speaks "business" really, really well. Again, I work with them everyday so the mystique is not there for me but I'm still amazed how they can take an industry or really any business topic in casual conversation and turn it into a Ted Talk level of conversation. Not just dropping buzzwords but leaving you like you're learning while you're listening to them speak.
I assume it is like if I was in a beer league softball team with Mahomes and he plays baseball at a professional level and you roll your eyes and you're like, "Of course he's going to be superior at all sports he touches."
posted by geoff. at 12:46 PM on October 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'm a clerical worker. That is what happens to English majors/artist types, if you're fortunate. I can say that for purposes of my actual position college has been useful background information, but I do not feel that you need to have gone to college in order to do the job, and my coworkers who didn't go seem just as capable as anyone else. We're at the same rank and never going to advance anyway, so degree schmegree on a practical level.
On the other hand: one of our temps this year applied to work here and was brutally rebuffed after the interview. The person who didn't like her in the interview said, among other things, that she needs to get a four year degree to improve her chances. Then the temp literally got hired somewhere else at the same org within about a week, so....
I honestly feel like the four year degree requirement is pure snobbery and a way to weed people out, more than "actually needed." BUT if you don't have it, as thelonius said, you are less and less able to progress in this world.
I've thought about trying to get into technical writing, but I don't want to rack up debt going to grad school that I'll never be able to pay off (plus just...uck on grad school, don't wanna) and if I still can't get a job after that, it'd be all for naught, right?
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:49 PM on October 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
On the other hand: one of our temps this year applied to work here and was brutally rebuffed after the interview. The person who didn't like her in the interview said, among other things, that she needs to get a four year degree to improve her chances. Then the temp literally got hired somewhere else at the same org within about a week, so....
I honestly feel like the four year degree requirement is pure snobbery and a way to weed people out, more than "actually needed." BUT if you don't have it, as thelonius said, you are less and less able to progress in this world.
I've thought about trying to get into technical writing, but I don't want to rack up debt going to grad school that I'll never be able to pay off (plus just...uck on grad school, don't wanna) and if I still can't get a job after that, it'd be all for naught, right?
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:49 PM on October 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
The biggest break that Gen X got, at least for people who wanted to go into IT or web development or sysadmin or programmer type work, was that the demand for labor exploded, far beyond the credentialing apparatus that existed, starting in the middle 90's. I mean, there were always some jobs that you needed a BS in Comp Sci for, but there were also entire new professions, like web design, for which there pretty much were no degree credentials. Make a portfolio and get a client and, hey, you are suddenly a professional. And if you wanted an entry-level thing like stringing Ethernet cable, you could get that with probably just an A+ certification. I really think it is harder to break into the field now.
posted by thelonius at 1:13 PM on October 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 1:13 PM on October 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
Sandel isn't wrong, he's just doing it in a way as if he invented this criticism without crediting leftist thinkers who are already deeply familiar with these arguments, as well as more radical ones too.
Probably more a function of the brevity of this piece than anything else. He's actually credits Young, whose argument this ultimately is, quite often in more substantial settings. For example extensively in this interview (pdf), and was aware of his work, although apparently not yet familiar, by the mid-80s.
posted by howfar at 1:37 PM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
Probably more a function of the brevity of this piece than anything else. He's actually credits Young, whose argument this ultimately is, quite often in more substantial settings. For example extensively in this interview (pdf), and was aware of his work, although apparently not yet familiar, by the mid-80s.
posted by howfar at 1:37 PM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
CS/“tech” has an interesting internal divide because due to its history and the libertarianish tendencies among some of its thought leaders there’s a certain counter-credentialist strain out there in theory. And it also has tons of resources for self-directed learning available. But at the same time everybody loves recruiting straight out of upper-tier universities. I suppose you can say - well of course Google does, they came out of academic CS - but it’s not as if the others don’t, also. It’s just such a readily-available pool of people who are likely to have a certain level of intellect and work ethic I guess.
(Personally I do think you want people who have learned the stuff you learn in CS school, but you can definitely do that on your own and I have friends who have very successfully. But they have generally found it easier to sell that when they also have a four-year degree in something “technical.”)
posted by atoxyl at 1:39 PM on October 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
(Personally I do think you want people who have learned the stuff you learn in CS school, but you can definitely do that on your own and I have friends who have very successfully. But they have generally found it easier to sell that when they also have a four-year degree in something “technical.”)
posted by atoxyl at 1:39 PM on October 4, 2020 [4 favorites]
Blue collar work is not by its nature undignified.
What I think of as blue collar work, people fixing or building or helping to keep people fed or things running is certainly dignified work - you're judged by the quality of your work. The jobs that are not dignified are service industry and pink collar jobs which require you to be-worm yourself before the public or the people you work for/with in order to keep your job, and where you are often judged by everything but the quality of your work.
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:24 PM on October 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
What I think of as blue collar work, people fixing or building or helping to keep people fed or things running is certainly dignified work - you're judged by the quality of your work. The jobs that are not dignified are service industry and pink collar jobs which require you to be-worm yourself before the public or the people you work for/with in order to keep your job, and where you are often judged by everything but the quality of your work.
posted by Jess the Mess at 2:24 PM on October 4, 2020 [9 favorites]
Jess the Mess, one of the many things I dislike about college+university as a credential rather than an education is that it leans so strongly to making high-status jobs in which you can't be judged by the quality of your work. The 'failing upward' that is more likely the better-paid you were to start with.
Closely related second thing, there's so much knowledge and skill that our society depends on, and not just 'learning how to learn' but actual bodies of theory and application -- and credentialist education undercuts that too. The linked article undercuts it as well, imo -- there's an aspirational flight:
posted by clew at 2:46 PM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Closely related second thing, there's so much knowledge and skill that our society depends on, and not just 'learning how to learn' but actual bodies of theory and application -- and credentialist education undercuts that too. The linked article undercuts it as well, imo -- there's an aspirational flight:
the true reason for being in institutions of higher education, which is exploring and reflecting and questioning and seeking after one’s passions.Because you can do that without any academy at all -- what a university can uniquely do is bang your exploring and passions systematically against other people's ditto, in a structure that's meant to improve the results.
posted by clew at 2:46 PM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
> I had to bail out on this article when the author made it through this paragraph without so much as a nod towards legacy admissions.
Mr. Sandal has a clear understanding of the complexities of legacy admissions and the falsehood of 'meritocracy'
posted by CheapB at 4:16 PM on October 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
Mr. Sandal has a clear understanding of the complexities of legacy admissions and the falsehood of 'meritocracy'
posted by CheapB at 4:16 PM on October 4, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'm going to offer something that was said to me in an interview a while back: "I don't care what your degree is in, it shows that you can complete something, that you have dedication and follow through..."
I do still think this applies to some extent - alternately an algorithm to weed out resumes that don't show college degrees is a bad sign of the times.
posted by djseafood at 4:16 PM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
I do still think this applies to some extent - alternately an algorithm to weed out resumes that don't show college degrees is a bad sign of the times.
posted by djseafood at 4:16 PM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
I assume it is like if I was in a beer league softball team with Mahomes and he plays baseball at a professional level and you roll your eyes and you're like, "Of course he's going to be superior at all sports he touches."
Forgive me if I’m missing the exact point you were trying to make, but Mahomes has a professional baseball player for a father and was himself drafted by the Detroit Tigers in 2014.
posted by sideshow at 4:20 PM on October 4, 2020
Forgive me if I’m missing the exact point you were trying to make, but Mahomes has a professional baseball player for a father and was himself drafted by the Detroit Tigers in 2014.
posted by sideshow at 4:20 PM on October 4, 2020
I read last year that Mahomes had a 92 mph fastball when he was 12.
posted by jamjam at 4:29 PM on October 4, 2020
posted by jamjam at 4:29 PM on October 4, 2020
Daniel Markovits’ Meritocracy Trap is superb on this, I recommend it very strongly.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:42 PM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:42 PM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
I guess I resent the tone that college is overblown/worthless/elitist.
Maybe college isn´t a job training program, and everyone deserves material comforts, no matter what the job. Instead of viewing ¨white collar¨ work to be just as undignified as ¨blue collar work,¨ why not change to viewing both types of work as dignified?
It is disgraceful that someone can work full time at any job and not be able to afford to live. It isn´t that the money isn´t there, it is that the money goes to shareholders and CEOs instead of all the humans working, which isn´t necessarily an inherent part of capitalism. I mean, the stock market is fine, but perhaps too many people are trying to make a living from it these days, or to make a living by helping those trying to make a living from it, if you get my drift.
And perhaps some people enjoy learning things, which isn´t any ¨better¨ or ¨worse¨ than people who don´t have an interest in, say, English Literature or Russian history.
posted by olykate at 5:51 PM on October 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
Maybe college isn´t a job training program, and everyone deserves material comforts, no matter what the job. Instead of viewing ¨white collar¨ work to be just as undignified as ¨blue collar work,¨ why not change to viewing both types of work as dignified?
It is disgraceful that someone can work full time at any job and not be able to afford to live. It isn´t that the money isn´t there, it is that the money goes to shareholders and CEOs instead of all the humans working, which isn´t necessarily an inherent part of capitalism. I mean, the stock market is fine, but perhaps too many people are trying to make a living from it these days, or to make a living by helping those trying to make a living from it, if you get my drift.
And perhaps some people enjoy learning things, which isn´t any ¨better¨ or ¨worse¨ than people who don´t have an interest in, say, English Literature or Russian history.
posted by olykate at 5:51 PM on October 4, 2020 [5 favorites]
I’ve been thinking about this in relation to my field—built heritage and conservation—which in my country professionalised in the 1970s, and was for a time dominated by a specific cohort of skilled women, who had very high qualifications in other fields (particularly history, urban planning, and architecture) but for sexist reasons couldn’t get promoted. As built conservation grew in the 1980s and 1990s it attracted more and more people shifting sideways; architects and engineers, conservationists, archaeologists, and builders and skilled tradespeople too. What’s happened in the last two decades though is that as universities started offering specific Conservation and Heritage qualifications the field has closed again, especially to tradies—to get a start you don’t just need a four year bachelors’ but probably the Masters too. I know the State agency for heritage doesn’t look at anyone for grad entry without at least that, a doctorate is more usual. Not without irony, as a field, we’re skewing older and maler and whiter.
My job honestly could be done by a curious and resourceful high schooler; I got here purely by chance and being Gen X at the right place at the right time, but someone like me (of moderate aptitude) today would have no chance.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 6:05 PM on October 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
My job honestly could be done by a curious and resourceful high schooler; I got here purely by chance and being Gen X at the right place at the right time, but someone like me (of moderate aptitude) today would have no chance.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 6:05 PM on October 4, 2020 [6 favorites]
What I think of as blue collar work, people fixing or building or helping to keep people fed or things running is certainly dignified work - you're judged by the quality of your work.
But you're not, though. Like - as a union organizer, the dignity of work is not just based on whether you're producing meaningful items that help humans, it's also how you're treated by your employers. And employers will not give an ounce of dignity if they don't think you can force them to do so.
So: let's say you fix toilets. Cool. Fixing toilets is important work and everyone needs it. But now - do you work for yourself, or do you work for a boss? If you work for a boss, what does he pay you? A fair percentage of the profit gained from your labor, or just a sliver, because he was able to pay for the incorporation of the company and the licensing fees and bonding? If you're an independent contractor, do you get enough work and are you paid well enough to be able to take your time and be proud of your job? Or is it not enough, because the people in the houses don't have enough money anymore to pay you what you deserve, and do you have to skimp on the quality of work in order to get to your next job to try to pay your bills so your landlord doesn't evict you?
Yeah, you can earn real money in the trades. But what's your retirement like? Do you have one? If not why not? Do you have healthcare that covers when your knees are busted from working on them for twenty years, and now you have to live another forty?
The dignity of white collar work is not because you're doing better work. It's things like not having to punch a time clock, or being able to take a long lunch if you feel like it without it cutting into your pay. It's about being able to get long vacations, to be able to get the ergonomic chair and tools you need because your company likes thinking of itself as an employee friendly workspace or whatever the hell. It's got nice coffee machines, and sometimes a gym, or a daycare, or a shower so you can bike to work and then shower beforehand.
Not because it's needed, but because it's a class reward. And that's why they gatekeep it - not because they need to, but because they think if too many people are bumped up to their class, that it won't be worth anything anymore.
posted by corb at 7:45 PM on October 4, 2020 [48 favorites]
But you're not, though. Like - as a union organizer, the dignity of work is not just based on whether you're producing meaningful items that help humans, it's also how you're treated by your employers. And employers will not give an ounce of dignity if they don't think you can force them to do so.
So: let's say you fix toilets. Cool. Fixing toilets is important work and everyone needs it. But now - do you work for yourself, or do you work for a boss? If you work for a boss, what does he pay you? A fair percentage of the profit gained from your labor, or just a sliver, because he was able to pay for the incorporation of the company and the licensing fees and bonding? If you're an independent contractor, do you get enough work and are you paid well enough to be able to take your time and be proud of your job? Or is it not enough, because the people in the houses don't have enough money anymore to pay you what you deserve, and do you have to skimp on the quality of work in order to get to your next job to try to pay your bills so your landlord doesn't evict you?
Yeah, you can earn real money in the trades. But what's your retirement like? Do you have one? If not why not? Do you have healthcare that covers when your knees are busted from working on them for twenty years, and now you have to live another forty?
The dignity of white collar work is not because you're doing better work. It's things like not having to punch a time clock, or being able to take a long lunch if you feel like it without it cutting into your pay. It's about being able to get long vacations, to be able to get the ergonomic chair and tools you need because your company likes thinking of itself as an employee friendly workspace or whatever the hell. It's got nice coffee machines, and sometimes a gym, or a daycare, or a shower so you can bike to work and then shower beforehand.
Not because it's needed, but because it's a class reward. And that's why they gatekeep it - not because they need to, but because they think if too many people are bumped up to their class, that it won't be worth anything anymore.
posted by corb at 7:45 PM on October 4, 2020 [48 favorites]
The whole "If I'm winning, there must be losers" mindset needs to be destroyed.
posted by hippybear at 7:51 PM on October 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
posted by hippybear at 7:51 PM on October 4, 2020 [17 favorites]
Corb, you just rocked my world!
posted by goalyeehah at 7:55 PM on October 4, 2020
posted by goalyeehah at 7:55 PM on October 4, 2020
I'm going to offer something that was said to me in an interview a while back: "I don't care what your degree is in, it shows that you can complete something, that you have dedication and follow through..."
Same for selecting executives with MBAs - oh hey, you were able to work a challenging management job and excel at it, while at the same time studying after work, and were willing to pay $100,000 in tuition to a top business school because you're THAT confident that you're top executive material and will earn a return on your investment?
It's about skin in the game: if the company is going to make a gamble on you, then you need to put some resources into it yourself to prove that you're serious about it and you have a long term plan to follow through. It's like an entrepreneur asking me to invest in his business when I see he hasn't put a single dollar in it himself, it's not going to inspire much confidence.
As a side note, when I came to Australia I was surprised that not only were blue collar trades workers (carpenters, plumbers, builders) paid well, but they were also well respected. It's a bit of a funny joke in the office that many women accounts / finance managers "married up" and snagged themselves husbands who were carpenters and plumbers who not only earned substantially more than them but were also handy around the house.
posted by xdvesper at 8:05 PM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
Same for selecting executives with MBAs - oh hey, you were able to work a challenging management job and excel at it, while at the same time studying after work, and were willing to pay $100,000 in tuition to a top business school because you're THAT confident that you're top executive material and will earn a return on your investment?
It's about skin in the game: if the company is going to make a gamble on you, then you need to put some resources into it yourself to prove that you're serious about it and you have a long term plan to follow through. It's like an entrepreneur asking me to invest in his business when I see he hasn't put a single dollar in it himself, it's not going to inspire much confidence.
As a side note, when I came to Australia I was surprised that not only were blue collar trades workers (carpenters, plumbers, builders) paid well, but they were also well respected. It's a bit of a funny joke in the office that many women accounts / finance managers "married up" and snagged themselves husbands who were carpenters and plumbers who not only earned substantially more than them but were also handy around the house.
posted by xdvesper at 8:05 PM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
oh hey, you were able to work a challenging management job and excel at it, while at the same time studying after work, and were willing to pay $100,000 in tuition to a top business school because you're THAT confident that you're top executive material and will earn a return on your investment?
If it used to be that people waited 5-7 years out of school before getting an MBA that is not the case. The vast majority of people I know that have MBAs went straight from undergrad or spent a couple of years at a top firm before getting a top degree in a university program. Really hard to say you're taking a gamble or a risk when you're spending $100k on a Stanford MBA. That's probably the least risky $100k you could possibly have.
I know there's "executive MBA" programs and the like but I don't put a lot of stock in those.
posted by geoff. at 8:49 PM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
If it used to be that people waited 5-7 years out of school before getting an MBA that is not the case. The vast majority of people I know that have MBAs went straight from undergrad or spent a couple of years at a top firm before getting a top degree in a university program. Really hard to say you're taking a gamble or a risk when you're spending $100k on a Stanford MBA. That's probably the least risky $100k you could possibly have.
I know there's "executive MBA" programs and the like but I don't put a lot of stock in those.
posted by geoff. at 8:49 PM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm seeing people with MBAs in entryish positions in my industry, the difference is they get there 15 years younger than I did and will probably have a higher ceiling than me.
posted by mikek at 10:30 PM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by mikek at 10:30 PM on October 4, 2020 [1 favorite]
The dignity of white collar work is not because you're doing better work. It's things like not having to punch a time clock, or being able to take a long lunch if you feel like it without it cutting into your pay. It's about being able to get long vacations, to be able to get the ergonomic chair and tools you need because your company likes thinking of itself as an employee friendly workspace or whatever the hell. It's got nice coffee machines, and sometimes a gym, or a daycare, or a shower so you can bike to work and then shower beforehand.
In tech there are lots of hourly contractors (software developers and IT admins) who do not get paid vacation, must clock in and clock out, and cannot take long lunches. It's still a white collar job, but it's also still hourly work.
posted by wuwei at 11:01 PM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
In tech there are lots of hourly contractors (software developers and IT admins) who do not get paid vacation, must clock in and clock out, and cannot take long lunches. It's still a white collar job, but it's also still hourly work.
posted by wuwei at 11:01 PM on October 4, 2020 [2 favorites]
I guess I resent the tone that college is overblown/worthless/elitist.
Part of the problem is that the overblown credentialism impacts the role of the university as a place of learning as well. If the only way to make money is to go to college, do not be surprised when the educational role is diminished.
I think the dignity aspect is massive, in some ways it is as big as financial one. One of the things that most angered Russian factory workers was that they were addressed using the familiar ты rather than the respectful вы, which (apparently - my Russian is not great, this is from Figes' A People's Tragedy) was at the time only used for addressing factory workers, servants, children, and animals.
Management and leadership at almost every level is made up of college educated people and it is extremely common for those people to treat their elite college educated staff in a much more dignified and respectful (if not necessarily, relaxed) way than the depersonalised and entirely instrumental way they treat people who work manual jobs. Of course no job has any inherent dignity, that's a social role that society assigns and in 2020 America, the way almost all blue collar, pink collar, and low-level white collar (call centre etc.) workers are treated is not remotely dignified.
posted by atrazine at 2:53 AM on October 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Part of the problem is that the overblown credentialism impacts the role of the university as a place of learning as well. If the only way to make money is to go to college, do not be surprised when the educational role is diminished.
I think the dignity aspect is massive, in some ways it is as big as financial one. One of the things that most angered Russian factory workers was that they were addressed using the familiar ты rather than the respectful вы, which (apparently - my Russian is not great, this is from Figes' A People's Tragedy) was at the time only used for addressing factory workers, servants, children, and animals.
Management and leadership at almost every level is made up of college educated people and it is extremely common for those people to treat their elite college educated staff in a much more dignified and respectful (if not necessarily, relaxed) way than the depersonalised and entirely instrumental way they treat people who work manual jobs. Of course no job has any inherent dignity, that's a social role that society assigns and in 2020 America, the way almost all blue collar, pink collar, and low-level white collar (call centre etc.) workers are treated is not remotely dignified.
posted by atrazine at 2:53 AM on October 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
The dignity of white collar work is not because you're doing better work. It's things like not having to punch a time clock, or being able to take a long lunch if you feel like it without it cutting into your pay. It's about being able to get long vacations, to be able to get the ergonomic chair and tools you need because your company likes thinking of itself as an employee friendly workspace or whatever the hell. It's got nice coffee machines, and sometimes a gym, or a daycare, or a shower so you can bike to work and then shower beforehand.
And even that list of perks gets broken out further, with some people able to access all of them, and others only some. For example, where I work, while everyone has equal access to the coffee machines and the showers, there is a clearly understood expectation (but not written into any policy or manual that I am aware of) around seniority and having flexibility with your time. If you are more junior or in a lower-status position (a problematic term in itself), you are expected to work an exact schedule (eg, start work at 8, take lunch from 12 to 12:30, etc). More senior people can set their schedules however they want as long as their work gets done. Want to take off this afternoon but maybe work Saturday morning instead? No problem. Same thing if you are a night owl and want to start at noon every day.
In other words, the credentialism and assessing of who is in vs who is out, isn't a binary but rather a (needlessly) complex spectrum.
There is also a reality that if you are in the position that you have to bid on work and respond to RFPs (ie, consulting firm, contractor, etc), fairly frequently one of the scoring factors is the credentials of your team. You literally get more points for having staff with graduate degrees, technical certifications, etc., whether or not those are actually needed to perform the work.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:11 AM on October 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
And even that list of perks gets broken out further, with some people able to access all of them, and others only some. For example, where I work, while everyone has equal access to the coffee machines and the showers, there is a clearly understood expectation (but not written into any policy or manual that I am aware of) around seniority and having flexibility with your time. If you are more junior or in a lower-status position (a problematic term in itself), you are expected to work an exact schedule (eg, start work at 8, take lunch from 12 to 12:30, etc). More senior people can set their schedules however they want as long as their work gets done. Want to take off this afternoon but maybe work Saturday morning instead? No problem. Same thing if you are a night owl and want to start at noon every day.
In other words, the credentialism and assessing of who is in vs who is out, isn't a binary but rather a (needlessly) complex spectrum.
There is also a reality that if you are in the position that you have to bid on work and respond to RFPs (ie, consulting firm, contractor, etc), fairly frequently one of the scoring factors is the credentials of your team. You literally get more points for having staff with graduate degrees, technical certifications, etc., whether or not those are actually needed to perform the work.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:11 AM on October 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
The whole point of the interview is that it's not, intrinsically, undignified to do blue collar work, but that we live in societies which, because of a meritocratic myth, disregard the value and skills of those jobs, and so render them undignified and under-rewarded.
Yes, but they both amount to the same thing. There was a thread a while back about college campuses closing because college kids could get covid, but blue collar work never stopped and never was curtailed. That's an important difference - I mean it totally implies that anyone has the ability to distance learn, that hands-on and connections are able to be back-burnered if they are trumped by health concerns. Some even suggested 'gap years' - just go do something else until college is open again (maybe travel).
That's the elitist part of college. That those who are college-educated can hide until its safe, but blue collar workers better get out there and do your jobs because society needs you. And covid laid it bare, but it's always been like this, and that is why blue collar work is not and never will be preferred until those kinds of differences are gone, at least in the US.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:54 AM on October 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
Yes, but they both amount to the same thing. There was a thread a while back about college campuses closing because college kids could get covid, but blue collar work never stopped and never was curtailed. That's an important difference - I mean it totally implies that anyone has the ability to distance learn, that hands-on and connections are able to be back-burnered if they are trumped by health concerns. Some even suggested 'gap years' - just go do something else until college is open again (maybe travel).
That's the elitist part of college. That those who are college-educated can hide until its safe, but blue collar workers better get out there and do your jobs because society needs you. And covid laid it bare, but it's always been like this, and that is why blue collar work is not and never will be preferred until those kinds of differences are gone, at least in the US.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:54 AM on October 5, 2020 [3 favorites]
If you are more junior or in a lower-status position (a problematic term in itself), you are expected to work an exact schedule (eg, start work at 8, take lunch from 12 to 12:30, etc). More senior people can set their schedules however they want as long as their work gets done. Want to take off this afternoon but maybe work Saturday morning instead? No problem. Same thing if you are a night owl and want to start at noon every day.
When working class people want to work 35 hour weeks, they're treated as if they're lazy. If upper management does it, everyone admires their execution discipline.
posted by atrazine at 8:30 AM on October 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
When working class people want to work 35 hour weeks, they're treated as if they're lazy. If upper management does it, everyone admires their execution discipline.
posted by atrazine at 8:30 AM on October 5, 2020 [9 favorites]
When Young coined the term "meritocracy" he warned that this is exactly what would happen.
I feel like I've read dozens of articles with the same or similar points to the FPP - all by members of the "meritocracy" themselves - and none have been as half as insightful as Michael Young's 1958 book.
I'm not dissing the FPP - I read the article, after all, and I'm commenting here. But I am tired of the people in power throwing up their hands and lamenting, "What do we do?" - and presenting (at best) tiny, near-meaningless chipping away at the problem (like getting rid of legacy admissions).
The real solution: make ALL work "dignified work" - and give all people dignified lives, regardless of whether they can or do work in paid employment.*
That was Michael Young's point: that all human beings, regardless of ability, skill or effort, deserve a decent and dignified life by virtue of being human. (heck, maybe this should be expanded to non-humans). We can afford to. Our powerful just choose not to.
*I qualified this, because I recognise that a great deal of care-giving and reproductive work isn't paid; also, meaningful activity is an important part of having a dignified life - as many disability advocates would point out. I know someone right now who doesn't need money, but who needs meaningful activity - and who can't find any that takes account of her cognitive and physical limitations.
posted by jb at 9:31 AM on October 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
I feel like I've read dozens of articles with the same or similar points to the FPP - all by members of the "meritocracy" themselves - and none have been as half as insightful as Michael Young's 1958 book.
I'm not dissing the FPP - I read the article, after all, and I'm commenting here. But I am tired of the people in power throwing up their hands and lamenting, "What do we do?" - and presenting (at best) tiny, near-meaningless chipping away at the problem (like getting rid of legacy admissions).
The real solution: make ALL work "dignified work" - and give all people dignified lives, regardless of whether they can or do work in paid employment.*
That was Michael Young's point: that all human beings, regardless of ability, skill or effort, deserve a decent and dignified life by virtue of being human. (heck, maybe this should be expanded to non-humans). We can afford to. Our powerful just choose not to.
*I qualified this, because I recognise that a great deal of care-giving and reproductive work isn't paid; also, meaningful activity is an important part of having a dignified life - as many disability advocates would point out. I know someone right now who doesn't need money, but who needs meaningful activity - and who can't find any that takes account of her cognitive and physical limitations.
posted by jb at 9:31 AM on October 5, 2020 [5 favorites]
As a great man discerned:
But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction—indeed, in some sense was the destruction—of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which WEALTH, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while POWER remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away.—Emmanuel Goldsteinposted by No Robots at 9:34 AM on October 5, 2020 [4 favorites]
I once spoke to a McKinsey recruiter who told me that many people spent a few years at the firm because they weren't sure which grad school to go to.
Ironically, I went to graduate school because I didn't know what kind of job I could get - and McKinsey was so NOT recruiting at my (perfectly decent but far from elite) university. But I think I could have been a good consultant - I'm a good problem solver, albeit sometimes a little too Alexandrian to suit most authorities. Also, I'm larger than a size 8, and thus would be automatically disqualified (as was once explained to me by someone who knew the world of elite consultancy well).
posted by jb at 9:35 AM on October 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Ironically, I went to graduate school because I didn't know what kind of job I could get - and McKinsey was so NOT recruiting at my (perfectly decent but far from elite) university. But I think I could have been a good consultant - I'm a good problem solver, albeit sometimes a little too Alexandrian to suit most authorities. Also, I'm larger than a size 8, and thus would be automatically disqualified (as was once explained to me by someone who knew the world of elite consultancy well).
posted by jb at 9:35 AM on October 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
I suppose this is a not inappropriate place to tell this story. I don't know if I have more of a point than "fuck this" so apologies in advance.
While I did have a degree, it was from a no-name school and was the type of liberal arts degree that people say things about like "oh, so you got a degree in delivering pizzas?" -- but I somehow got hired at a startup that turned into a very well-known tech company. We went from a little over a hundred employees to several thousand in just a few years. I'd never been part of anything like it, was very proud of my role in laying some foundational work, and, moreover, was incredibly grateful that the people who hired me weren't looking for academic credentials.
I don't know quite how to describe it but things got more "snobby" as time went on. Eventually I was removed from the interviewing rotation and I got the impression I was being branded as the "eccentric old guy who was here from the beginning but don't take him seriously". What really broke my heart is when I learned that middle management had explicitly directed all hiring managers to toss out any resume that wasn't from Stanford or an Ivy (preferably Harvard). I wouldn't have had a chance at even getting an interview at a company that my sweat and tears helped build.
And, to add insult to injury, some of the super-credentialed folks we ended up hiring needed SO MUCH hand-holding. I tried to be as gracious and helpful as possible but I eventually couldn't deal with it and left -- and realized I'd been subtly nudged out the door because I wasn't of the right pedigree.
posted by treepour at 12:37 PM on October 5, 2020 [15 favorites]
While I did have a degree, it was from a no-name school and was the type of liberal arts degree that people say things about like "oh, so you got a degree in delivering pizzas?" -- but I somehow got hired at a startup that turned into a very well-known tech company. We went from a little over a hundred employees to several thousand in just a few years. I'd never been part of anything like it, was very proud of my role in laying some foundational work, and, moreover, was incredibly grateful that the people who hired me weren't looking for academic credentials.
I don't know quite how to describe it but things got more "snobby" as time went on. Eventually I was removed from the interviewing rotation and I got the impression I was being branded as the "eccentric old guy who was here from the beginning but don't take him seriously". What really broke my heart is when I learned that middle management had explicitly directed all hiring managers to toss out any resume that wasn't from Stanford or an Ivy (preferably Harvard). I wouldn't have had a chance at even getting an interview at a company that my sweat and tears helped build.
And, to add insult to injury, some of the super-credentialed folks we ended up hiring needed SO MUCH hand-holding. I tried to be as gracious and helpful as possible but I eventually couldn't deal with it and left -- and realized I'd been subtly nudged out the door because I wasn't of the right pedigree.
posted by treepour at 12:37 PM on October 5, 2020 [15 favorites]
^I hope you got a big settlement, and managed to score a few points on the way out the door.
posted by No Robots at 12:40 PM on October 5, 2020
posted by No Robots at 12:40 PM on October 5, 2020
I agree that there are problems with requiring a degree for so many jobs that don't really need that preparation, and there are likely better ways to measure talent and job performance ability.
That said, abolishing the need for objective credentials like a degree means that a hiring committee will logically base more of their decision on subjective criteria like how well you fit the "culture", how good you are at bragging about yourself, how likeable you are (often meaning how well the interviewer connects with you) and how glowing your references are.
In other words, these kinds of changes need to be carefully considered for the risk of worsening discrimination against people who are not straight/white/male/neurotypical/able-bodied/extroverted/otherwise similar to the people currently in positions of power.
posted by randomnity at 1:49 PM on October 5, 2020
That said, abolishing the need for objective credentials like a degree means that a hiring committee will logically base more of their decision on subjective criteria like how well you fit the "culture", how good you are at bragging about yourself, how likeable you are (often meaning how well the interviewer connects with you) and how glowing your references are.
In other words, these kinds of changes need to be carefully considered for the risk of worsening discrimination against people who are not straight/white/male/neurotypical/able-bodied/extroverted/otherwise similar to the people currently in positions of power.
posted by randomnity at 1:49 PM on October 5, 2020
^The harsh truth about black enrollment at America’s elite colleges
posted by No Robots at 2:57 PM on October 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by No Robots at 2:57 PM on October 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
And, to add insult to injury, some of the super-credentialed folks we ended up hiring needed SO MUCH hand-holding.
As someone with a non-credentialed background and who was in charge of these people it was infuriating, absolutely infuriating. I was literally told in a meeting several weeks ago, and I know this was meant in jest and sort of a back-handed compliment, "Don't tell geoff. to get an MBA, then we'll not be needed!" Not to mention that I landed the deal, I created the pitch deck, etc. The mentality was that even though I was in charge and everyone was there because of me I still lacked something. Rarely is so overt but I get what you'er saying. Again I work with these people and nearly all of them all smart but the hubris is subtle and pervasive. I don't doubt their ability to work hard but they seemed to disdain the fact that they're not working at Facebook or Google. What they don't realize is that for their middle-upper management types that Facebook and Google will crank out money no matter what. Something not working in the pitch? We have to figure it the fuck out. The exceptions are Uber and Twitter where they explode despite, not because of, management. Again those companies need management much like the Spanish armada needed people to man the ships taking gold back from the New World. It doesn't mean they are better are running ships, they're probably more competent than most, but to say they are the best because they just happen to have a cargo of gold belies the fact they were born in the right place at the right time.
Why do I and others continue to work with them and hire these credentialed types? I have an easy answer. They simply have access to money. If anyone has seen any pitch to a VC they'll see the inevitable founders slide that's full of "We met at Stanford." This is not an exaggeration. I looked at three pitches today. There are exactly three that aren't from Stanford and they both are post-doctorates doing research at Carnegie Mellon. Their doctorate and undergrad are at some Beijing university I haven't heard of. It is the same cliche as 1960s college movies where the rich kid in college is the one who gets everyone a job or pulls strings. This is the same thing dressed up as meritocracy. I have to make them feel somewhat empowered or they won't let me have access to their networks but again I'm only using them for access to their networks.
A bit of a different slant but the reality is until there's more schools like Stanford in the Bay Area or until hiring Stanford grads stops making you money will this stop. I really hope there's a place in the midwest or somewhere outside of the coasts that can throw money like Silicon Valley can. Wall Street seems to be a bit more forgiving when it comes to hiring practices in that it might reach beyond just Ivy League but still top tier universities.
posted by geoff. at 3:27 PM on October 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
As someone with a non-credentialed background and who was in charge of these people it was infuriating, absolutely infuriating. I was literally told in a meeting several weeks ago, and I know this was meant in jest and sort of a back-handed compliment, "Don't tell geoff. to get an MBA, then we'll not be needed!" Not to mention that I landed the deal, I created the pitch deck, etc. The mentality was that even though I was in charge and everyone was there because of me I still lacked something. Rarely is so overt but I get what you'er saying. Again I work with these people and nearly all of them all smart but the hubris is subtle and pervasive. I don't doubt their ability to work hard but they seemed to disdain the fact that they're not working at Facebook or Google. What they don't realize is that for their middle-upper management types that Facebook and Google will crank out money no matter what. Something not working in the pitch? We have to figure it the fuck out. The exceptions are Uber and Twitter where they explode despite, not because of, management. Again those companies need management much like the Spanish armada needed people to man the ships taking gold back from the New World. It doesn't mean they are better are running ships, they're probably more competent than most, but to say they are the best because they just happen to have a cargo of gold belies the fact they were born in the right place at the right time.
Why do I and others continue to work with them and hire these credentialed types? I have an easy answer. They simply have access to money. If anyone has seen any pitch to a VC they'll see the inevitable founders slide that's full of "We met at Stanford." This is not an exaggeration. I looked at three pitches today. There are exactly three that aren't from Stanford and they both are post-doctorates doing research at Carnegie Mellon. Their doctorate and undergrad are at some Beijing university I haven't heard of. It is the same cliche as 1960s college movies where the rich kid in college is the one who gets everyone a job or pulls strings. This is the same thing dressed up as meritocracy. I have to make them feel somewhat empowered or they won't let me have access to their networks but again I'm only using them for access to their networks.
A bit of a different slant but the reality is until there's more schools like Stanford in the Bay Area or until hiring Stanford grads stops making you money will this stop. I really hope there's a place in the midwest or somewhere outside of the coasts that can throw money like Silicon Valley can. Wall Street seems to be a bit more forgiving when it comes to hiring practices in that it might reach beyond just Ivy League but still top tier universities.
posted by geoff. at 3:27 PM on October 5, 2020 [7 favorites]
I don't doubt their ability to work hard but they seemed to disdain the fact that they're not working at Facebook or Google. What they don't realize is that for their middle-upper management types that Facebook and Google will crank out money no matter what. Something not working in the pitch? We have to figure it the fuck out.
Yeah, I have two thoughts about that.
First, lol indeed at the "disdain that they're not working at Facebook or Google" because the real hilarity is that those companies were not founded by people who got jobs at Facebook or Google... they started them. If they're such big swinging dicks they should start their own company. I had someone tell me in an interview that their biggest inspiration and model was Steve Jobs and I thought... ok, well you're interviewing for a graduate finance role. Is that something Steve Jobs did or would do?
Second, I often joke with a friend of mine who has a FAANG job that he's living the good life of the 1960s Bell employee. Everyone is always hating on monopolies but they've always been brilliant places to work. That's because in any workplace, management has to balance between getting along with their employees and keeping prices low so they don't lose all their business. If you're a monopoly with huge revenue per employee, it is just way easier to give everyone a raise and make sure the juice bar is stocked than it would be if you were competing on price. The level of pressure on management there just isn't that high and in fact people are routinely promoted or at least not fired after working on projects that were objectively ($$) not successful on the grounds of a vague sense that the project was technically well executed / cool / Sergei liked it.
Like you say, they're on the armada ship divvying up the gold based on the number of cool seabirds spotted and how much they like each other and fooling themselves that this is a good measure of performance and that because they're on the ship they must be extremely smart.
posted by atrazine at 4:19 PM on October 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I have two thoughts about that.
First, lol indeed at the "disdain that they're not working at Facebook or Google" because the real hilarity is that those companies were not founded by people who got jobs at Facebook or Google... they started them. If they're such big swinging dicks they should start their own company. I had someone tell me in an interview that their biggest inspiration and model was Steve Jobs and I thought... ok, well you're interviewing for a graduate finance role. Is that something Steve Jobs did or would do?
Second, I often joke with a friend of mine who has a FAANG job that he's living the good life of the 1960s Bell employee. Everyone is always hating on monopolies but they've always been brilliant places to work. That's because in any workplace, management has to balance between getting along with their employees and keeping prices low so they don't lose all their business. If you're a monopoly with huge revenue per employee, it is just way easier to give everyone a raise and make sure the juice bar is stocked than it would be if you were competing on price. The level of pressure on management there just isn't that high and in fact people are routinely promoted or at least not fired after working on projects that were objectively ($$) not successful on the grounds of a vague sense that the project was technically well executed / cool / Sergei liked it.
Like you say, they're on the armada ship divvying up the gold based on the number of cool seabirds spotted and how much they like each other and fooling themselves that this is a good measure of performance and that because they're on the ship they must be extremely smart.
posted by atrazine at 4:19 PM on October 5, 2020 [2 favorites]
What I do find lacking here is the realization that most people don't work at gigantic corporations but work for small businesses of various sizes, and they're starting to require a 4 year degree for a secretary job. There is no hiring committee, it's the person who interviews you. It's just whatever you submitted as a job application and those 20 minutes or so talking to one person.
Most employment in the US is done of a very local nearly ad-hoc basis. It's not a giant hiring machine, it's just people who need people to fill a position for their team of 20-200.
posted by hippybear at 4:43 PM on October 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
Most employment in the US is done of a very local nearly ad-hoc basis. It's not a giant hiring machine, it's just people who need people to fill a position for their team of 20-200.
posted by hippybear at 4:43 PM on October 5, 2020 [6 favorites]
The real solution: make ALL work "dignified work" - and give all people dignified lives, regardless of whether they can or do work in paid employment.
Hey, I'm up for the revolution if you are.
posted by Saxon Kane at 7:33 PM on October 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Hey, I'm up for the revolution if you are.
posted by Saxon Kane at 7:33 PM on October 5, 2020 [1 favorite]
Saxon Kane: I'm more of a sit-in person, but yes, let's get a UBI already.
posted by jb at 7:36 PM on October 5, 2020
posted by jb at 7:36 PM on October 5, 2020
« Older Another Dark Side of the Moon | Essential biscuits Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by PhineasGage at 8:15 AM on October 4, 2020 [3 favorites]