Prometheus 6

I approached Charles Murray's Wall Street Journal op-ed last because I always have to get away from the keyboard for a while, wash my mind out with soap, after dealing with his rather calculated rhetoric. I still struggle to understand why he's still being published.

Today he starts with this straw man.

Imagine that America had no system of post-secondary education, and you were a member of a task force assigned to create one from scratch. One of your colleagues submits this proposal:

First, we will set up a single goal to represent educational success, which will take four years to achieve no matter what is being taught. We will attach an economic reward to it that seldom has anything to do with what has been learned. We will urge large numbers of people who do not possess adequate ability to try to achieve the goal, wait until they have spent a lot of time and money, and then deny it to them. We will stigmatize everyone who doesn't meet the goal. We will call the goal a "BA."

You would conclude that your colleague was cruel, not to say insane. But that's the system we have in place.

His entire op-ed is based on the assumption that this is true. But Charles Murray has neither taught nor hired. His career has been dedicated to undermining the public good.

The point he's trying to get to is that we should eliminate BA degrees in favor of vocational training.

The model is the CPA exam that qualifies certified public accountants. The same test is used nationwide. It is thorough -- four sections, timed, totaling 14 hours. A passing score indicates authentic competence (the pass rate is below 50%). Actual scores are reported in addition to pass/fail, so that employers can assess where the applicant falls in the distribution of accounting competence. You may have learned accounting at an anonymous online university, but your CPA score gives you a way to show employers you're a stronger applicant than someone from an Ivy League school. ... Why not present graduate schools with certifications in microbiology or economics -- and who cares if the applicants passed the exam after studying in the local public library?

The mendacity is obvious. The knowledge you need to pass the CPA test is absolutely static. You CAN learn it in your local library. But what are the odds your library will have the cutting edge information you're most likely to need if you're not an aspiring accountant?

Certification tests will not get rid of the problems associated with differences in intellectual ability: People with high intellectual ability will still have an edge. Graduates of prestigious colleges will still, on average, have higher certification scores than people who have taken online courses -- just because prestigious colleges attract intellectually talented applicants.

So what's the difference?

But that's irrelevant to the larger issue. Under a certification system, four years is not required, residence is not required, expensive tuitions are not required, and a degree is not required. Equal educational opportunity means, among other things, creating a society in which it's what you know that makes the difference. Substituting certifications for degrees would be a big step in that direction.

And yet, who is going to train the folks who can't afford the prestigious colleges? I mean, we've seen one of his solutions already: sit in the library and teach yourself. But just roll past your local community college and picture the whole student body in the library at once, studying to beat the band.

Not working, is it? Mr. Murray, brilliant as he is, must have something else in mind.

But when so many of the players would benefit, a market opportunity exists.

THERE YOU GO!

Imagine if Microsoft announced it would henceforth require scores on a certain battery of certification tests from all of its programming applicants. Scores on that battery would acquire instant credibility for programming job applicants throughout the industry.

They did, long, long ago. The results were just what Mr. Murray wants to see.

Big Business

Producing MCSEs became a big business during the 1990s. It brought substantial profits to a variety of companies, and there have been strong incentives to keep cranking them out at a rapid pace -- even if it leads to some undesirable consequences.

One party that has certainly benefitted, and continues to benefit, from the existence of a huge army of MCSEs is Microsoft. This is because it is easier for Microsoft to sell its not inexpensive -- and extremely lucrative -- products, including upgrades, if there are vast numbers of specialists who are eager to install them and keep them running. Also, the fact that MCSEs are churned out in very large numbers helps keep their compensation levels down, thus reducing overall costs for users and thereby helping make Microsoft products more attractive to businesses.

MCSE certification also became a very big business for the many companies which provide classes and other types of training to help people cram for the exams. Certification classes likewise became an important source of income for revenue-strapped junior colleges. The demand to obtain MCSEs was so great, in fact, that certification boot camps, which promised to condense the time required for exam preparation into a few days, sprang up from out of nowhere. Another beneficiary was been the publishing industry, which turned out a plethora of books and other study aids (such as practice exams) to assist and encourage certification candidates.

And just what I expected (though having been around a while, I cheated by actually having seen it happen).

Value of the MCSE to the Holder

There is a diversity of opinions regarding the value of the MCSE to its holders. On the one hand, its advocates point out that this certification can help people to get started in the IT (information technology) field, as many companies made it a requirement for specific jobs. In certain cases, it can also result in a promotion and increased compensation.

On the other hand, its detractors point out that, although some employers like them, others are not as enthusiastic, particularly because of their concern about the lack of real world IT experience of the holders.

Also to be kept in mind is that attaining an MCSE can require a great deal of time and expense in order to cram for and pass all of the exams. This expense is not only for the seven required exams at U.S.$125 each, but it is also for the numerous thick cram books which can add up to many additional hundreds of dollars. Classes can add several thousand dollars more to the total cost. There is also the lengthy preparation time and the stress to consider.

Moreover, unlike some other IT certifications, the MCSE is not permanent. It expires after a few years as new versions of Microsoft products are introduced and support is discontinued for the old ones. Thus, it is necessary to take additional exams for the new product versions in order to stay certified.

Some indication of the quality of MCSE training is provided by the fact that it is generally relatively difficult for an MCSE to learn Unix or Linux, whereas it is usually much easier for a Unix or Linux expert to learn the tasks that an MCSE performs. The reason is that studying Unix or Linux teaches one more about how computers really work at a fundamental level, whereas MCSE training places more emphasis on memorizing a series of procedures that are specific to just a single family of operating systems. This disparity in skill levels is reflected in a difference in compensation: Unix specialists are generally paid significantly more than are MCSEs.

Another factor the aspiring computer professional should keep in mind is that the growth rate of demand for Microsoft specialists could slow down or even turn negative as a result of the saturation of the market for Microsoft products and the rising market share for Linux and other free software (such as MySQL in place of Microsoft's SQL Server).

You have to conclude Mr. Murray is not writing to benefit the lucky duckies seeking degrees for whatever reason. Or that he's talking out of his, er, rectal sphincter. Or both.