Henley writes: "Kamala Harris win[s] accolades for putting forward a proposal to remove unnecessary degree requirement for federal jobs. 'Requiring a certain degree does not necessarily talk about one’s skills,' Harris has said. And she's right."
Yet another policy proposal Harris "borrowed" from Trump. (As Musa al-Gharbi acknowledges.)
Trump Signs Executive Order to Overhaul the Federal Hiring Process
Order seeks to place less emphasis on applicants with college degrees.
JUNE 26, 2020
"President Trump on Friday signed an executive order to overhaul requirements federal agencies use when evaluating job candidates, seeking to downplay the importance of college degrees."
The best journalists and writers of earlier eras started work EARLY as a printers devil. It makes sense. Starting real experience at 14 provides a 10-year head start over the college grad who wastes those 10 years memorizing useless and mostly wrong "facts".
I concur that one need not have a degree to ask pertinent question… that said, some command of the spoken and written language is demanded to be considered a legitimate inquirer. The ability to frame a question in an understandable and cogent manner is a requirement!
After having been given answers, one must then put them to paper (screen) in a manner acceptable to one’s audience - I would hope that the scrivenings demonstrate a command of grammar, spelling and structure that is appropriate.
The author, to have any hope of being recognized as a serious writer, should have an active vocabulary appropriate to the topic under discussion. Implicit to me is that the writer should be well read, not only in the specific material under discussion, but the history of the interviewee and current circumstances around the subject.
None of the above require a formal scholastic degree but does demand considerable exposure in some manner to the topics discussed.
A formal degree doesn’t indicate competence, only that the individual had exposure to theoretically higher levels of knowledge and might actually know something.
I regret having to point out that even high school diplomas are no assurance that one is able to read, write and cipher! Parenthetically, I believe this fact is truly a tragedy - but that is another discussion.
Degree journalism was policed by the HR Stasi at mainstream media. And the Stasi were empowered by Gutenberg when printing was the necessary distributor of journalism. Not so any more...as attested by the popularity of Tara, The Line, The Hub et al. The internet is the distributor and is better at it than paper boys.
This constant self-analysis of "How in the hell did we bugger this up so badly" is largely a waste of time...if it includes centralized concentration and distribution of news. There can be little meaningful argument on this.
I'm of the opinion that "customized news" is, in some internet form, the future of/for journalists. I already subscribe to the above multiple, competing views. Substack might evolve; X might be a component...but the publice will pay for what they want and "pick and choose" options in a simple and economical format will be the answer.
The challenge now is to organize the flexibilities of the internet megaphone. That awaits, perhaps, the rejuvenation of the "co-op".
On one hand, for those who only want to read the people they agree with it would be wonderful as they won't ever have to have their bias challenged.
On the other hand, for those who are curious about the world, being able to have smorgasbord of news to follow, with different perspectives and experiences opens up a whole new world.
"Those who only want to read the people they agree with"...are already doing it. The "Never Trumpers" will avoid Fox like the plague, gleefully slupring up CNN as a well balanced diet. Ditto, "Always Trumpers", Carlson and raw meat.
“They don’t need a degree, period. It’s a mentality. You need a brain, a spine — and a relentless curiosity. Find better people who don’t care about how many Twitter followers they have or whether their report might piss someone off.”
All true, but missing the point in the same way that this whole argument does. As long as your large media organizations are owned by large corporate interests, it's not Main Stream Media, it's Corporate Media, and it's there to serve the corporations not the public interest. And the people they hire, credentialed or not, will definitely be the people who *do* care about how many Twitter followers they have or whether their report might piss someone off.
The problem is not the employees, but the employers, and nothing in this discussion addresses that reality.
"Unwarranted credentialism" is the term I first heard used about 40 years ago when my (then) regional government employer introduced master's degree requirements for positions that did not need them. I worked as a policy analyst/advisor in government for about 50 years; a well-rounded degree/training in problem identification, research, analysis, options/solution identification, public consultation, critical thinking, etc. was and is essential to doing the job. At no time did this ever "require" advanced degrees. It requires a leaning toward big picture thinking, intense curiosity, capacity for fact checking and historical analysis of legislation/regulation/demographics/cultural shifts. Level of education in my case tended to demonstrate a leaning toward analysis and population-based public policy problem solving (wow!). Most trades people are happy to leave that stuff to wonks like me. Not that they couldn't do it if they really wanted to; just that they aren't interested. We work well together because people in other walks of life educate me on policy direction. BTW, I never finished my final master's thesis - marriage failed, baby to look after, found a job before they changed the rules.
I have long wanted to bring back apprenticeships in almost every field. I cannot tell you how many young people I encounter, who have MA's and are clueless. Young men, off to a prestigious school in England to learn about Alternative Energy, but have never looked at a windmill, let alone installed a Solar Panel. But somehow these clueless individuals with lots of education are going to be the ones deciding our energy policies..... We would be so much better of if they had to spend several years working at the front line, before they were accepted to get their masters, let along a PHD.
'By relaxing gatekeeping, we show that we care more about the health of our media, and by extension our democracy, than we do about maintaining our own competitive advantage.'
Humans are driven by the rush of power. The basis of power in our bureaucracy is university education. It creates exclusion, the purpose of which is to push yourself up while you push others down. To be different. To be special. To be powerful and feel the rush. Incentives drive all humanity. Your proposal drives against the incentives. It's a pipe dream.
Henley writes: "Kamala Harris win[s] accolades for putting forward a proposal to remove unnecessary degree requirement for federal jobs. 'Requiring a certain degree does not necessarily talk about one’s skills,' Harris has said. And she's right."
Yet another policy proposal Harris "borrowed" from Trump. (As Musa al-Gharbi acknowledges.)
Trump Signs Executive Order to Overhaul the Federal Hiring Process
Order seeks to place less emphasis on applicants with college degrees.
JUNE 26, 2020
"President Trump on Friday signed an executive order to overhaul requirements federal agencies use when evaluating job candidates, seeking to downplay the importance of college degrees."
full story: https://shorturl.at/E0oZh
The best journalists and writers of earlier eras started work EARLY as a printers devil. It makes sense. Starting real experience at 14 provides a 10-year head start over the college grad who wastes those 10 years memorizing useless and mostly wrong "facts".
I concur that one need not have a degree to ask pertinent question… that said, some command of the spoken and written language is demanded to be considered a legitimate inquirer. The ability to frame a question in an understandable and cogent manner is a requirement!
After having been given answers, one must then put them to paper (screen) in a manner acceptable to one’s audience - I would hope that the scrivenings demonstrate a command of grammar, spelling and structure that is appropriate.
The author, to have any hope of being recognized as a serious writer, should have an active vocabulary appropriate to the topic under discussion. Implicit to me is that the writer should be well read, not only in the specific material under discussion, but the history of the interviewee and current circumstances around the subject.
None of the above require a formal scholastic degree but does demand considerable exposure in some manner to the topics discussed.
A formal degree doesn’t indicate competence, only that the individual had exposure to theoretically higher levels of knowledge and might actually know something.
I regret having to point out that even high school diplomas are no assurance that one is able to read, write and cipher! Parenthetically, I believe this fact is truly a tragedy - but that is another discussion.
Degree journalism was policed by the HR Stasi at mainstream media. And the Stasi were empowered by Gutenberg when printing was the necessary distributor of journalism. Not so any more...as attested by the popularity of Tara, The Line, The Hub et al. The internet is the distributor and is better at it than paper boys.
This constant self-analysis of "How in the hell did we bugger this up so badly" is largely a waste of time...if it includes centralized concentration and distribution of news. There can be little meaningful argument on this.
I'm of the opinion that "customized news" is, in some internet form, the future of/for journalists. I already subscribe to the above multiple, competing views. Substack might evolve; X might be a component...but the publice will pay for what they want and "pick and choose" options in a simple and economical format will be the answer.
The challenge now is to organize the flexibilities of the internet megaphone. That awaits, perhaps, the rejuvenation of the "co-op".
Customized news is a two edged sword.
On one hand, for those who only want to read the people they agree with it would be wonderful as they won't ever have to have their bias challenged.
On the other hand, for those who are curious about the world, being able to have smorgasbord of news to follow, with different perspectives and experiences opens up a whole new world.
"Those who only want to read the people they agree with"...are already doing it. The "Never Trumpers" will avoid Fox like the plague, gleefully slupring up CNN as a well balanced diet. Ditto, "Always Trumpers", Carlson and raw meat.
“They don’t need a degree, period. It’s a mentality. You need a brain, a spine — and a relentless curiosity. Find better people who don’t care about how many Twitter followers they have or whether their report might piss someone off.”
All true, but missing the point in the same way that this whole argument does. As long as your large media organizations are owned by large corporate interests, it's not Main Stream Media, it's Corporate Media, and it's there to serve the corporations not the public interest. And the people they hire, credentialed or not, will definitely be the people who *do* care about how many Twitter followers they have or whether their report might piss someone off.
The problem is not the employees, but the employers, and nothing in this discussion addresses that reality.
"Unwarranted credentialism" is the term I first heard used about 40 years ago when my (then) regional government employer introduced master's degree requirements for positions that did not need them. I worked as a policy analyst/advisor in government for about 50 years; a well-rounded degree/training in problem identification, research, analysis, options/solution identification, public consultation, critical thinking, etc. was and is essential to doing the job. At no time did this ever "require" advanced degrees. It requires a leaning toward big picture thinking, intense curiosity, capacity for fact checking and historical analysis of legislation/regulation/demographics/cultural shifts. Level of education in my case tended to demonstrate a leaning toward analysis and population-based public policy problem solving (wow!). Most trades people are happy to leave that stuff to wonks like me. Not that they couldn't do it if they really wanted to; just that they aren't interested. We work well together because people in other walks of life educate me on policy direction. BTW, I never finished my final master's thesis - marriage failed, baby to look after, found a job before they changed the rules.
I have long wanted to bring back apprenticeships in almost every field. I cannot tell you how many young people I encounter, who have MA's and are clueless. Young men, off to a prestigious school in England to learn about Alternative Energy, but have never looked at a windmill, let alone installed a Solar Panel. But somehow these clueless individuals with lots of education are going to be the ones deciding our energy policies..... We would be so much better of if they had to spend several years working at the front line, before they were accepted to get their masters, let along a PHD.
'By relaxing gatekeeping, we show that we care more about the health of our media, and by extension our democracy, than we do about maintaining our own competitive advantage.'
Humans are driven by the rush of power. The basis of power in our bureaucracy is university education. It creates exclusion, the purpose of which is to push yourself up while you push others down. To be different. To be special. To be powerful and feel the rush. Incentives drive all humanity. Your proposal drives against the incentives. It's a pipe dream.
A separate comment on your "Trust spiral". Outstanding!