I like the word scientism, but what he describes is really academic scholasticism. Maybe we should call it neo-scholasticism. The practioners of this profession is the same old "learned doctors." They make their living by selling (in this field "selling" means "teaching") the knowledge they have hidden in a proprietary language. Academic education is a ponzi scheme. You are forced to pass formal exams in order to gain the right to enter the next level of exams. When there are no more exams to take you are given a piece of paper and thrown out of the system. This is an exaggerated and pessimistic view but it has some truth in it.
this is a modern and popular take because we live in very egalitarian times but inherent to scholasticism is one simple observation, that to work with knowledge you have to have an adequate capacity in the mind of the person handling the knowledge, that is to say, knowledge in some sense is just like anything else. Knowledge needs to be tended to.
We wouldn't call a maintainer of watches, guns, flowers or any other artifact a neo-something-ist when one points out that it requires great skill to handle the respective artifacts in a way that does them justice, but when it comes to knowledge very quickly people are accused of being elitist, gatekeepers or worst of all, academics.
Proprietary language is treated like a conspiracy, not like a natural development in any domain where people invest a lot of time to build specialized knowledge, on the grounds that apparently someone who hasn't invested any time can't understand what's going on. The decline of scholasticism is honestly one of the single worst things in our age and responsible for most modern grifting.
