A GIS specialist in the engineering department just told me that his ESRI GIS certification is more valuable than my master's degree in urban planning. He said "You can easily teach a GIS guy planning. It's much more difficult to teach a planner GIS."

I have two thoughts:

1. I didn't go to planning school to learn how to permit a house or approve a zoning application. I went to planning school to understand the context of those actions. What does putting a house there mean? What does zoning this land as industrial mean?

Yes, a GIS person can learn on the job how to permit a house or rezone some land. Will they learn the significance of that decision? Do they know which communities will be harmed? Which communities will benefit? Do they have progress in mind or are they thinking in the moment?

2. This may be controversial, but it's my view that planning departments need to stop valuing engineering and GIS degrees at the same level as planning degrees. Like I said, they can learn how to permit houses for sure, but are they *planning* or are they *permitting*?

I have encountered so many (civil) engineers that believe that they could plan urban or rural communities walking backwards with their eyes closed. When I ask them about gentrification, climate change, affordable housing, etc., they only have their opinions, rather than fact.

So besides that I needed a master's degree for my own goals, no, your ESRI GIS certification is not more valuable than my MS in planning. Is it valuable? Yes. Will I pursue the certification? Maybe. But I'll be able to contextualize my GIS work in the field because of my MS.