The terms good credential and bad credential are used in policy, workforce, and higher education discussions as informal shorthand for distinguishing credentials that produce meaningful learner and workforce outcomes from those that do not. Because value can vary across learners, industries, and purposes, the field increasingly favors more precise terms such as credentials of value, quality credentials, or high-value credentials. There is also a movement toward outcome-based and evidence-based language rather than binary, subjective labels.

A good credential provides meaningful value to learners, employers, and society by demonstrating knowledge, skills, or competencies that are recognized, trusted, and useful for further education, employment, career advancement, or personal development. Good credentials are generally characterized by strong quality assurance, transparency, labor market relevance, and positive learner outcomes. Common characteristics include:

• Clear learning outcomes or competency expectations.
• Assessment or verification of achievement.
• Recognition by employers, educational institutions, licensing bodies, or industry.
• Evidence of positive outcomes such as employment, earnings, advancement, or further learning.
• Transparent information about requirements, costs, and expected benefits.
• Alignment with workforce, educational, or professional needs.
• Portability across institutions, employers, industries, or geographic regions.

By contrast, a bad credential provides limited, unclear, or negative value relative to the time, effort, or cost required to obtain it. Bad credentials may fail to demonstrate meaningful skills, lack recognition by employers or educational institutions, provide poor learner outcomes, or be associated with weak quality assurance practices. Characteristics may include:

• Limited or no evidence of labor market value.
• Poor completion, employment, or earnings outcomes.
• Lack of transparency regarding costs, requirements, or expected benefits.
• Minimal assessment of learning or competence.
• Limited recognition by employers, licensing bodies, or educational institutions.
• Weak quality assurance or oversight.
• Misleading marketing claims about outcomes or opportunities.