The Problem with “Alternative” Credentials
Names are powerful. And the power to choose names comes with responsibility.
From micro-credentials to new certificate programs, we are witnessing expansive growth in formal learning and credentialing opportunities. As they proliferate, we understandably need shared language in order that we may establish shared meaning and understanding.
One of the most prevalent terms emerging is Alternative Credentials. This is problematic.
We do not describe these programs as:
- being taught by alternative faculty
- being led by alternative deans, or
- being payed for using financial alternatives
Why not?
We likely avoid these labels because we wouldn’t feel comfortable with them. So why don’t we feel similar unease with how we label the credentials?
How we got here
While these offerings vary widely in what they fundamentally are, a single characteristic unites them in defining what they are not: non-degree earning.
It makes sense that juxtaposing these new credential things with legacy credentials things would lead us to Alternative Credentials; they are credentials but they represent a different genre than the familiar credentials.
Alternative Credentials may be a convenient descriptor for getting people on the same page, and it may be accurate in succinctly conveying important meaning. And it surely is being adopted by smart and talented professionals with sincere intention to positively impact learning, recognition, and access to opportunities for all learners.
This does not bode well for the value of alternative credentials.
And, we can do better. Despite being seemingly innocuous, Alternative Credentials is at best problematic because of its potentially harmful effect on both the value of the credentials and the impact on the learners/earners.
What’s the big deal?
The adjective “alternative” is inherently othering. It implies that there is a normal state of the thing (in this case, credentials), and situates this version of the thing as something that is other than the normal thing.
This othering can cast a degree of judgement, and that judgement can impact the value proposition in the eyes of some stakeholders.
Consider, for example, the role “alternative” plays in modifying alternative medicine, alternative high school, and alternative lifestyle. For many people, it triggers adverse reactions that may range from negative connotations to a less judgy but nonetheless dismissive, “I have nothing against it for other people, but it’s not for me personally.”
Despite being seemingly innocuous, ‘Alternative Credentials’ is at best problematic because of it’s potentially harmful effect on both the value of the credentials and the impact on the learners/earners.
This does not bode well for the value of alternative credentials. If a significant number of hiring managers, admissions officers, and other consumers of these non-degree credentials succumb to similar reactions, then our ill-considered naming convention has done a disservice (if not outright harm) to the very considered credentials we have designed.
The impact on our learners/earners
Learning providers have a responsibility to our learners. Ultimately, our credentials are designed, offered, and issued in service of our learners. And understanding who learners are, what they need, and their historical relationships with educational systems are essential steps in adequately and appropriately fulfilling our service.
Designing credentialing programs that serve middle-class 18–22 year olds may align with perceptions of so-called normal learner populations, but we now know that this demographic represents a small fraction of the post-secondary learner constituency. These learners are a definitive minority.
Our lack of intentionality may squander opportunities to shape a more just world in favor of perpetuating historical inequities and experiences.
According to the Education Design Lab, “Based on today’s enrollment numbers, and certainly population trends, the once thought “nontraditional” student is the new majority of learners today.”
The Lab offers a detailed and nuanced description of these New Majority Learners. These learners are represented through socioeconomic and social conditions, race, age, ability, life experiences and other considerations. They are people who have been historically underserved and disenfranchised by educational systems that were neither designed for their needs, nor with their participation.
And this is where we find the most profound harm with the Alternative Credentials naming convention: The New Majority Learners are coming to us because they are pursuing credentials for new learning and skill-building. This is because they believe these credentials offer recognition that will open doors to opportunities that will help them access their successful futures.
How dare we describe this as “alternative”? While the adjective may convenient, it is a betrayal to many of the learners they are designed to serve.
We do not describe these programs as being taught by alternative faculty, being led by alternative deans, or being charged for using financial alternatives.
Words matter. It is a privilege to lack awareness of the impact of our words because they don’t connect to our daily lived experiences and do not impact us. As the brokers of learning opportunities and the stewards of credentials, we have a responsibility to be aware that when we exercise the privilege to choose the language that describes them, we wield the power to select language that may trivialize and devalue credentials rather than transform and uplift them.
Simply put: our lack of intentionality may squander opportunities to shape a more just world in favor of perpetuating historical inequities and experiences.
The learners we serve didn’t ask for Alternative Credentials. Perhaps before settling on a convenient label for something so important to others, we will consider our own alternatives.
Perhaps, we will ask our learners what they want their credentials to be called.
P.S. I acknowledge that offering critique of the problematic thing and not suggesting a possible solution is a bit problematic in its own right. The truth is that I don’t know what to call them and am probably not qualified to assert what they should be called anyway. I will share that Non-degree Credentials is my favorite term of those I’ve heard, though it is predicated on defining them by describing what they aren’t, which feels reductionist.
Thanks for reading. If you liked this post, please click to 👏👏👏 and recommend it to others! If you have thoughts to share about this, I hope to learn from your own response post!
In addition to following Noah Geisel here on Medium, you can find him at SenorG on Twitter. Some other posts you might like:
