This is a very, very interesting question! And I have been thinking about it for more than one year. Honestly, after studying pedagogy, educational psychology and testology (this is about creating tests), I came to some conclusions. But I am afraid that the answer will not sound interesting: NO Universities. In fact, nothing more is emerging in the area of competency assessment now.
1. Testing. Its objectivity is ensured by the fact that the assessment does not depend on any particular person / teacher (errors of the observer and attitude are leveled). The cons of testing in the area of knowledge assessment are well known. A person's chain of inferences may be correct, but he may give the wrong answer. Moreover, this is evaluated in the same way as just a wrong answer or "guessing". Nevertheless, there are a number of very serious tests that indicate a high level of human competence (for example, the first level of CFA - Chartered Financial Analyst).
2. Oral exam. This is essentially a variant of an expert opinion. Knowledgeable people (teachers) gather, whose competence is known and demonstrated. They listen to the person's answer, ask additional questions for understanding. And give their verdict in the form of a mark. Here there is an opportunity to clarify, to minimize misunderstandings, to weed out people who are not at all ready. But there are also many disadvantages: observer errors, specific relations between the teacher and the examiner (sympathy / antipathy / other). In addition, this type of exam is very difficult for introverts and people with low levels of stress tolerance. They may be perfectly ready and objectively know a lot, but in such specific stressful conditions they get confused.
3. A written exam. Here again problems. There are people who speak well but write poorly. In a written work, you cannot give all the explanations. For many areas of study and knowledge, the written exam is poor in content.
4. Performance indicators.
4.1. Scientific. For example, scientists really liked all kinds of numerical indices. Like the Hirsch index (how many articles you have published and how often they are cited). Everyone is very fond of such things, because it immediately became possible to compare scientists working in different substantive fields. But there are a lot of critics of such indicators. Translated into the language of social networks: how often your posts are liked and re-posted does not yet speak about their quality and does not provide an opportunity to compare some posts with others. It all depends on the content.
The level of the journal where it is published is often considered an indicator of the quality of a scientist's work. Looks at its rating and impact factor. But this is something from the category in which public your memes were published (how many subscribers, how manylikes, how many reposts). Such indicators must be treated critically, because they are important, but still conditional. The article may often be cited, not because it is good, but as an example of blatant illiteracy (for example).
4.2. Practical. In some cases, measurable performance can be used. The logic is that if a person has good training and a higher level of knowledge, then he works better. But measuring productivity is a separate issue. What indicators to use, how to register them ... For example, the level of sales, can it be considered an indicator of the level of knowledge of a sales manager? Or a marketer? The increase in sales may be due to seasonal factors, a random chain of recommendations, or something else. And if the specialty is not related to sales? Here is an objective assessment of the level of knowledge and skills of the doctor? Even the best surgeons do not save everyone during operations (ie, the mortality rate is important, but again not completely objective).
4.3. Creative. People of creative professions exhibit the results of labor in the form of paintings, sculptures, art objects, illustrations. But how do you measure them? How to distinguish an amateur from a talent? This is again a complex issue of art history, again, serious preparation is needed to understand where and what. This is of practical importance at auctions. You can often find on social networks a reproduction of a painting, the price for which it was sold and a signature like: "I can do that too, where is my money." This is about the level of competence. Photographers have a portfolio that can also tell a lot about the level of skill. But there is no question of any objective assessment here.
5. Self-esteem. You are trying to look at colleagues and other professionals (or students) and compare yourself with them. As one of the options deserves attention. But the problem of objectivity is very acute here. First, it is impossible to assess oneself objectively. Secondly, you need to have a high level of competence in order to understand what is important for the assessment and what is not. And if a person is just beginning to explore the area? What if he thinks that he knows everything, but in fact he knows nothing? (Dunning-Kruger effect).
6. Formal confirmation. Diplomas, certificates, titles. Here the logic is that if a person tried and received confirmation, then there was something to confirm. Again, it would be nice, but we all know how deceiving documents can be.
Summary. I hope that I was able to show how difficult it is to assess the level of education of a person. And how far we are from any objectivity in this area. In fact, the most acceptable way is expert judgment. Those. it is necessary to communicate with knowledgeable people (in the form of scientists, teachers, senior colleagues) and ask them to give feedback on the results of their activities (educational or work). Each expert will be subjective, but in total you can get an idea of your level. This is certainly not what hI would like it in terms of certainty .... But what to do?
Objectively means in isolation from your own judgments about yourself? We will assume that the author did not mean the level of education (bachelor / master / candidate, etc.), but something in common characterizing knowledge / skills / talents, etc. Let's try.
In mathematics, there is such a clown indicator Erdos Number - the minimum chain of co-authorships from you to Erdos (like a minimal chain of handshakes from you to some other person, but here not handshakes, but co-authorship). Shows how close you were to the prolific mathematician Erdos.
By analogy, you can calculate the distance from you to the most educated people in your region (country / world). If you communicate (not familiar, namely, "communicate") with them directly - distance 1. If you have friends who communicate directly, then distance 2. And so on. It is clear that it will not be possible to accurately calculate, but it is possible to estimate from above.
Since educated people usually communicate with people of a similar level of education, this indicator will give some kind of "objective" assessment from below.
It's strange that you have such a question. Usually people are honest with themselves. It is enough just to assess how much better or worse you are than your peers in a particular area; if you are over twenty-one, then as a rule, people in this range already have higher education and start working. But if you did not graduate from university, then just look at yourself from the outside. Can you do the things you want to do?