Unlike traditional degrees, digital credentials allow potential employers to verify skills and students to showcase these skills
There's no competition with degrees! Degrees are important, are not under attack, and are already good at what they are intended to do. Innovative credentials address needs the degree isn't necessarily intended to address: verifiability of granular skills and the ability for learners to articulate, demonstrate, and narrate their skills.
Lack of standard definitions makes it harder for learners to navigate options and for employers to assess value
This assumption needs to be validated. Would standard definitions be a silver bullet for learner navigation and employer value? To wit: We have standard definitions for degrees and yet the navigation and value problems persist in that domain. What if the more important issue is not what to call these programatic containers but rather how to describe the contents of what they contain?
That feels like the kind of distinction employers make between Princeton and The University of Phoenix. They know those providers and can make sound assumptions about job seekers holding credentials from these places and programs
This is a description of common practice, not a valid point about making reliable judgements about credential meaning and quality.
Because there were so many, because there was no regulation or oversight to assure quality or competency, because there was no standardization or segmentation of badges, people had no idea what they meant.
How do we know that this has been a problem? It's conventional wisdom but what validates it?