Microcredentialing and the Future of Higher Ed
By: Shane J. Ralston
Tags: University, Higher Education, Corruption, Technology Trends, Innovation

Microcredentialing and the Future of Higher Ed

In the higher education space, microcredentialing has taken on a life of its own. Increasingly, college and university curricula have come to include short online, skill- and competency-based courses tailored to industry and corporate clients.

Why? These courses exploit new sources of student enrolment and tuition revenue, as well as create bridges and exciting partnerships with third-party vendors. Similar to the erstwhile hype over MOOCs, the growth of microcredentialing might even be called a ‘craze’.

The Neoliberal learning economy

Microcredentialing is an outgrowth of the neoliberal learning economy. In this economy, education resembles a commodity, a product, or service marketed and sold like any other commodity.

Educational institutions adapt to competitive market pressures by behaving like profit-seeking firms. Not only do they conceive education as a commodity, they also treat students and their employers as paying clients.

Neoliberalism effectively extends the logic of capitalism into all areas of educational administration.

Advent of the microcredential

In the neoliberal learning economy, support for microcredentialing is particularly strong among higher education executives, administrators, and financial/tech-oriented staff who appreciate its value as an innovative profit center.

As early as 2015, microcredentialing advocates had already announced that they were ‘in the midst of’ a craze:

"We’re in the midst of a credentials craze. As part of a growing movement to document students’ skills and better prepare them for the workplace, an array of MOOCs [Massive Open Online Courses], private companies, industry groups, and colleges themselves are offering new types of credentials. The result is a proliferation of badges, certificates, microdegrees, and other types of credentials. Students might earn them for multiple skills covered in a single academic course, or they might bypass academe and learn those skills through a for-profit company like Lynda.com." (Mooney 2015)

Microcredentialing clients range from small start-ups to mid-sized companies to large corporations, and of course their employees. Courses in, for example, 3D printing, robotics, data analytics, employee recruitment, and supply chain management can be tailored to specific industries, employers, and even particular employees in order to close specific skills gaps (Carey 2015).

Third-party vendors of microcredentialing platforms have proliferated, though many are a legacy of the MOOC boom and bust.

As more businesses enter the higher education microcredentialing marketplace, a so-called 'revolving door' has emerged between the online divisions of higher education institutions and third-party vendors. For instance, the Chancellor of Purdue Global recently left to join Coursera (Seltzer 2020). Similar to the same between government and industry, revolving doors create perverse incentives for actors crossing between higher ed institutions and third-party vendors to engage in corrupt activities and insider dealing.

Microcredentials versus degrees

Even when delivered by higher education institutions, microcredentials are different than degrees. They typically encompass a limited series of modules or project-based units and cultivate a narrow range of skills or competencies. Microcredentials are sometimes aggregated, grouped, or ‘stacked,’ offering learners added flexibility, so that they can build their microcredentials into larger, more recognizable credentials (e.g. robotics and machine learning microcredentials could be stackable into an AI credential). According to two commentators, ‘[t]he more credentials learners accumulate and stack, the more they increase their currency in our knowledge economy, creating more direct pathways to better jobs and higher wages’ (Williamson and Pittinksy 2016). Unlike a degree program, microcredentials typically lack a general education component, prioritizing instead the teaching of applied knowledge or vocational training for the sake of meeting employers’ workforce needs (Craig 2015).

In industry, microcredentialing has become the preferred option for line managers and human resources professionals seeking to promote workforce development, whereas in a higher education, the landscape is still dominated by degree programs. For busy professionals, microcredentials offer several advantages over the four- or two-year university diploma: (1) reduced number of courses; (2) compressed time to completion; (3) greater affordability; (4) more relevance to the learner’s career; and (5) more flexibility of learning options (Moroder 2014).

Employers also recognize the value of microcredentialing. Research shows that lifelong learning and continuous workforce development boost employee morale, productivity, and retention (McLaren 2016; LinkedIn Learning 2018). Since microcredentials are short, skills-, and competency-based courses with more targeted curricula than a four or two-year degree program, they promise firms a quicker return on their investment in employee learning and development (D’Orio 2019).

However, microcredentials, unlike university degrees and certificates, are rarely accredited. The accreditation process for new degrees and majors can take multiple years, depending on the accrediting body, accreditation standards, and the rigor of the accreditation process. While the lack of regional accreditation could be viewed as a disadvantage, it is actually a benefit to many industries with urgent workforce development needs (Williamson and Pittinksy 2016).

Education and innovation

In the past, the pace of educational innovation has tended to lag behind the pace of technological innovation. However, technological and labor market trends require increased speed and agility to meet learning and development needs. Strongly market-driven firms (e.g., high-tech and finance) must retrain their workforces to keep up with changing technology within a period of months, not years (D’Orio 2019). For these businesses, the speed of technological and market change dictates the need for quick and targeted microcredentialing. Waiting for the determination of an accrediting body is not an option.

In some ways, universities and colleges have come to resemble shopping malls after the widespread adoption of microcredentialing programs.

Microcredentialing converts colleges and universities from degree-centric, two-level (undergraduate and graduate) institutions, preparing young adults for a lifetime of self-directed learning, to supply chain providers of education certifications (professional, continuing, and online), providing learning and training opportunities throughout an individual’s entire life. Since industry-specific skills and competencies are always at risk of expiry-whether due to market- or technology-related pressures, including the automation of jobs-employees must constantly return to microcredential purveyors, paying to renew and update their skill sets (Cerf et al. 2019).

The future of higher ed

Microcredentials must be renewed and updated to reflect changing technologies and related skills or competences. Thus they potentially represent never-ending revenue streams for colleges and universities. So, the business model for microcredentialing is an architecture of planned obsolescence combined with the perpetual return of employers and workers to commodified e-learning.

How will the widespread adoption of microcredentialing programs impact traditional degree programs? Will universities and colleges that invest heavily in microcredentials come to resemble vocational schools more than sites of higher learning and research? Can the higher education space accommodate microcredentials without ultimately selling its soul?