"One could say that, in theory, these needs and roles could be satisfied in a completely marketized society—but we have seen that they are not. Indeed, as amply documented in 2001 (following the collapse of Enron) and 2008 (following the collapse of Lehman Brothers), the avowedly marketized society does not even prevent economic disaster; we need to regulate markets firmly and fairly."
The author jumps to a conclusion fairly quickly: that free-market capitalism caused Enron and Lehman Brothers (and not perverse incentives wholly separate from free-market ideology). This isn't the place to debate that, but rather it's illustrative of a larger point about academic professionals: they spend most of their effort engaged in very deep speciality, but occasionally they come up for air and assert broad knowledge, usually about politically charged topics.
In those cases, there's a palpable anxiety based on the knowledge that they do not make as much money as their intellectual inferiors who went off to work in business, or even worse, to use their professional credentials in the service of business (as a side note, for proof of this dynamic go read university professors' blogs about Mark Zuckerberg and his billions -- in the hierarchy of "deserves their money," tech nerds rank last, because they're simultaneously capitalists and social inferiors). This must be explained, internally and then externally -- their life choices are admirable, others' are not, and something must be done so that elites in the university and in government institutions can reign in the parasites.
I agree professional certification is important for healthcare and law -- when my life or liberty is at stake, I want to be sure my chosen expert actually has expertise. But the author is arguing that some sort of quality of life and cultural recognition should be automatically granted in exchange for completing training and passing tests -- something I don't think is worth caring about too much.
The author jumps to a conclusion fairly quickly: that free-market capitalism caused Enron and Lehman Brothers (and not perverse incentives wholly separate from free-market ideology). This isn't the place to debate that, but rather it's illustrative of a larger point about academic professionals: they spend most of their effort engaged in very deep speciality, but occasionally they come up for air and assert broad knowledge, usually about politically charged topics.
In those cases, there's a palpable anxiety based on the knowledge that they do not make as much money as their intellectual inferiors who went off to work in business, or even worse, to use their professional credentials in the service of business (as a side note, for proof of this dynamic go read university professors' blogs about Mark Zuckerberg and his billions -- in the hierarchy of "deserves their money," tech nerds rank last, because they're simultaneously capitalists and social inferiors). This must be explained, internally and then externally -- their life choices are admirable, others' are not, and something must be done so that elites in the university and in government institutions can reign in the parasites.
I agree professional certification is important for healthcare and law -- when my life or liberty is at stake, I want to be sure my chosen expert actually has expertise. But the author is arguing that some sort of quality of life and cultural recognition should be automatically granted in exchange for completing training and passing tests -- something I don't think is worth caring about too much.