In my case, it wasn’t a ‘scam’. Granted, I didn’t feel like I’d learned much when transitioning from the classroom to clinical practice, but had I not had the Master’s Degree and all those classroom hours, I know that I would not have been able to really understand what I was doing in the clinical environment. There are exceptions to every rule, and I’m sure there are some gifted individuals for whom classroom lectures are not necessary; but making exceptions for the few and far between would be an administrative nightmare. Having universal standards to practice certain professions just makes sense.
For example, a friend of mine earned their Master’s Degree and aced the clinical portion of their exam, but could not pass the written portion of the test – had they made an exception for her, how many other people would they have to process as potential exceptions and who would be liable if those ‘exceptions’ made errors in their practice? Conversely, I have always been a gifted test-taker, and believe that if given a typical multiple-guess standardized test, I would pass. Just because someone can pass a test doesn’t prove proficiency. Again, if they gave certifications/licenses to people who can simply pass a test, who would be liable for issues that arise in the actual practice of the profession?
I will note that current higher education costs are outrageous, and most generalized 2-or 4-year degrees are useless (e.g. Liberal Arts, Art History, Philosophy, etc.). However, if one is in a program that is prerequisite to a particular career goal, then it is valuable by necessity, but still very overpriced.