Now that hiring is solely based on “merit”, it is useful to ask what, exactly, signifies “merit”. In a lot of cases that is otherwise described as nepotism, social class, or presentation. Proof that one is a member of the existing tribe. But let’s pretend “merit” means how well one can do the job required.
Throughout history, the main measure – outside of actual performance once hired – has been experience. What someone has done and how well they have done it is almost always the main traditional criteria of “merit”, even if the skill is simply being flexible enough to learn new skills, or showing up on time. The normal route for all that until very recently was apprenticeship .
Today, increasingly specialized experience can be hard to come by, so learning with eventual “certification” became common. It worked a little. But most trades and professions want to be in a guild – which turned out to be well served by erecting barriers to entry involving more and more numerous and baroque certificates.
Certification often fails miserably in telling how meritorious a job candidate is, but it certainly thins down the stream of job seekers. And it’s self-serving since the last employee in wants new applicants to “at least go through what they did” .
The only folks who love all this are the lawyers. And the teachers. For the most part, newbies entering good professions are now facing that tried and true nepotism, social class, and presentation – plastered over with certification .
HuntingtonHarborThoughts 