THE MALET STREET GAZETTE

EST. 1998

1858-2008

University of London External Programme 150th Birthday Events

Editor

Barrister Desk

MSG Past Articles

Book Reviews

Contact MSG

Home

Earn Your University of London LL.B Degree Online with ICLS

Newspapers, television and talk radio stations are currently busy deciding what lies ahead in the twenty-first century. There are ideas centering on as many different areas as human interest allows. This topic, though, has been routinely discussed for many years in regard to education, and its direction at present. Perhaps in no other single area is there as much opportunity for real advancement and achievement for a greater number of people as in this one important area.

The chief reason for this opportunity is the current ability to obtain knowledge by utilizing various gateways, some never available until a few years ago. The internet has opened doors to education and achievement never before thought possible. It has also become a focus of concern for people wishing to guard the "status quo" of the education profession, and gatekeepers of certain professional ranks.

It is common knowledge that many municipalities are suffering from a lack of classroom instructors, as teachers vacate the classroom in search of better wages and working conditions. It was with interest that I discovered that Texas is exploring the option of solving their teacher shortage by "allowing" non-certified teachers into classrooms if they meet certain educational and experiential criteria. This initiative has been hailed by parents and community leaders alike who understand the need to have teacher vacancies filled by people who understand the subject matter, and are willing to lend their talents to meet the needs which precipitate the crisis. The initiative has been attacked roundly by those people who are in most need of relief, the classroom teachers themselves.

Listening to the arguments objectively, I note that the issues raised by the teaching establishment are similar to all arguments being made to reinforce the current systems in place in opposition to exploring innovative and effective changes which benefit the public good. In essence, the teaching establishment decries not the ability to teach substantive subject matter but focuses on the lack of "credentials" of the new teachers. Their argument is that the value of their profession lies in the courses and experience of the "process" as opposed to the mastery of the subject matter which will be taught.

As a human resources officer and team member I am keenly aware of the various methods of teaching substantive material available to job applicants today. Also, I am aware of the differing levels of acceptance of the delivery methods used to train job applicants and enrolled employees. Most organizations place a premium on recruiting and hiring new employees who have a documented degree from an "accredited" college or university. Any applicant who presents with solid subject matter knowledge obtained from a non-accredited (or external) university is relegated to second-class status or excluded from consideration entirely.

The reasons given for perpetuating this system seem to center on the mistrust of the service delivery system, and the failure to fairly evaluate the knowledge level, and competency, of the individual who will perform the job. Ironically, most new employees are then entrusted to learn job or industry specific tasks in internal training systems which utilize trainers steeped in less formal, on-the-job expertise. The new employees then gladly add their "training classes" certificates to their curriculum vitae as evidence of their continued employability and ability to succeed.

A second argument for not accepting external degrees comes in the form of acting as "consumer protection" agents. This general premise is that the degree is less credible due to the nature of its not being earned "in residence". Therefore, to protect the consumer, hiring or certifying agents are obliged to deny recognition to the individual who has earned the degree in this manner. While certainly a blanket veto would produce the effect of protection from thoroughly unqualified or untrained job or career candidates who obtained degrees externally, it would do little to protect those same consumers from untrained or unskilled practitioners who obtained degrees in the traditional method.

The most complete protection for the consumer comes from the knowledge that the practitioner has completed an educational process, and has passed a certifying examination designed by peers to evaluate competency. In the legal profession this is "the bar" examination; most other professions now have an equivalent certification examination. Passage of this examination ensures that the practitioner is competent to perform the duties of the profession.

It is estimated that one half of all training will take place on the internet, corporate intranet, or via computer-based-training (CBT) modules by the end of the decade. As we come to understand that alternate educational service delivery methods are acceptable means of training, we must also come to the realization that these methods provide an alternative to traditional education methods in all subject areas. Therefore it is incumbent that we move toward a "competency based" view of education, and away from a monolithic, traditional approach. To do otherwise, is to march backward rather than forward. Just as business models which refuse to modernize become obsolete, so do educational models.

This idea, to base employment decisions for professional applicants on competency, is not entirely a radical view. Once hired, employees are expected to advance based on their ability to perform their job functions; so should their initial employment be based on the ability to perform, not on where the degree was earned. If there are objective reasons for not qualifying for employment or the bar (poor character, financial irregularities, criminal background) these should certainly remain as criteria. However, basing similar employment (or qualifying) decisions on non-competency based criteria is simply perpetuating an outdated barrier to entry.

     The Malet Street Gazette, Inc. is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice, and no one should rely on the information contained in the Gazette. The views and posts published on this website and the Malet Street Gazette Discussion Board are not expressions of the Gazette's management or editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the Gazette's opinion. The Malet Street Gazette, Inc. accepts no responsiblity for the accuracy of any statement made herein, and all readers/visitors are advised to check the facts for themselves and not rely on statements made herein.  The authors and publishers accept no liability in relation thereto. The areas of law discussed are particularly fast-moving, and legal issues develop on a daily basis. The up-to-date position should always therefore be checked. The Malet Street Gazette is not connected nor officially sanctioned by the University of London.

Copyright©1998-2008 The Malet Street Gazette, Inc.