How to end credentialism

post by Yair Halberstadt (yair-halberstadt) · 2025-04-20T18:50:05.920Z · LW · GW · 5 comments

Contents

  The fine print
  Impacts
  Concerns
None
6 comments

The current University System is bad. Very bad. Half of young adults spend 3 to 4 years learning nothing of particular value so that they can get a piece of paper that gives them a leg up when applying for a job. They can't stop, because then somebody else will be first in line for an interview, and their CV will be tossed in the trash. In fact to make sure they have the best chance of getting a job, they might consider wasting another 5 years on a PhD! There's a shortage of Doctors, but in the US Doctors need to spend 4 years studying a random undergrad degree so that they can then spend another 4 years actually learning how to treat people.

We need to change things. But how?

The gist of my proposal is simple: every institution that offers credentials must allow anyone to receive the same credential by taking the same assessments as students at the institution would take, at cost price plus some reasonable profit. If I want a Bachelors from MIT all I need to do is turn up to the exams and hand in some coursework, and there's nothing they can do about it.

The fine print

Universities get most of their money from students, so they will have strong incentives to cheat. As such the law forcing this change must be written in such a way as to minimise the viability of this strategy.

I've written an initial draft of some rules that attempt to tackle this. There's no need to wade through this if you don't want to, but I would appreciate it that if you intend to comment with a reason why this wouldn't work, you skim through this to see if it's already addressed.

Regulations governing granting of credentials.^[1]

1. Definitions and Student Acceptance:
   a. Internal Student: An individual to whom the institution provides tutoring, instruction, or other educational resources intended to facilitate preparation for the credential’s assessments, irrespective of the student’s physical location or mode of study.
   b. External Student: An individual seeking to obtain a credential solely by completing the required assessments, without receiving tutoring, instruction, or other educational resources from the institution specifically for said credential, beyond publicly available assessment information.
   c. Selection and Acceptance: Institutions may establish their own criteria for selecting Internal Students, subject to applicable laws and regulations. Institutions may not deny access to assessments for any External Student who meets the basic registration requirements, except as specified in Section 17.a concerning resource limitations.
   d. Assessment-Only Provider: An institution that, for one or more specific credentials, facilitates credential attainment exclusively through assessments as defined herein, without providing the tutoring, instruction, or other educational resources characteristic of an Internal Student relationship for said credential(s).
2. Application to Assessment-Only Providers: These regulations shall apply mutatis mutandis (with the necessary changes) to Assessment-Only Providers. However, specific provisions predicated on the existence of Internal Students for a given credential, or requiring direct comparison between Internal and External Student conditions, shall be considered inapplicable to that provider for that credential. This includes, but is not limited to, aspects of Section 7 (regarding equitable treatment relative to internal students), Section 10 (Cost Cap relative to internal tuition), and Section 18 (requiring outcome reporting disaggregated by internal/external status).
3. Accessibility of Credentials: Institutions offering credentials under this framework shall make such credentials accessible to any individual who successfully completes the required assessments, subject to the definitions and acceptance rules in Section 1 and the applicability rules in Section 2.
4. Confidentiality of Student Status: Institutions operating under this framework are prohibited from disclosing or confirming to third parties whether an individual obtained a credential as an Internal Student or an External Student.
5. Voluntary Compliance and Consequences of Non-Participation: Participation in this regulatory framework is voluntary. However, any institution electing not to adhere to these regulations in their entirety shall be prohibited from responding to any inquiry concerning, or otherwise confirming, an individual’s attendance at the institution or the conferral of any credential purportedly issued by said institution.^[2]
6. Scope of Assessments: Assessments may encompass, but are not limited to, written examinations, coursework, practical evaluations, and in-person examinations.
7. Equitable Assessment and Grading:
   a. The content and grading standards of assessments shall be identical for Internal Students and External Students.
   b. Institutions shall implement blind grading procedures wherever feasible to mitigate bias, particularly where both Internal and External students undertake the same assessment.
   c. Grading timelines shall be equivalent for Internal Students and External Students; preferential expedited grading for Internal Students is prohibited.
8. Assessment Fees:
   a. Assessments shall be offered at a price not exceeding the calculated cost plus a reasonable profit margin.^[3]
   b. Cost calculations shall be based on verifiable methodologies and must be made publicly accessible.
9. Cost Minimization and Accessibility:
   a. Institutions shall undertake reasonable measures to minimize their operational costs related to assessments and the ancillary costs incurred by students.
   b. To mitigate inflated invigilation charges and reduce student travel burdens, written examinations shall, where practicable, be conducted at publicly administered examination centers adhering to standardized fee structures.
10. Cap on Total Assessment Costs: The total cumulative cost for an External Student to obtain a credential solely through assessments shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the standard tuition fees charged to an Internal Student enrolled in the full corresponding course of study.^[4]
11. Assessment Scheduling:
    a. Institutions shall structure assessment schedules such that it is feasible for a student to complete all assessments required for a specific credential within a single academic year, defined as commencing August 1st.^[5]
    b. Should unavoidable scheduling conflicts preclude completion within the designated timeframe, the institution must provide alternative assessment opportunities. The institution may levy an additional fee for such arrangements, not exceeding double the standard fee for the affected assessment(s).
12. Assessment Time Commitment:
    a. The cumulative time mandated for participation in invigilated or time-bound assessments shall not exceed four (4) weeks per standard academic year attributed to the credential’s typical duration for Internal Students, calculated based on an eight (8) hour day, four (4) days per week.[6]^[6]
    b. This limitation expressly excludes assessments, such as coursework, completed at the student’s own pace and timing.
13. Mandatory Public Disclosure via Government Portal: Institutions adhering to these regulations shall freely provide and maintain the following information on a designated, government-hosted website:
    a. A comprehensive list of all credentials offered by the institution under this framework.
    b. Precise and exhaustive requirements for the conferral of each credential.
    c. For every assessment contributing to a credential:
    i. A detailed description of the assessment format and a high-level overview of the grading methodology.
    ii. A representative example of the assessment instrument and a corresponding example of a concise response meeting the highest standard (e.g., sample examination paper with model answers, video/transcript of an oral examination).
    iii. A detailed syllabus outlining all topics covered, including the required depth of knowledge (e.g., specifying “group theory: basic definitions and results, Sylow Theorems, Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem” rather than merely “group theory”). It cannot cover material that is both not taught internally (where applicable) and will not be assessed.
    iv. A list of all publicly accessible learning resources utilized by Internal Students (where applicable) (e.g., textbooks).
    v. Where assessments cover material not readily available through public channels, direct links to, or provision of, said material presented in a manner sufficient for a capable student to comprehend with reasonable effort.
    vi. All materials concerning assessments provided to Internal Students (where applicable) (e.g., past papers, marking rubrics, explicit guidance on examination content - including verbal guidance).
14. Information and Registration Availability Deadline: All information pertaining to a specific assessment, as detailed in Section 13.c, and the functional capability for students to register (sign up) for that assessment, must be publicly available via the designated government portal no later than one (1) calendar year prior to the scheduled date of the assessment.
15. Online Assessment Management Tools: The aforementioned government-hosted website shall incorporate functionalities allowing students to register for assessments (subject to the deadline in Section 14), receive notification of results, and track their progress towards credential attainment.
16. Notification of Changes: Institutions shall provide a minimum notice period of one (1) full academic year prior to implementing significant modifications to credential requirements or assessment structures, except in documented circumstances of exigent need.
17. Exceptions for Resource-Intensive Assessments:
    a. For assessments necessitating scarce or high-cost resources (e.g., advanced laboratory facilities, human cadavers), institutions may, for an initial period of ten (10) years, limit the enrollment of External Students (where applicable) to ten percent (10%) above the capacity allocated for Internal Students (where applicable). This permissible limit shall increase by five percent (5%) annually thereafter. Acceptance of External Students under this limitation shall be granted on a first-come, first-served basis according to registration time. For Assessment-Only Providers, limits may be based on absolute resource capacity, subject to justification and oversight.
    b. Institutions operating under this provision are mandated to actively develop and implement strategies to alleviate these resource constraints within the specified ten-year timeframe (e.g. facility expansion, year-round scheduling, assessment modality modification).
18. Reporting of Assessment Outcomes: All institutions subject to these regulations shall publicly report the precise distribution of marks and grades achieved in assessments. Where both Internal and External students exist for a credential, this reporting shall be disaggregated for these groups.
19. Appeals Process:
    a. All students undertaking assessments under this framework possess the right to appeal assessment results to a designated governmental oversight body.
    b. Said body retains discretion regarding the investigation of individual appeals but shall initiate a formal investigation upon observing an anomalous volume of appeals or statistically suspect distributions of marks/grades pertaining to an institution or specific assessment.
    c. Institutions subject to investigation must fully cooperate and provide all requested materials related to the assessment(s) in question (including, but not limited to, examination papers, marking schemes, grading records). Failure to comply may constitute grounds for inferring malpractice.

 

Impacts

The impact that I'm most interested in, is that smart, driven kids are likely to realise they can save significant time and money by taking a degree externally instead of internally. I could even imagine it becoming a thing among the current high performers who all aim to get perfect GPAs, to instead finish their degree by the time they finish school.

(Similarly it removes the incentives that lead to the current rat race where teenagers need to rack up as many achievements as possible by the time they're 18 so that they'll get accepted to Harvard or MIT.)

When employers realise that's happening, an external degree is likely to be seen as a positive sign, implying that the candidate is capable and driven enough to pass the exams without requiring tutoring.^[7]

The short term impact on universities will be varied:

1. There'll be a lot of interest in credentials from the most elite universities. Desperate to protect their shine they'll both try to tighten up their assessment standards (good), and rule hack their way into making it as unfair as possible for external students (bad). Expect a few lawsuits before this settles somewhere stable.
2. Nobody is much interested in external degrees from the hundreds of average universities, so except for a handful of applicants each year they pretty much carry on as normal. Compliance is a burden, but they don't put in too much effort and the number of external applicants is low enough that they don't get sued over it.
3. A small number of average universities realise there's low hanging fruit here and gain a name for themselves as providing fair, achievable-but-rigorous assessments at reasonable prices. Most "normies" who want an external degree go for one of these. They also likely charge extra for online courses and material students can study in their own time. These universities cover a wide range of standards and some even try to challenge the elite universities, with limited success.
4. At the bottom end some universities gain a name for themselves as places that will give you a degree in whatever you want if you pay them and can spell your own name. Recruiters know to ignore them for the most part, but they allow you to tick the box of "have a degree" in some cases (or until the university gets added to the blacklist).

Meanwhile schools will pop up which teach students how to pass exams from other institutions, especially the prestigious universities and those that target large numbers of external students. These will attempt to compete on cost, speed, pass rate and experience.^[8]

Over the long term average universities will realise that they are spending a lot of effort complying with these regulation and setting exams, while there's institutions that have a name for themselves as providing high quality credentials specifically geared towards external students. They will consider teaching their students the curriculum for these institutions instead of setting their own exams. Over time, I expect that we'd have an increasing separation between institutions that provide credentials but no teaching, and those that teach but do not provide credentials, much like A levels and GCSEs in the UK today^[9]. This helps solve the problem where recruiters don't know which degrees are worth anything, since the market will consolidate around a small number of institutions who have a reputation to maintain.

Concerns

This entire proposal is predicated on the assumption that the most important thing that universities provide to employers is the ability to confirm you are clever, driven, and have relevant skills, and that exams are a sufficient way to test that.

I think this is probably true for software engineers, and consultants. However it's arguably false for medical professionals - a nurse who's read every textbook and can ace every exam is likely to be useless if they've never drawn blood before . Of course we could test that in an exam, but these regulations actually push away from such tests since they are harder to scale (you need to find suitable victims who are willing to have blood drawn in an exam).

I'm not sure where I stand on this, but as ever I think "Do not let perfect be the enemy of good". Making these changes will be hugely valuable even if we carve out doctors and a few other professions.

1. ^{^}

   These were all written by me, then reworded by an LLM, and checked over again by me.

2. ^{^}

   This means a swimming school could continue to grant certificates to students who successfully swim 100 metres, because they do not much care if somebody falsely claims to have such a certificate from them. For MIT, someone falsely claiming they have a BSc is a much more serious problem.

3. ^{^}

   To prevent institutions splitting up a credential into hundreds of tiny exams and thus gain greater profits, a reasonable way to limit the profit margin is to say that total profit for all assessments take by an public assessee for a credential which would usually take X years when studied in house must not exceed X thousand dollars (rounded up).

4. ^{^}

   This limits total monkey patching institutions can do to drive up costs.

5. ^{^}

   This is to prevent institutions deliberately arranging exams so assessees are forced to spend the full 3 years gaining the credential, reducing the value of not studying in house.

6. ^{^}

   This is to prevent institutions making an exam that lasts one year but includes lectures, or something similar.

7. ^{^}

   If I turn out to be wrong and recruiters still favour internal degrees for whatever reason, we could make the type of credential (internal vs external) a protected characteristic they can't ask about (although they could still probably guess by asking questions like what were you doing last year).

8. ^{^}

   If we follow the same principles as in regulation 5, they can choose to select who they teach, but cannot answer queries about whether anyone was taught there.

9. ^{^}

   In the UK AQA, OCR and Edexcel all set their own curriculum and exams for GCSE/A-level subjects, and schools choose which ones they want to use for each subject.

5 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.