[dragonwriter]

College has two distinct but related functions: education and certification. While related, these things are sometimes in tension.

Most things related to grading support the certification function, not the education function.

[crawfordcomeaux]

Certification isn't a necessity in the face of accepting uncertainty. Once we accept the lack of certainty around hiring people, we can start coming up with solutions to overcome certification.

The companies experimenting on such things are more likely to be able to adapt to a climate where certification is becoming meaningless.

Hopefully, more companies will realize certification designed for the industrial age has run its course and academia will no longer be incentivized to continue gatekeeping via certification and will get back to focusing on education.

[dragonwriter]

> Certification isn't a necessity in the face of accepting uncertainty

Sure, but since real people that are actually hiring are quite Keen to limit uncertsinty, that's not particularly germane to the real context in which colleges or students operate. If it were, non-certifying MOOCs and certifying college courses would have more similar costs.

> Once we accept the lack of certainty around hiring people,

Most hiring parties accept a lot of uncertainty around hiring people, and that is reflected in pay which is discounted for that risk.

Both hiring parties and quality employees (who can thus command higher pay) want to reduce that uncertainty, not increase it.

> and academia will no longer be incentivized to continue gatekeeping via certification and will get back to focusing on education.

Higher education started out much like trade guilds for scholars; there is precious little “education without gatekeeping” for it to return to (and it well predates the industrial age.)

Outside of universities, education without certification never went away. There are plenty of places to get that.

[crawfordcomeaux]

I'm wondering if removing money from all the equations makes the risk moot. If I have to choose one person to hire because of limited funds/resources, that introduces a selection problem. Removing the design constraints that lead to needing to choose one person can allow us to push tasks to a decentralized group of volunteers. Without money in the game, the market can be a collaborative one, as opposed to competitive. Then we're all working for the betterment of mankind.

This may be Star Trekonomics 101...dunno. I do know it starts with an organization willing to give it a try and put themselves out there to be the most sustainable with as little money required as possible. Over the second company joins them, it's only a matter of time before they (or someone inspired by then) publicly starts trouncing the rest of the market by reducing the flow of cash into the industry while focusing fully on meeting the needs of their customers. Customers will flock to them, collectively giving the org whatever is needed to include more people in a sustainable manner. Once that starts happening, others in the industry will likely follow and the industry will likely start heavily divesting of cash.

I patiently wait for it to happen in academia.