The flood of public contests for permanent positions is turning academia into an abyss where degrees are worthless.

Some argue this move democratizes access and ensures a wider pool of candidates can compete for coveted positions in academia. They see meritocracy as more robust when it's not just limited to those with specific degrees, but open to anyone willing to put the work into these contests.

The risk here is that by lowering entry barriers without clear criteria on skill assessment, universities could end up hiring underqualified staff who lack genuine expertise and passion for their fields. This undermines academic integrity from within.

There's a covert push to keep the playing field as competitive as possible so current institutions can maintain control over job distribution by setting complex rules that favor insiders with connections or previous experience in similar roles.

In the long run, this trend could lead universities down a path where degrees mean less than ever before, pushing them towards more practical assessments like portfolios or real-world projects that truly gauge talent. The current system is just setting itself up for an overhaul sooner rather than later as frustration grows among both applicants and institutions.

Human nature being what it is, this will likely split opinion sharply between those who see merit in opening the floodgates to all degree holders versus others who fear a dilution of academic standards. The cynics won't be far behind either, questioning if these contests are just another way for insiders to keep their grip on power.