Professionalization is good (in many areas, at least), credentiaization is what's bad.
The hallmarks of a field that would benefit from professionalization are complexity, severe consequences in case of an error, the need for stricter-than-usual ethical standards because the people in that field are trusted with the above. There's a justification for a high bar to entry, mandated ongoing education, strict licensing requirements, etc.
Credentialization is "people who work in the same job and the same industry but who do not have the fancy degree and/or professional certification." It's you doing the same web design work as your coworker, and doing it better, but your coworker getting ahead because they have a degree you don't. It's a bar to entry without justification.
See my above comment. What you describe as professionalization has been pretty disastrous for social work as a field, even though it absolutely hits the requirements you listed.
Your above comment is insightful and is why I included the "in many areas, at least" caveat. I don't know enough about social work to have a very strong opinion on this, but from what you wrote it sounds like the problem isn't professionalization per se, but professionalization by replacing supervised, experiential learning with a more classroom- and degree-focused curriculum. If social work was professionalized but the education/training requirement looked like this:
It would be so much better to just have supervision requirements (e.g. you have to do your first X years under the supervision of somebody who has Y years of experience- we already have requirements like these for after people get their degrees, and to be clear “supervision” in this context is more like mentorship and it doesn’t have to be done with someone who actually has hiring/firing power over you).
Would the professionalization aspect still be a big problem?
Yes, because it's professionalization that turned the vast majority of social workers into therapists. It's professionalization that removed what radical elements existed in social work.
I mean, I don't want to oversell it, there were other factors that led to that. But I do think that professionalization was one of the most important factors.
I agree with you in concept, but in practice, what you've described as "credentialization" is what the rest of the world describes as "professionalization". I'm not saying people shouldn't be specialized and be experts, but we should not treat professionals as more important workers than non professionals.
in practice, what you’ve described as “credentialization” is what the rest of the world describes as “professionalization”
I think there's a real difference here that is widely recognized. I used to work as an analyst at a large corporation. Nothing in that job really required the knowledge that my undergrad degree gave me, but I wouldn't have gotten the job without a degree because, well, everyone has a degree now so they might as well hire someone who has one. That's credentialization -- you need a degree not because that degree's training is necessary to do the work, but because the field of potential employees is oversaturated with degrees.
But I went back to school and got a grad degree, and the job I do now would be difficult if not impossible without what I learned there. And if I fuck up, someone's life can be ruined. A century or more ago people used to do my job with little to no formal training or experience, but because the job is so complex and mistakes are so consequential we figured out there's real value in having some real hurdles if you want to do this type of work. That's professionalization -- you need a degree because that degree's training is actually extremely valuable for the type of work you're doing, and if you can't do the work competently there's a major risk of people getting hurt.
we should not treat professionals as more important workers than non professionals
I don't think there's a problem with saying that doctors (for instance) are more important workers than some analyst at a large corporation (for instance). The problem is more with folks who say certain workers aren't important at all, or that only people who work certain jobs deserve to live decently, or that people who work other certain jobs deserve to accumulate immense wealth.
Professionalization is good (in many areas, at least), credentiaization is what's bad.
The hallmarks of a field that would benefit from professionalization are complexity, severe consequences in case of an error, the need for stricter-than-usual ethical standards because the people in that field are trusted with the above. There's a justification for a high bar to entry, mandated ongoing education, strict licensing requirements, etc.
Credentialization is "people who work in the same job and the same industry but who do not have the fancy degree and/or professional certification." It's you doing the same web design work as your coworker, and doing it better, but your coworker getting ahead because they have a degree you don't. It's a bar to entry without justification.
See my above comment. What you describe as professionalization has been pretty disastrous for social work as a field, even though it absolutely hits the requirements you listed.
Your above comment is insightful and is why I included the "in many areas, at least" caveat. I don't know enough about social work to have a very strong opinion on this, but from what you wrote it sounds like the problem isn't professionalization per se, but professionalization by replacing supervised, experiential learning with a more classroom- and degree-focused curriculum. If social work was professionalized but the education/training requirement looked like this:
Would the professionalization aspect still be a big problem?
Yes, because it's professionalization that turned the vast majority of social workers into therapists. It's professionalization that removed what radical elements existed in social work.
I mean, I don't want to oversell it, there were other factors that led to that. But I do think that professionalization was one of the most important factors.
I agree with you in concept, but in practice, what you've described as "credentialization" is what the rest of the world describes as "professionalization". I'm not saying people shouldn't be specialized and be experts, but we should not treat professionals as more important workers than non professionals.
I think there's a real difference here that is widely recognized. I used to work as an analyst at a large corporation. Nothing in that job really required the knowledge that my undergrad degree gave me, but I wouldn't have gotten the job without a degree because, well, everyone has a degree now so they might as well hire someone who has one. That's credentialization -- you need a degree not because that degree's training is necessary to do the work, but because the field of potential employees is oversaturated with degrees.
But I went back to school and got a grad degree, and the job I do now would be difficult if not impossible without what I learned there. And if I fuck up, someone's life can be ruined. A century or more ago people used to do my job with little to no formal training or experience, but because the job is so complex and mistakes are so consequential we figured out there's real value in having some real hurdles if you want to do this type of work. That's professionalization -- you need a degree because that degree's training is actually extremely valuable for the type of work you're doing, and if you can't do the work competently there's a major risk of people getting hurt.
I don't think there's a problem with saying that doctors (for instance) are more important workers than some analyst at a large corporation (for instance). The problem is more with folks who say certain workers aren't important at all, or that only people who work certain jobs deserve to live decently, or that people who work other certain jobs deserve to accumulate immense wealth.