Is there an educational level needed to be considered an expert?

Similarly, Andy Ogles (R-TN5) called himself an economist despite a bachelor's degree in liberal studies where he passed a single economics course with a C.

 

That is a little bit odd. But now the possibilities are endless in terms of the odd electives you have taken and barely passed but yet you too could self-identify as an expert in that field.

 

This begs the question - is it more acceptable to be self-taught in some professional fields? Genealogists often have an educational background in history, but some are self-taught. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to hire an economist who isn't formally educated in economics, finance, or statistics.

Another question: Most of the time, I see federal government agencies specify a minimum number of required economics credits for economists. One agency, though, only requires education in statistics. Should an economics degree or 24+ economics credits be required?

 

Buckminster Fuller is widely known as an architect and philosopher. He holds (held) 28 US patents and developed the geodesic dome. (Those golf-ball structures you see in sports arenas, nuclear powerplants, and lawnmower shops.) He was the author of many books (including Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth) and a world-renowned philosopher. President Reagan awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Fuller in 1983. A true renaissance man.

Bucky's higher education consisted of getting kicked out of Harvard. Twice. He never graduated from Harvard or any other university. I do think, however, he could be considered an expert designer, author, and philosopher.

 

I'm subscribed to her channel and, if I remember correctly, Danielle was a history teacher up until the last year or two. I don't remember if she has a history degree, but to be a history teacher she has to have a history education credential of some kind. In my humble opinion that makes her an historian.

 

Ok. I didn't know what her degree is in. In one of her videos, she mentioned the multiple comments asking if she has a history degree, and she didn't state what degree she has. Depending on the state, you only need some subject credits and to pass a subject test to teach. For example, one of my math teachers had a biology degree,and my physics teacher had a microbiology degree. Honestly, I never thought of my history teachers as historians because they weren't researching or actively studying history. But, Danielle is conducting research.

 

Certifications are critical in municipal wastewater treatment, validating your skills and boosting professional credibility. Achieving the highest certification is often seen as making you an expert on paper, but true expertise goes beyond that. It’s the hands-on experience, problem-solving, and staying updated with evolving technologies that really set you apart. While certifications are a major accomplishment, real-world skills and continuous learning are what make you a true expert in the field.

 

This varies widely.

In many states, my own included, you don't need a history degree to be a history teacher. You need a licensure qualifying education degree and to pass a subject matter exam which is administered after a minimum course distribution.

There is also no "History" specialization here. It falls under Social Studies which, as you might imagine, is actually a broad category which includes geography, history, sociology etc.

Not that it should matter. One is a historian if they undertake the work of a historian. Having a library degree but never holding a job in that field does not, in my estimation, make one a librarian. But being employed as a librarian even without said degree would, again in my humble opinion, most decidedly make you a librarian.

 

My own take, not a professional one for sure, is that if one uses the adjective amateur before said professional title, in some cases, that would be an appropriate explanation. Not for attorney, podiatrist, etc.. For historian, an amateur historian is different from an academic historian who may have a Master's degree or a PhD.
An amateur genealogist is one that has no "proper" credentials but does have work experience.
Maybe we should bring back that phrasing?

 

In my profession I work with a lot of attorneys insomuch as they have a law degree (JD) and have passed the bar, but they don't practice law. They're real estate developers, asset managers, etc. Even though they have the degree and license, they are in no way legal experts. I would consider many of them experts in real estate development even though they have no formal degree or credential in that academic area.

I also face about 75 law suits a year and work against a myriad of attorneys, all of whom also have a JD, have passed the bar, and have practiced law as their primary profession for decades. Anecdotally, about a 3rd of those attorneys are experts in my opinion, another 3rd are average practitioners, the final 3rd are subpar to inept.

I hold a BA in Leadership and a MS in Organizational Performance. I own and operate a management company that specializes in residential property management, particularly in the affordable housing arena. I have almost 400 employees, operate in multiple states, and am ranked in the industry's national top 100 every year. I am NOT considered an expert in Organizational Performance which is my highest degree level. I am absolutely considered a property management expert, an affordable housing expert, and by many, a leadership expert. I am regularly asked to speak at industry events, do interviews, serve as an industry expert in legal suits and trials for cases unrelated to my own business, to serve as a consultant, serve as a motivational speaker, serve as an adjunct professor, etc.

So, all that having been said, expertise, to me, is frequently situational, contextual, and is a blend if academics, proven experience and success, and some subjectivity.

Pug

 

Some people feel like you need a higher degree to claim those titles, while others think that real-life experience or self-study can be just as valid. I mean, there are plenty of self-taught folks who know a ton and contribute a lot to their fields.

 

Very true. It's all very situational. Probably the important aspect of reaching the "level" of "expert" is a demonstrated track record that others in the same field view as expert.

 

Just my two cents but when I hear something end with "ian" I presume a licensed individual who may have gone through a formal training program or who may have been self taught. But either way, I expect them to be a journeyman or master/expert at something.

When I hear "ist" I presume they hold a certification of some kind. IE... I expect they did formal schooling in something and are credentialed by the government or by an organization of their peers in the field at hand.

Now I realize that is not hard and fast, but just seems to hold.

 

Sir How so? By your own example:

Dieticians are registered and licensed by undertaking a 1,000 hour training program which may or may not be part of an undergrad degree, and then taking the Commission on Dietetic Registration's exam to become a registered dietician (RD).

A Clinical Nutritionist by contrast earns a postgraduate degree, does an internship of several hundred hours, and then take a series of exams for board certification by the Clinical Nutrition Certification Board. They are then required to do X number of hours of continuing-ed and take a refresher exam each year to stay certified.

Both fields are recognized by the Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics

 

Dietitians are generally licensed by US states. By contrast, in some (not all) states, anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a nutritionist. More: Nutritionist, Licensed Nutritionist, and Registered Dietitian Requirements By State

 

I think licensing and certification are certainly indications of one being an expert, but not necessarily. It just means they were able to be licensed and certified. If others in the same field don't view that person as an expert, I wouldn't either. I would consider them as potentially able to deliver the "normal standard of care" for that industry. If we to look at this in the context of schools, all regionally accredited schools are not "experts" at developing and producing top tier graduates. All regionally accredited schools are not created equal, nor are doctors, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, psychiatrists, etc. In theory, all of those professions.

 

Dietitians need a master's degree. It used to be a bachelor's degree, but they're transitioning to a graduate degree. The 1,000 hours of training is the supervised internship.

https://www.eatright.org/become-an-rdn

 

It appears that only a few states have a separate license for nutritionists. Every other state that requires licensing for nutritionists requires the Registered Dietitian license.