Everyone has a degree. Good or bad? [Archive]

drkitten

10th November 2010, 10:47 AM

Surely this would be a good thing. It would means the people would be a lot smarter on the whole.

And there would be greater choice when it comes time to hiring. The pools of potential employees would be much greater.

But I sense that others don't feel this way. Am I right on that?

Well, first of all, getting a degree doesn't make you any smarter. It may make you better educated (in fact, I hope it does), but it won't do much for your intelligence.

It will also adjust the pool of potential employees -- a lot of lower-end jobs not only don't call for college degrees, but employers may actively discriminate against then (feeling that degreed applicants are overqualified and there's something wrong with them). More importantly, a lot of people with degrees feel that they should be working something other than blue-collar jobs, so many of them feel that working plumbing or carpentry is beneath them.

So it might actually make life worse for plumbers and carpenters in several ways.

But, at least in theory, education shouldn't be about jobs and economics, but about learning and knowledge. The whole root of the "liberal arts" is that they "liberate" you (as opposed to the "servile" arts that teach you better how to serve your masters).

And, yes, I think the world would be a better place if, for example, every American knew how to speak at least three languages passably well. I think there would be a lot less misunderstanding and misinformation about "evil countries" and "evil religions" and stuff like that if most people actually knew a little bit about the differences between being Arab and being Moslem. I think the world would be better off if everyone knew basic macroeconomics and understood what inflation actually is and why it's not necessarily a bad thing.

And this is the sort of thing that even supermarket checkers and motel maids should be able to know, especially if they're going to be doing things like voting.

Cainkane1

10th November 2010, 10:53 AM

Roboramma

10th November 2010, 05:27 PM

lionking

10th November 2010, 05:50 PM

Australia has a medium term target of 40% of the population holding a bachelor's degree. This seems about right to me for a technologically advanced nation.

brenn

10th November 2010, 05:52 PM

Kid Eager

10th November 2010, 06:18 PM

Roboramma

10th November 2010, 06:32 PM

First, having a degree doesn't make people smarter, contrary to what some of those with nothing but a degree think. It may make them better educated, assuming they aren't otherwise motivated to educate themselves, but it won't make them more intelligent, as I'd use that term, and that's what I mean by "smarter."

Then when you mention hiring...did you think about this before you posted? The economic value of a degree is in its rarity. I've been to places where high school was an economically valuable achievement. Having everybody graduate from college, even if it's the best college on earth, makes a college education as valuable as, let's say, a million dollars...in a world where every single person has a million dollars. In short, your proposal doesn't make employees more valuable, ir makes education worthless.

If you have a job that needs doing, and that job can be better done by someone with a degree, because in getting the degree they also acquired the skills necessary for the job, then clearly that degree does have value. And, if more people have a degree, and thus the skills necessary for the job, it will be easier to find someone to do that particular job.

Seems like a good thing to me.

lionking

10th November 2010, 06:34 PM

Wouldn't having a degree also have a collateral effect of changing behaviours?

Beyond the "more educated" aspect of the degree outcome, increased ability to organise, work with others, or plan work better could also be a useful result.

KE
Correct. In Australia, at least, science graduates have amonst the highest employability rates - just not in scientific fields. The skills and disciplines gained along the way makes them highly valued employees. I currently do business with an organisation which "enbeds" science graduates in companies to give the company new perspectives.

John Jones

10th November 2010, 06:36 PM

I Ratant

10th November 2010, 06:41 PM

I think gaining a 4-year degree at the very least shows the person can set a goal in the future, and achieve that.
Which is superior to the will-o-the-wisps McDonalds workers.

Halfcentaur

10th November 2010, 07:05 PM

I scribble on walls, no more than a high school degree, and yet I realize the subjectivity of all meaning! Eat that.

daenku32

10th November 2010, 08:58 PM

...The economic value of a degree is in its rarity. ... In short, your proposal doesn't make employees more valuable, ir makes education worthless.

By your insinuation that the rarity makes it valuable, it implies that the 120+ credit hours behind the degree are worthless.

Surely there is at least some worth given by the fact that a student passed all those courses. And even more so if they can show that they passed them with good grades.

On a caveat, I know how shallow job interviews are, so there's that.

PS. Those C average doctors and engineers can still get them jobs flipping burgers. I don't want them operating on me or fixing my airplanes anyways.

Humanzee

10th November 2010, 10:15 PM

and advanced education for everyone could never hurt. Too many of us couldnt continue our education past K-12 (in the US) because of financial and social reasons.

If we all had degrees smart, capable and worthwhile employees would still exsist...and still be more valuable.

A perfect world for me would be one were we are all exposed to the same enriching knowledge....IMO...

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

11th November 2010, 03:33 AM

All life on Earth is related. Dogs are your cousins. Parents roll dice when they put their kids together and some kids come up snake-eyes. The human and canine IQ curves overlap. What degree do you propose to award to my neighbor's rotweiler? Find an early 20th century medical encyclopedia and read the article on "monsters". Sometimes women go into the obstetric ward and come home empty-handed, leaving behind in the hospital balls of fur with organs inside or a perfectly formed trunk with arms and legs, a knot at the top of the spine, and an open hole for the trachaea and esophagus. With modern technology we could keep these things at 37 Cofor fifty years, maybe. Why wait until age 22 to award it a BS in Particle Physics? Why not give everyone a PhD at birth?

lionking

11th November 2010, 03:37 AM

Malcolm, do you have a degree?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

11th November 2010, 03:45 AM

Malcolm, do you have a degree?BA. Math. PD (fifth year certificate) Secondary Math Education.

lionking

11th November 2010, 03:47 AM

BA. Math. PD (fifth year certificate) Secondary Math Education.

They already give them away then.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

11th November 2010, 03:51 AM

You have an argument? Let's see it.
My point is that schools perform three usuful functions: they teach, they test, and they certify. They also employ swarms of public-sector workers, provide plushly padded construction contracts to politically-connected insiders, and indoctrinate the next generation of obedient taxpayers willing to support university faculty in a life of leisure. The original post said nothing about the process, so I suggested that unspoken assumptions needed examination.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

11th November 2010, 04:11 AM

There's a huge difference between "education" and "school". You want to learn European History or read Russian literature in translation? Go to Borders and buy a book or ten. You don't need to waste four years of your life, $50,000 of your fellow citizens' tax money and another $XXX of your own to kiss some parasite's
toes.
If school is not an employment program for dues-paying members of public-sector unions, a source of padded construction, supply, and consulting contracts for politically-connected insiders, and a venue for State-worshipful indoctrination, why cannot any student satisfy course requirements credit-by-exam?

If it is fraud for a mechanic to charge for the repair of a functional motor and if it is fraud for a physician to charge for the treatment of a healthy patient, then it is fraud for an instructor, school, or government to charge for the instruction of a student who does not need help.

I recommend Ivar Berg's Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery.

I Ratant

11th November 2010, 08:31 AM

drkitten

11th November 2010, 09:04 AM

By your insinuation that the rarity makes it valuable, it implies that the 120+ credit hours behind the degree are worthless.

No but it does imply that the worth isn't particularly economic.

Which, I think, is largely true.

Consider literacy (in modern American society); what's the economic value of being able to read? Almost nil, precisely because everyone has that skill, so no employer is going to pay you particularly well simply for being literate.

Of course, the social benefit of being literate is tremendous; it gives you, personally, access to a huge amount of stuff you couldn't otherwise get, and it gives society in general a way of distributing important information to everyone quickly, easily, and cheaply.

brenn

11th November 2010, 07:38 PM

By your insinuation that the rarity makes it valuable, it implies that the 120+ credit hours behind the degree are worthless.

Surely there is at least some worth given by the fact that a student passed all those courses. And even more so if they can show that they passed them with good grades.

On a caveat, I know how shallow job interviews are, so there's that.

PS. Those C average doctors and engineers can still get them jobs flipping burgers. I don't want them operating on me or fixing my airplanes anyways.

So you overlooked the aprt about ditch diggers, the drive-through girl at McDonalds and the guy on the back of the garbage truck all having these degrees. Since everybody has one, it takes about 5 seconds of consideration to realize they are economically worthless.

Captain.Sassy

11th November 2010, 07:55 PM

To the extent that more educated workers are more productive workers, you would get greater output and therefore probably higher real wages if everyone were well educated. But your ability to command a wage premium based on having a degree would be nil.

Garrison0fMars

11th November 2010, 08:10 PM

No reason for everyone to have an advanced degree, but it should be available for anyone who does want/able minded enough to get it. That's my two cents...

I Ratant

12th November 2010, 08:58 AM

No reason for everyone to have an advanced degree, but it should be available for anyone who does want/able minded enough to get it. That's my two cents...
.
I know three new graduates from the local 1-year university.
One has a job, the others are layabouts.

Garrison0fMars

12th November 2010, 09:00 AM

.
I know three new graduates from the local 1-year university.
One has a job, the others are layabouts.

One year university? I don't think I've heard of that before.

Not sure what your point is though about the "layabouts"?

I Ratant

12th November 2010, 02:24 PM

lionking

12th November 2010, 02:34 PM

Could be two years.
The working graduate got a job at a bank.
One of the layabouts plays Farmville 24/7. His degree as a cook... doesn't even look for a job.
The other got a degree as a Paralegal. As a convicted felon, the local law guys won't hire him. Spends a lot of time drunk and leaching off friends.

A qualification as a cook is not what would be called a degree, at least in most parts of the world. It's a vocational qualification, and very worthwhile, but you are comparing apples with oranges here.

Foggy of the Fogbow

12th November 2010, 02:40 PM

Do they give a degree in "Idle Chatter"?

I Ratant

12th November 2010, 02:41 PM

A qualification as a cook is not what would be called a degree, at least in most parts of the world. It's a vocational qualification, and very worthwhile, but you are comparing apples with oranges here.
.
Culinary art? Something like that. He is a good cook!
Trying to dry out right out, and having a rough at it.

Roboramma

12th November 2010, 06:04 PM

Could be two years.
The working graduate got a job at a bank.
One of the layabouts plays Farmville 24/7. His degree as a cook... doesn't even look for a job.
The other got a degree as a Paralegal. As a convicted felon, the local law guys won't hire him. Spends a lot of time drunk and leaching off friends.

Are you suggesting anything with this, though?
Would they have been less likely to be "layabouts" without the extra schooling?

novaphile

12th November 2010, 08:25 PM

I don't believe that the economic value of a degree is it's scarcity. I believe its value is the material that the graduate is exposed to, and the relevance of that material to the chosen profession.

I'm frequently in a position where I need to hire business analysts. Graduate business analysts are more likely to have the skills that I need them to have. From what I've seen in recent interviews, a relevant degree is approximately equivalent to about five years on the job experience.

Even if everyone in the world had a degree, there would still be a question of the relevance of that degree to the work at hand. My qualifications would be of little or no use to to employee plumber for example, but would be very useful to a plumber who is managing a plumbing business with 50 employees.

Garrison0fMars

12th November 2010, 09:42 PM

Are you suggesting anything with this, though?
Would they have been less likely to be "layabouts" without the extra schooling?

Not only that, the latter doesn't even seem to be a "layabout", but someone who has an inescapable barrier of entry into his profession of choosing.

drkitten

13th November 2010, 03:47 AM

I don't believe that the economic value of a degree is it's scarcity. I believe its value is the material that the graduate is exposed to, and the relevance of that material to the chosen profession.

Most of the value of the degree is unfortunately scarcity value. You can see that from the number of employers that merely require "a college degree," without reference to any specific field. As a simple example, to enlist in the (US) military as an officer requires a four-year degree (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyjoin/l/blprogram5.htm), field not relevant. Obviously, the Army doesn't care what material you've been exposed to.

In practical terms, the college degree has become a politically and legally acceptable substitute for things like the old IQ test and various background requirements (I remember seeing some interesting ads from the 50s that demanded "varsity sports experience" for a job selling insurance or something like that). Varsity sports experience actually makes a certain amount of sense when you realize that it's a documentary proof of the fact that you are a "team player" (literally). (Well, until a gymnast or a weight lifter or other "individual" sport competitor applies.)

Basically, a college degree proves mastery of a certain field that is likely to be irrelevant for the majority of jobs people take. You can't really get a college degree in "sales," despite the fact jobs like insurance salesman and real estate broker are among the highest-employing positions in the United States. (And, yes, there's enough competition that most employers want a college degree.)

So your degree in ichthyology won't be relevant to your ability to move three-bedroom condominiums. But it will illustrate to the potential employer that you're bright enough, motivated enough, and enough of a team player and rule-follower that you managed to get through four years of college. You didn't decide that you hated your professors and simply disappear into the dorms to play computer games. You were able to figure out and follow the rules for graduation. You were able to learn material well enough to pass tests on it, and do your work close enough to deadlines to earn passing grades. A surprising number of young people can't do that (which is why graduation rates are as low as they are).

If everyone had a degree -- and the degree was legitimately earned, &c. &c., --it would mean that everyone had a work ethic. "Having a work ethic" is something employers look for precisely because not everyone seems to have one. If everyone had one, then "work ethic" would cease to be a meaningful or valuable employment discriminator....

drkitten

13th November 2010, 03:52 AM

A qualification as a cook is not what would be called a degree, at least in most parts of the world.

"Degree" is a flexible term.

In the States, and I believe in Canada as well, vocational schools offer "associates" degrees, (as opposed to a four-year, "bachelors" degree, or a post-graduate degree like a "masters" or a "doctoral" degree).

But, let's face it. The idea that you need to go to "school" to get a vocational qualification is a little precious in and of itself, isn't it? What are you going to do, sit and hear a lecture about how to mix cake batter? Read scholarly articles about the proper way to fry an onion? Vocational qualifications themselves are a cheap substitute (from the employer's viewpoint) for a proper apprenticeship; you don't have to pay apprentices their wages, and someone else has the task of weeding out the people who can't or won't actually succeed.

lionking

13th November 2010, 03:57 AM

"Degree" is a flexible term.

In the States, and I believe in Canada as well, vocational schools offer "associates" degrees, (as opposed to a four-year, "bachelors" degree, or a post-graduate degree like a "masters" or a "doctoral" degree).

But, let's face it. The idea that you need to go to "school" to get a vocational qualification is a little precious in and of itself, isn't it? What are you going to do, sit and hear a lecture about how to mix cake batter? Read scholarly articles about the proper way to fry an onion? Vocational qualifications themselves are a cheap substitute (from the employer's viewpoint) for a proper apprenticeship; you don't have to pay apprentices their wages, and someone else has the task of weeding out the people who can't or won't actually succeed.

I don't disagree with your main point, but an apprenticeship in Australia, the UK and most, if not all, of Europe involves a formal qualification as well as the work-based training. I'm not certain of the US.

Garrison0fMars

13th November 2010, 04:04 AM

But, let's face it. The idea that you need to go to "school" to get a vocational qualification is a little precious in and of itself, isn't it? What are you going to do, sit and hear a lecture about how to mix cake batter? Read scholarly articles about the proper way to fry an onion? Vocational qualifications themselves are a cheap substitute (from the employer's viewpoint) for a proper apprenticeship; you don't have to pay apprentices their wages, and someone else has the task of weeding out the people who can't or won't actually succeed.

Well, from what I heard (though I have no personal experience mind you), most vocational programs do in fact have work related training as part of the program. Also the term "vocational" seems a bit vague. It seems to range from jobs that only really require mere weeks worth of education to 2 years worth.

lionking

13th November 2010, 04:16 AM

Also the term "vocational" seems a bit vague. It seems to range from jobs that only really require mere weeks worth of education to 2 years worth.

I know we're verging off topic here, but this is a point of much overlap and debate in Australia. It's now possible to get a full, three year degree at colleges which have traditionally catered for trade training (TAFEs); trade certificates can now be upgraded all the way to degree level; there are now degrees in, for example, Circus Arts; we currently have an oversupply of graduates in some fields, but severe trade shortages.

Higher education is a difficult field to get right.

Garrison0fMars

13th November 2010, 04:24 AM

I know we're verging off topic here, but this is a point of much overlap and debate in Australia. It's now possible to get a full, three year degree at colleges which have traditionally catered for trade training (TAFEs); trade certificates can now be upgraded all the way to degree level; there are now degrees in, for example, Circus Arts; we currently have an oversupply of graduates in some fields, but severe trade shortages.

Higher education is a difficult field to get right.

Here in the US (and most of Canada I believe) we kind of have the same thing. Technical associates & bachelors degrees seem very much like "Trade" degrees really, since they're generally designed for students who intend to enter the work force upon graduation in that particular field of study (nursing, paralegal, allied health, engineering tech, etc. are examples of this)

lionking

13th November 2010, 04:32 AM

Here in the US (and most of Canada I believe) we kind of have the same thing. Technical associates & bachelors degrees seem very much like "Trade" degrees really, since they're generally designed for students who intend to enter the work force upon graduation in that particular field of study (nursing, paralegal, allied health, engineering tech, etc. are examples of this)

It's not really useful to compare US with Australian degrees as with very few exceptions all undergraduates here complete fully specialized degrees - they don't complete a generalized qualification before specializing. Nursing, for example, is a full degree qualification, with the same standing as law, arts or science.

As I said earlier, there's a fair bit of confusion and overlap, probably inevitably.

Garrison0fMars

13th November 2010, 04:35 AM

It's not really useful to compare US with Australian degrees as with very few exceptions all undergraduates here complete fully specialized degrees - they don't complete a generalized qualification before specializing. Nursing, for example, is a full degree qualification, with the same standing as law, arts or science.

As I said earlier, there's a fair bit of confusion and overlap, probably inevitably.

Well, from what I've read, associates/bachelors of applied arts/science are very similar to what you just described. No real generalized qualification before specializing (unless you count k-12), where the traditional bachelors degrees are generalized degrees in which specialization can happen upon graduate school.

jayh

13th November 2010, 04:56 AM

The current degree obsession is really a kind of 'cargo cult' thinking. Historically, for several reasons, people with degrees did earn more, so the mantra developed toward trying to push most everyone toward a degree as a way of raising incomes and living standards.

However, whereas previously, degreed people were a self selected group, that selection process became rapidly diluted. Even worse, the whole emphasis on a degree has actually hurt many economically disadvantaged people by closing many jobs to people without degrees, and a good number of those simply could not go to college for a variety of valid personal reasons.

At the same time, many people who are really not suited for such a program, get pressured into school. I know someone who used to have a job coaching and tutoring such students, students who couldn't even write a coherent sentence were being railroaded into community college. It was a waste of time for all concerned.

Degrees are expensive, whether the student pays for them or the tax payers do, universal degrees are still a very expensive drain on society. Essentially keeping young people out of the workforce for 4 additional years (while they still need to be supported) has a dragging effect on the national productivity, which basically keeps cost of living higher for everyone.

We should very seriously be looking away from the degree industry. Back to job specific training (the craftsman's apprentice served this function in previous times).

Garrison0fMars

13th November 2010, 05:12 AM

We should very seriously be looking away from the degree industry. Back to job specific training (the craftsman's apprentice served this function in previous times).

While I understand where you're coming from there, from what I've heard most employers simply can't afford the time and expenses to train new employees in much of the professions nowadays because of the increasing technical and technological aspects of jobs in the 21st century. It's a bit of a false dichotomy too, community colleges offer a lot in the ways of job training, both through degrees and certification.

However I'll agree there's no reason anybody should really be pressured into going to a university. It should really be for people who want and can succeed in it, not a necessity for a livelihood.

jayh

13th November 2010, 05:53 AM

While I understand where you're coming from there, from what I've heard most employers simply can't afford the time and expenses to train new employees in much of the professions nowadays because of the increasing technical and technological aspects of jobs in the 21st century. It's a bit of a false dichotomy too, community colleges offer a lot in the ways of job training, both through degrees and certification.

However I'll agree there's no reason anybody should really be pressured into going to a university. It should really be for people who want and can succeed in it, not a necessity for a livelihood.

Actually I was not necessarily speaking of employer paid education, but education for a specific type of job (we do have it for some highly skilled jobs like electrician or certified mechanic).

I disagree with many however, that most jobs somehow are somehow more technical than previously. We use technology in the jobs but when pressed people seem to point to computers. But computers are background knowlege now, much as knowing how to drive, easily 80-90% of such jobs don't require college to know how to use the computers. In fact college is a BAD place to learn general computer skills because those skills will be obsolete by the time, or soon after graduation.

Sales (most industries), customer service manufacturing, etc. normally do not really require college education. When pressed people will bring out the 'learn to stick with a project', or 'have cultural background knowledge' or 'learned how to study' as the reason that typical jobs will accept most any field of degree. Four years of expensive schooling is a really inefficient way of acquiring those skills.

Garrison0fMars

13th November 2010, 05:58 AM

Actually I was not necessarily speaking of employer paid education, but education for a specific type of job (we do have it for some highly skilled jobs like electrician or certified mechanic).

Well, community colleges and trade schools pretty much fill that need, at least where I'm from.

Four years of expensive schooling is a really inefficient way of acquiring those skills.

Depends on the job I'd imagine. Of course higher ed isn't just "four years of expensive schooling", it can be 11 months, two years, or 12 years. All dependent on the particular degree, and field of employment. But I agree with you to the point that the general societal pressure to go to a 4 year university is misguided. There are other avenues out there that people should be allowed to investigate before they chart their future.

But while important, I don't believe an education system's only purpose is to develop courses and institutions solely for the purpose of providing job training. I'll leave it at that.

I Ratant

13th November 2010, 07:41 AM

Are you suggesting anything with this, though?
Would they have been less likely to be "layabouts" without the extra schooling?
.
I doubt it, but they made the effort.
One of them was totally pleased when, in the school jump suit, he wouldn't be followed around in stores as if he were going snatch-and-run, but in essence ignored. He was definitely not used to that. (He's black.)
But as a convicted felon, why would the school let him continue in a path that would lead to no job because of that?
The other is also a convicted felon, but has no ambition at all it seems.
Both of them are moderately capable mechanics, and have worked at that.

fuelair

13th November 2010, 07:53 AM

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

13th November 2010, 10:24 AM

Malcolm - I am curious if you are a communist (not as a perjoprative, simply in definition). Primarily I am curious because much of your phrasing sounds like it was taken in whole or major part from a typical communist speech/manifesto of the 1920's or 30's. Not an insult, purely observation (from an area where all my education is self education - mostly from reading).I suppose I sound this way because, like the communist agitators of earlier days, I'm attempting to use communication to move people toward a goal. Blend Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Garrett Hardin, Bertrand Russell, Quine, Thomas Sowell, and Milton Friedman, and you get my outlook, pretty much. I'm not claiming to be that smart, just that I like what they write.

(Jayh): "I disagree with many however, that most jobs somehow are somehow more technical than previously. We use technology in the jobs but when pressed people seem to point to computers. But computers are background knowlege now, much as knowing how to drive, easily 80-90% of such jobs don't require college to know how to use the computers. In fact college is a BAD place to learn general computer skills because those skills will be obsolete by the time, or soon after graduation.

Sales (most industries), customer service manufacturing, etc. normally do not really require college education. When pressed people will bring out the 'learn to stick with a project', or 'have cultural background knowledge' or 'learned how to study' as the reason that typical jobs will accept most any field of degree. Four years of expensive schooling is a really inefficient way of acquiring those skills."

100% agreement.

Teaching hospitals used to train nurses straight from high school. Surgeons and lawyers used to learn through apprenticeship and on-the-job training. There is no magic in school. I recommend Ivar Berg's Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery .

Ben Franklin attended school for two years, then apprenticed. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Richard Arkwright was homeschooled. Neither Thomas Highs nor James Hargreaves attended secondary school, let alone college. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. The Wright brothers did not complete high school. Sam Colt went to sea at 16 and designed the revolver on the voyage to Bombay. David Farragut joined the Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15. Robert FitzRoy attended the Admiralty school for twenty months, between age 12 and 14, then went to sea.

brenn

14th November 2010, 05:42 PM

The lack of comprehension of basic economics on this thread (and the forum) is stunning.

lionking

14th November 2010, 07:15 PM

The lack of comprehension of basic economics on this thread (and the forum) is stunning.

Enlightenment please.

Garrison0fMars

14th November 2010, 10:47 PM

The lack of comprehension of basic economics on this thread (and the forum) is stunning.

A bit arrogant, don't you think?

dafydd

15th November 2010, 05:34 AM

I know a woman who shall remain nameless,it takes her until 12 am to remember that there was a yesterday.I was stunned to hear that she now has an art degree.When I knew her she could barely read and write.If she can get a degree in Britain,so can my cat.

Garrison0fMars

15th November 2010, 08:25 AM

Surgeons and lawyers used to learn through apprenticeship and on-the-job training.

What time period did Surgeons and Lawyers commit to "apprenticeships" and "on the job" training?

Ben Franklin attended school for two years, then apprenticed. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Richard Arkwright was homeschooled. Neither Thomas Highs nor James Hargreaves attended secondary school, let alone college. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. The Wright brothers did not complete high school. Sam Colt went to sea at 16 and designed the revolver on the voyage to Bombay. David Farragut joined the Navy at 9, went to sea at 11, and commanded his first ship at 15. Robert FitzRoy attended the Admiralty school for twenty months, between age 12 and 14, then went to sea.

A lot of those examples range from 200 to 300 years ago. I'm not saying they're wrong or irrelevant, but it's creeping pretty close to the argument of antiquity. Also..most people never went to any form of higher education in their respective time periods and did far worse than the individuals you listed. They seem more the exception, rather than the rule of their time periods.

drkitten

15th November 2010, 08:58 AM

A lot of those examples range from 200 to 300 years ago. I'm not saying they're wrong or irrelevant, but it's creeping pretty close to the argument of antiquity.

I'd go as far as to say it's wrong and irrelevant; the field has changed so much since surgeons studied via apprenticeship as to make apprenticeship no longer appropriate, in medicine at least. In the late 19th century, drug therapy was practically nonexistent; most of what passed for medical skill was simply palliative care and a good bedside manner, because there wasn't really much else that doctors could do.

Changes in other fields are less pronounced but still significant; ask any mechanic about how much harder it is to work on modern engines than even the engines of the 1970s.

Garrison0fMars

15th November 2010, 09:05 AM

I'd go as far as to say it's wrong and irrelevant; the field has changed so much since surgeons studied via apprenticeship as to make apprenticeship no longer appropriate, in medicine at least.

I figured as such. I doubt it's only medicine as well. It seems a general trend that much of employment is growing increasing complex, which requires more complex ways to administer such training.

drkitten

15th November 2010, 09:15 AM

I figured as such. I doubt it's only medicine as well. It seems a general trend that much of employment is growing increasing complex, which requires more complex ways to administer such training.

Well, you're looking at two entirely different trends.

When Farragut started in the Navy, the amount of technology you needed to master in the Navy was surprisingly small. Even literacy wasn't universal (although officers were required to be literate, and even they didn't need to know any math beyond trigonometry.) The rise of complex employment corresponds with the rise of the university in general in the late 19th/early 20th century and the rise of industrialization in particular.

But there's a secondary trend of credential inflation that really only dates back to the 1950s and 1960s (in the USA at least) and the GI bill, which made university education much more affordable and commonplace.

Ethan Thane Athen

15th November 2010, 09:19 AM

Australia has a medium term target of 40% of the population holding a bachelor's degree. This seems about right to me for a technologically advanced nation.

40% :eek:

I used to take considerable pride in the fact that I was in the 'Top 4%' in the UK when I got my degree. Now every bugger's got one and yet they've had to close the school of Chemistry at the Uni I went to because of lack of interest - apparently because Chemistry is too hard and they all want to do philosophy, theology or media studies so they've expanded those departments.

I'm afraid I'm rather fascistic when it comes to higher education and have little time for some of the, shall we say, less practical courses that seem to be becoming more popular. Then again, the state doesn't pay* for most of it now so if someone wants to incur £30k of debt on some nancy degree or other then who am I to stop them.

I don't see people evidencing the fact that they are more intelligent or better educated though. In fact, quite the reverse. The standard of English of the younger members of my organisation is pretty poor and I know from my own kids' schoolwork that error filled work can still easily gain an A or A*.

* It used to irritate me that eg a mate of mine got full grant to study Norse Mythology when I thought that was something you did for fun and the state should be funding more scientists and engineers. Told you I was an educational fascist!;)

Garrison0fMars

15th November 2010, 09:52 AM

But there's a secondary trend of credential inflation that really only dates back to the 1950s and 1960s (in the USA at least) and the GI bill, which made university education much more affordable and commonplace.

True enough, I forgot to include that as a factor. The GI Bill after all, was one of the largest cases of expanding university education to individuals otherwise probably unable to obtain it. (not that I think it was a bad thing mind you)

drkitten

15th November 2010, 10:53 AM

True enough, I forgot to include that as a factor. The GI Bill after all, was one of the largest cases of expanding university education to individuals otherwise probably unable to obtain it. (not that I think it was a bad thing mind you)

Well, that's the question, isn't it?

"Expanding university education" doesn't mean much if you don't benefit from the education. There's a fairly direct economic benefit from having a degree, but that primarily derives from scarcity-value and is therefore self-limiting (and we're seeing the limits now, at least in the US). There's also an indirect quality of life benefit from the "education" itself, but this assumes that you actually get (and value) the "education."

If all you're doing is passing out pieces of high-quality bond paper with pretentious printing on it, then there's not much point in expanding the number of people with pieces of paper.

That's not to say that I agree with our self-proclaimed "educational fascist"; I like the idea that everyone in society should be educated to the point they can think critically, understand foreign cultures, and recognize the benefits of deferred gratification, all of which are supposed to be part of a "college education." If you can get those benefits from a degree in philosophy or literature, great. Not everyone needs to be a chemist (and if everyone was a chemist, no one could afford to work that job).

But I'm not sure that everyone in the educational industry actually gets the benefits that I associate with a "real degree," either.

Garrison0fMars

15th November 2010, 11:02 AM

Well, that's the question, isn't it?

"Expanding university education" doesn't mean much if you don't benefit from the education. There's a fairly direct economic benefit from having a degree, but that primarily derives from scarcity-value and is therefore self-limiting (and we're seeing the limits now, at least in the US). There's also an indirect quality of life benefit from the "education" itself, but this assumes that you actually get (and value) the "education."

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I don't really think the problem though is the fact that university education is now more available for everyone in society, but rather the pressure for everyone to go there and earn a generic BA. Indeed BA's use to be worth a lot more than they are now in the US, now at best you get a management job at a department store. I think people should be introduced to alternatives to universities, such as community colleges, trade schools, and so forth, and have those be "acceptable" forms of education, rather than the stigma they carry at large in society. After all, I know people who have technical associates from local community colleges, and currently have rather decent (living wage) employment, and I know some who have BAs from universities, and work at the Taco Bell.

That's not to say that I agree with our self-proclaimed "educational fascist"; I like the idea that everyone in society should be educated to the point they can think critically, understand foreign cultures, and recognize the benefits of deferred gratification, all of which are supposed to be part of a "college education." If you can get those benefits from a degree in philosophy or literature, great. Not everyone needs to be a chemist (and if everyone was a chemist, no one could afford to work that job).

I agree there. Education is (should) be more than just cranking out job skills, but fostering critical thought, and other aspects of "liberal" arts.

drkitten

15th November 2010, 06:03 PM

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I don't really think the problem though is the fact that university education is now more available for everyone in society, but rather the pressure for everyone to go there and earn a generic BA.

I don't think that's a problem. If you agree that education is in and of itself a good thing, then we should indeed encourage people to get education, in the same way that we encourage people to eat right and exercise. A gym membership or a diet full of locally produced fresh vegetables may not make sense from an economic standpoint, but from a quality of life standpoint I think it's very sensible indeed.

The problem is that a lot of people are being sold generic BAs on false pretenses; they are after not the education, but the money that used to be associated with having that level of education.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

15th November 2010, 06:18 PM

Schools teach, test, and certify. Let us consider these in order:

1. It is fraud to charge for the instruction of a student who does not need help. A school which bills taxpayers and students for the instruction of a student who does not need help commits a fraud. A student who inflicts upon taxpayers a bill for knowledge s/he could have acquired at Borders is complicit in a fraud.

2. The cost to grade exams is considerably less than the cost to provide three hours of instructional time per week, 32 weeks per year.

3. It is a conflict of interest for teachers and schools to grade their own students.

The US government could save taxpayers billions per year if it required the four post-secondary colleges under its control to make available a syllabus for a liberal arts, social science, or Math curriculum to anyone who wishes to enroll, and to license Sylvan Learning Centers and the University of Phoenix to proctor examinations. Let competition between independent testing agencies drive the cost of a degree down to the cost of books and of grading exams.

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 01:09 AM

The problem is that a lot of people are being sold generic BAs on false pretenses; they are after not the education, but the money that used to be associated with having that level of education.

Sure, but I think that's only half of it. We should stop selling false pretenses on generic BAs, but it's also important to give people the direction towards an education with real tangible job skills, if they want it that is. The people who are not intellectually inclined for example shouldn't be pressured into getting a BA, that to me just seems a general waste of time. The ones that are though should still be made to know they're going to need something else to secure better job prospects.

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 01:14 AM

A student who inflicts upon taxpayers a bill for knowledge s/he could have acquired at Borders is complicit in a fraud.

Fraud? Isn't that a bit overboard? Can you prove you can obtain the same quality and level of training at "Borders", then from a university? Are you suggesting I can become an engineer by just reading books? Maybe some could, but not everyone learns the same, and I believe it's actually been quantified into there learning types, so I doubt even if some could learn from that style, all could.

S government could save taxpayers billions per year if it required the four post-secondary colleges under its control to make available a syllabus for a liberal arts, social science, or Math curriculum to anyone who wishes to enroll, and to license Sylvan Learning Centers and the University of Phoenix to proctor examinations. Let competition between independent testing agencies drive the cost of a degree down to the cost of books and of grading exams.

If you're trying to save the taxpayers money, I seriously doubt using the "University of Phoenix" is the best route to do it. They're one of the highest recipients of federal student aid (Pell Grants, Stanford loans, etc.) with some of the most terrible end results (very low graduation rates). They in general cost the taxpayer MORE than public schools do.

Also, why did you ignore my earlier questions?

drkitten

16th November 2010, 08:17 AM

Sure, but I think that's only half of it. We should stop selling false pretenses on generic BAs, but it's also important to give people the direction towards an education with real tangible job skills, if they want it that is. The people who are not intellectually inclined for example shouldn't be pressured into getting a BA, that to me just seems a general waste of time. The ones that are though should still be made to know they're going to need something else to secure better job prospects.

There are several problems with this. One of the most important is that there is, in theory at least, no conflict between trade education and liberal arts education -- there's no reason a cook can't speak French, a policeman can't read Aquinas, or a plumber can't appreciate pre-Raph paintings.

The other is that, of course, people do get jobs in liberal arts disciplines and many of them find those jobs fulfilling. They just don't pay particularly well -- but that's been a problem with the local vicar for centuries, and people have still gone into the Church.

And the third is that we have no idea what are and aren't jobs with good prospects -- predicting the future is at best murky, and anyone who trusts the BLS's ten year predictions is a fool.

As a particular example, "higher education" has been expected to become a growth area for the past thirty or so years; "everyone knows" that the professoriate is on the brink of a mass retirement. The problem is that they've been "on the brink" of a mass retirement for thirty-odd years, and that while everyone's waiting for a whole cohort of senior faculty to resign, the actual reality on the ground is that universities are cutting back staff and hiring non-tenured gypsy faculty to replace them.

But that's true for many other jobs; doctors are another field expecting to grow, when the reality on the ground is that nurse-practitioners and physicians' assistants are growing much faster than physicians; the business model is changing faster than medical schools can produce physicians, and there's a good chance that someone entering college this fall to become a doctor may find all of the good jobs taken by nurses by the time she gets her M.D. Or we may find that there is a reason for all that time in medical school as the idea of nurse-practitioner falls out of favor. No one knows.

At the same time, I also remember all of these people in the late 90s and early 00s that were convinced that computer science was a degree/job with great prospects, especially with all the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs going on, but they'd never be able to outsource computer programmers. Of course, programming has been among the hardest hit sectors by outsourcing precisely because you can hack Javascript from literally anywhere in the world, and the Russians and Indians do. And don't get me start about the "management consultants" that were going to tell everyone how to run their businesses.

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 08:33 AM

There are several problems with this. One of the most important is that there is, in theory at least, no conflict between trade education and liberal arts education -- there's no reason a cook can't speak French, a policeman can't read Aquinas, or a plumber can't appreciate pre-Raph paintings.

I never said they couldn't, or shouldn't pursue both. However, if they do not any inclination to, I don't really see why they should. Education can make you more knowledgeable, but it can't cure apathy. That was my point.

The other is that, of course, people do get jobs in liberal arts disciplines and many of them find those jobs fulfilling. They just don't pay particularly well -- but that's been a problem with the local vicar for centuries, and people have still gone into the Church.

Sure, but most still have the mindset they can safety obtain a mid level job with a generic BA alone, I was only addressing that crowd.

And the third is that we have no idea what are and aren't jobs with good prospects -- predicting the future is at best murky, and anyone who trusts the BLS's ten year predictions is a fool.

I never implied anything of the sort. Not sure why you're bringing that up.

But that's true for many other jobs; doctors are another field expecting to grow, when the reality on the ground is that nurse-practitioners and physicians' assistants are growing much faster than physicians; the business model is changing faster than medical schools can produce physicians, and there's a good chance that someone entering college this fall to become a doctor may find all of the good jobs taken by nurses by the time she gets her M.D. Or we may find that there is a reason for all that time in medical school as the idea of nurse-practitioner falls out of favor. No one knows.

Yup, PAs and NPs, for a variety of reasons are outpacing MD growth, at least within primary care. Whether they'll nearly outright replace MDs in primary care though, is an open question. We'll see.

drkitten

16th November 2010, 08:44 AM

I never implied anything of the sort. Not sure why you're bringing that up.

Because you suggested that people who go to college should be steered into "an education with real tangible job skills" in order to "secure better job prospects." Someone wants to go to school and study linguistics, for example, and we should discourage them from doing that an instead study medicine, because there's real tangible job skills in an MD that there isn't in linguistics.

Except:

Yup, PAs and NPs, for a variety of reasons are outpacing MD growth, at least within primary care. Whether they'll nearly outright replace MDs in primary care though, is an open question. We'll see.

... and exactly the opposite is true for linguistics; the demand for linguists greatly exceeds the supply, because no one saw the Google revolution coming or the idea that we might be able to use corpus linguistics to drive better business practices.

Of course, this is only going to be a short-term boom, because people are now realizing that there's demand for linguistics and the linguistics departments are seeing a nice boost in enrollment, which means they'll produce an oversupply in the next ten years or so and we'll be back to the status quo. I expect the boom after this one to be in literature scholars who find themselves suddenly in demand to help computer-aided "distance learning," supporting things like automatic editing and grading of on-line resources, distance education, and whatnot -- businesses will suddenly realize that they've got all this data on-line and no way of making a compelling case out of it, and they'll find they need good old-fashioned rhetoricians.

Unless you can predict the next boom -- or the boom after that one, for that matter -- you'll simply be channelling people to get a degree in four years in a field that's hot today. How about letting people get a degree in what they like and enjoy? If it turns out that I'm right that the CS boom is over, and the linguistics boom is cooling, and the literature boom is on the horizon,.... great. But if not, no one went into literature because they thought they could make money at it. They went into it because they like literature studies.

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 08:49 AM

Because you suggested that people who go to college should be steered into "an education with real tangible job skills" in order to "secure better job prospects." Someone wants to go to school and study linguistics, for example, and we should discourage them from doing that an instead study medicine, because there's real tangible job skills in an MD that there isn't in linguistics.

Sure, but that doesn't at all negate the liberal arts. I did however say, for people who don't care at all about the liberal arts, they probably shouldn't pursue them.

Unless you can predict the next boom -- or the boom after that one, for that matter -- you'll simply be channelling people to get a degree in four years in a field that's hot today.

True enough. It's all a gamble really, navigating the trends can be bumpy, and sometimes you lose. The profession I'm gunning for may very well stink up in the next 5-10 years, we'll see. Still, it doesn't mean I wouldn't try to pursue an education that would lead to better job prospects in the future, and I am skeptical all BLS statistics, and other likewise ones end up false. Keep in mind also, the average bachelor's degree costs a student at least a 5 figure debt, so I don't think it's unreasonable to call for caution in picking one's preferred degree.

How about letting people get a degree in what they like and enjoy?

Who's stopping them? I'm not. If you want to get an BA in "Greek Mythology", and potentially 30,000 $ in the hole because of it, be my guest.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

16th November 2010, 09:51 AM

Fraud? Isn't that a bit overboard?No. Can you prove you can obtain the same quality and level of training at "Borders", then from a university?Seems to me the burden of proof properly belongs on the people who would use the State's coercive power to impose taxes in support of K-PhD schooling and to limit employment opportunities to people with certificates granted by $300 per hour university faculty. Are you suggesting I can become an engineer by just reading books? Maybe some could, but not everyone learns the same, and I believe it's actually been quantified into there learning types, so I doubt even if some could learn from that style, all could.There is no magic in school. Engineering firms could train their own. Employ as office runners and hod-carriers any 12-year-old who can perform basic calculations and train promising candidates for more.

The practical barrier is that employees could walk after training, and firms might not recoup their investment. Changes in employment contract law could address this.If you're trying to save the taxpayers money, I seriously doubt using the "University of Phoenix" is the best route to do it. They're one of the highest recipients of federal student aid (Pell Grants, Stanford loans, etc.) with some of the most terrible end results (very low graduation rates). They in general cost the taxpayer MORE than public schools do.My proposal only requires that independent agencies proctor and grade exams. Competition between proctoring agencies would set prices. It has to be cheaper than a semester's worth of faculty time, even if you're not counting the opportunity cost of the student's time.Also, why did you ignore my earlier questions?Seemed to me you answered them yourself.

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 09:55 AM

Seems to me the burden of proof properly belongs on the people who would use the State's coercive power to impose taxes in support of K-PhD schooling

Um, no? If you're proposing a new system of education altogether, isn't the burden of proof that it would work rests upon the person advocating it?

Seemed to me you answered them yourself.

No, you simply ignored them. What time period did Lawyers and Surgeons "Apprenticeship"?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

16th November 2010, 10:25 AM

If you're proposing a new system of education altogether, isn't the burden of proof that it would work rests upon the person advocating it?Credit by exam is not new. Actuaries, Foreign Service Officers, and welders qualify by exam alone (used to, anyway. I hear that since ten years ago or so actuaries have had to have taken classes). No, you simply ignored them. What time period did Lawyers and Surgeons "Apprenticeship"?You can become a lawyer in California today through apprenticeship and the California bar exam, I understand. Remember "HMS Pinafore"?
When I was a lad I served a term
As office boy for an attorney's firm...

Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
That they took me into the partnership.
And that junior partnership, I ween,
Was the only ship that I ever had seen.
But that kind of ship so suited me,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 10:29 AM

Credit by exam is not new.

Yes, it's "nothing new", but neither is herbal medicine, and yet the latter is completely ineffective. Just because it's "nothing new" doesn't make it a sound recommendation. Remember argument of antiquity...

You can become a lawyer in California today through apprenticeship and the California bar exam, I understand.

Really? I never heard this. Source?

Also, what about Surgeons, when exactly did they train under "apprenticeships"?

drkitten

16th November 2010, 11:00 AM

Seems to me the burden of proof properly belongs on the people who would use the State's coercive power to impose taxes in support of K-PhD schooling and to limit employment opportunities to people with certificates granted by $300 per hour university faculty.

Well, that would be a burden easily met. Employment opportunities are not usually "limited" to people with certificates; they're permitted to compete freely against people without certificates. It's just that the people with the certificates win.

As an example, you don't need a degree to become a lawyer; many states offer a path to a law license through self-study and employment, usually called "reading law."

The problem is that the people who go that route fail. There's an objective measure there. According to the State of Virginia (http://www.vbbe.state.va.us/reader/readermemo.html), the average bar passage rate for law students is about 67%, which is to say that 67% of the people with a J.D. are objectively qualified to practice law in Virginia. The corresponding number for autodidactic "readers" is 23%.

There is no magic in school. Engineering firms could train their own. Employ as office runners and hod-carriers any 12-year-old who can perform basic calculations and train promising candidates for more.

Well, lawyers demonstrably can't train their own.

drkitten

16th November 2010, 11:04 AM

Really? I never heard this. Source?

And in Virginia. There's a source upthread. The problem is that the lawyers who train as apprentices tend to crash and burn at the bar exam.

Also, what about Surgeons, when exactly did they train under "apprenticeships"?

Early 19th century. John Keats, for example, trained as a surgeon's apprentice from 1810-1815. The rise of the medical school dates to the late 19th century, for example, with the establishment of the Johns Hopkins Medical School in the 1880s, or the Mayo Clinic at about the same time.

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 11:07 AM

And in Virginia. There's a source upthread. The problem is that the lawyers who train as apprentices tend to crash and burn at the bar exam.

Well I'm a bit surprised actually, I didn't even know you could do that. Though apparently is an inferior way to educate lawyers.

Early 19th century. John Keats, for example, trained as a surgeon's apprentice from 1810-1815. The rise of the medical school dates to the late 19th century, for example, with the establishment of the Johns Hopkins Medical School in the 1880s, or the Mayo Clinic at about the same time.

I figured it was centuries ago (and I think kirkpatrick was avoiding it for that very reason). I'm pretty sure such a model couldn't work with today's medicine, as back then it was far more simple (and rather ineffective).

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

16th November 2010, 11:36 AM

Yes, it's "nothing new", but neither is herbal medicine, and yet the latter is completely ineffective. Just because it's "nothing new" doesn't make it a sound recommendation.Welders today qualify by exam. Actuaries working today qualified by exam. What would class time add?Remember argument of antiquity...No. Please expand.
(MK): "You can become a lawyer in California today through apprenticeship and the California bar exam, I understand."Really? I never heard this. Source?Rule 4.29 (http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-2KV5j0w6Cw%3d&tabid=1227),Also, what about Surgeons, when exactly did they train under "apprenticeships"?Into the 1800s. Government-subsidized "school" as an institution apart, is a relatively recent idea, except for indoctrination into the State priesthood (Harvard Divinity school). Not much has changed, it seems, except that we now accept "Sociology", "Political Science", "History", and "Climate Science" as substitutes for "Divinity".

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 11:40 AM

Welders today qualify by exam. Actuaries working today qualified by exam. What would class time add?

Yeah, but Welders and "Actuaries" are hardly physicians and lawyers, now are they? It's not one size fits all.

(MK): "You can become a lawyer in California today through apprenticeship and the California bar exam, I understand."Rule 4.29 (http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-2KV5j0w6Cw%3d&tabid=1227),

Did you read what DrKitten said above? Apparently that method of educating lawyers is in fact, an inferior method by many percentage points.

Into the 1800s.

You do realize surgery has vastly changed since the 1800s, right?

Government-subsidized "school" as an institution apart, is a relatively recent idea, except for indoctrination into the State priesthood (Harvard Divinity school). Not much has changed, it seems, except that we now accept "Sociology", "Political Science", "History", and "Climate Science" as substitutes for "Divinity".

Ah, so you're more ideologically motivated rather than expressing concern for a practical solution. That explains a few things..

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

16th November 2010, 11:42 AM

Well, that would be a burden easily met. Employment opportunities are not usually "limited" to people with certificates; they're permitted to compete freely against people without certificates. It's just that the people with the certificates win.No. You need a license to work as an electrician or barber, fer crissake. Some states make it an offense to practice medicine without a license. I am not (here) making an objection to this, just to the policy which requires class time to obtain the license.

Doubt

16th November 2010, 11:44 AM

Teaching hospitals used to train nurses straight from high school.

And today that would not get them very far. My mother was of the later generations of RN's trained that way. Late in her career she had to move into administration because her educational background was not strong enough to handle some of the things that nurses are expected to do now that they have BS programs in nursing. One of those skills she did not have was the math skills to figure out concentrations of medicine in a syringe. But when she started, and RN did not need to know that. Now they do. A wider education from a university would have helped her keep doing what she really wanted to do.

I myself am an engineer. I travel to different customer locations far from home to commission industrial equipment. Those engineering skills only get me half way through what I need to do. About another quarter of what I have to do I learned in those supposedly useless liberal arts classes I had to take in school. The other quarter of the skills need I learned through a much more expensive (to the American tax payer) form of supposedly unrelated training from the military.

The wide scope of an education that covers many things is better than a narrow, vocationally targeted program if you want to have the flexibility to survive in the sort of job market that is out there now. Sure, these skills can be acquired from other places. It seems rather unlikely that the average person will acquire such skills quickly or without gaps in their skill set that will cost them later.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

16th November 2010, 11:52 AM

Yeah, but Welders and "Actuaries" are hardly physicians and lawyers, now are they? It's not one size fits all.Moving the goal posts. To pass four actuarial exams requires education equivalent to a rigorous 4-year degree (Economics, Math, Demography). To pass all seven requires Econ. Ph.D-level intellect.Did you read what DrKitten said above? Apparently that method of educating lawyers is in fact, an inferior method by many percentage points.It does not work (first time) for some. So? Every lawyer who passes the bar through this process saves taxpayers money.
(MK): "Government-subsidized "school" as an institution apart, is a relatively recent idea, except for indoctrination into the State priesthood (Harvard Divinity school). Not much has changed, it seems, except that we now accept 'Sociology', 'Political Science', 'History', and 'Climate Science' as substitutes for 'Divinity'." Ah, so you're more ideologically motivated rather than expressing concern for a practical solution. That explains a few things.."Ideological" is an uncomplimentary way to say "systematic" or "principled". Antonyms include "scatter-brained" and "unscrupulous".

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 11:55 AM

Moving the goal posts.

No, I'm pointing out that they are not the same thing on any fundamental level, so that system can't simply be carbon copied to other professions.

(MK): "Government-subsidized "school" as an institution apart, is a relatively recent idea, except for indoctrination into the State priesthood (Harvard Divinity school). Not much has changed, it seems, except that we now accept 'Sociology', 'Political Science', 'History', and 'Climate Science' as substitutes for 'Divinity'."

Am I supposed to take you seriously after calling "Climate Change" a substitute for "divinity"?

"Ideological" is an uncomplimentary way to say "systematic" or "principled".

I can think of worse...

drkitten

16th November 2010, 12:16 PM

It does not work (first time) for some. So?

Well, that's evidence that self-study delivers an inferior product.

Every lawyer who passes the bar through this process saves taxpayers money.

Well, by the same token, why don't we arm our soldiers with squirt guns instead of rifles? That will save taxpayers money, too.

The answer, in both cases, is that "saving taxpayers money" by providing an inferior and ineffective product, is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The purpose of public education is to produce an educated public, not to produce a half-educated public for half the cost.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

16th November 2010, 12:16 PM

(MK): "Moving the goal posts.To pass four actuarial exams requires education equivalent to a rigorous 4-year degree (Economics, Math, Demography). To pass all seven requires Econ. Ph.D-level intellect."No,...Yes. Apprenticeship and examination work for many skilled trades and even for intellectually challenging professions like actuary, diplomat (the Foreign Service) and lawyer....I'm pointing out that they are not the same thing on any fundamental level, so that system can't simply be carbon copied to other professions.You're asserting a fundamental difference.Am I supposed to take you seriously after calling "Climate Change" a substitute for "divinity"?Oh, for Gaia's sake!

Garrison0fMars

16th November 2010, 12:21 PM

Apprenticeship and examination work for many skilled trades and even for intellectually challenging professions like actuary, diplomat (the Foreign Service) and lawyer.

Which is apparently an exceedingly inferior method.

You're asserting a fundamental difference.

Because there is one. An physician and an welder are two very different things.

Oh, for Gaia's sake!

Yeah?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

16th November 2010, 12:27 PM

Well, that's evidence that self-study delivers an inferior product.Weak evidence. Well, by the same token, why don't we arm our soldiers with squirt guns instead of rifles? That will save taxpayers money, too.Squirt guns are not as lethal as the M-4. The end product taxpayers seek to purchase is enemy dead.The answer, in both cases, is that "saving taxpayers money" by providing an inferior and ineffective product, is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The purpose of public education is to produce an educated public, not to produce a half-educated public for half the cost.You don't know that lawyers who trained through apprenticeship are inferior. What you have established is that applicants who apprenticed did not pass at the same rate as applicants who sat through three years of classes.
The purpose of the tax-supported US K-PhD school system is:
a) To provide employment for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel
b) To provide padded construction and supply contracts to politically-connected insiders
c) To provide a venue for State-worshipful indoctrination.

This is my basic text:
Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138.Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

Mr. Purple

16th November 2010, 01:45 PM

I've had an independent observer mention he had noticed the difference in the work output of a degreed engineer and one who had risen to the job level through experience, no degree.
He said the degreed output was more impressive.
I worked with the people he was talking about, and yes, the experienced guys were good nuts and bolts people, very capable, but the degreed guys would be better in making the decisions as to which nuts and bolts needed attention.

Anecdotal, as is my response below. :)

I finally quit caring about obtaining a degree after I spoke with a dozen or so recent graduates of a master's program in my field. My real world experience, self initiated education, and gumption easily seemed to trump their years of hand holding.

Now that I am doing the hiring, I certainly don't hold a degree against an applicant, but I am always more interested in people that were able to achieve their education without being spoon fed.

Obviously, the skill / knowledge set is the important criteria, but how they achieve this speaks to the individual.

Mr. Purple

16th November 2010, 01:50 PM

I think gaining a 4-year degree at the very least shows the person can set a goal in the future, and achieve that.
Which is superior to the will-o-the-wisps McDonalds workers.

Viewed another way, taking the initiative to educate yourself over X amount of years also demonstrates the capacity to set and achieve goals.

In fact, I would argue that the non-traditional route demonstrates a higher capacity to set and achieve goals. Assuming of course, that the person in question has achieved a quality education sans a 4 year degree.

drkitten

17th November 2010, 07:58 AM

Viewed another way, taking the initiative to educate yourself over X amount of years also demonstrates the capacity to set and achieve goals.

No, and that's one of the problems. Autodidacts have a validation problem; many of them merely demonstrate that they have the capacity to fool themselves into thinking they have achieved goals.

E.g., the vast majority of "law readers" in Virginia, who feel they have mastered the principles of the law, but demonstrably haven't. Very few people sit the bar exam who don't think they can pass -- that's a very expensive and unpleasant way to spend an otherwise unoccupied day.

The question becomes -- if the bar exam and licensure were not in place, how many of those "law readers" would be trying to practice law right now and be incompetent at it?

Assuming of course, that the person in question has achieved a quality education sans a 4 year degree.

... but that's exactly the point; that's not an assumption that most people are willing to make for any given person. If you want to explain that through self-study and personal initiative, you have achieved an understanding of physics that transcends what most physics Ph.D.'s have, I'm not going to take your unsupported word for it. Show me validation. Show me your journal articles. Show me your prizes. Show me the practice of physics.

Hell, look at this forum alone. We've got too many "cranks" as it is, telling us that every academic discipline from physics to chemistry to economics to medicine is wrong, and that they're the subject of a conspiracy to preserve the lies as taught in school.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

17th November 2010, 10:55 AM

...Autodidacts have a validation problem; many of them merely demonstrate that they have the capacity to fool themselves into thinking they have achieved goals.

E.g., the vast majority of "law readers" in Virginia, who feel they have mastered the principles of the law, but demonstrably haven't. Very few people sit the bar exam who don't think they can pass -- that's a very expensive and unpleasant way to spend an otherwise unoccupied day.

The question becomes -- if the bar exam and licensure were not in place, how many of those "law readers" would be trying to practice law right now and be incompetent at it?No one is here (yet) arguing against the bar exam, the LA City Welders' test, the actuary exam sequence. What critics of employment degree requirements and tax subsidization of brick and mortar schools disapprove is any certification process which makes class attendance a necessary condition for a certificate or credential.
(FSM76): "...the non-traditional route demonstrates a higher capacity to set and achieve goals. Assuming of course, that the person in question has achieved a quality education sans a 4 year degree."... but that's exactly the point; that's not an assumption that most people are willing to make for any given person. If you want to explain that through self-study and personal initiative, you have achieved an understanding of physics that transcends what most physics Ph.D.'s have, I'm not going to take your unsupported word for it.Please do not do this. You moved the goal post past the strawman. FSM said "4 year degree", not PhD, and no one is asking anyone to take anyone else's unsupported word for anything.Show me validation. Show me your journal articles. Show me your prizes. Show me the practice of physics.Darwin had a degree in Theology, not Biology. The Wright brothers were high school dropouts. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Ben Franklin attended school for two years.

Cainkane1

17th November 2010, 11:05 AM

Everybody having a degree is a pipe dream. I've known people in my life who went to school and when they dropped out they couldn't even read. Everyone having a degree isn't really even necessary anyway. There are many interesting careers and jobs in society which require no degree. I'm sure they exist but I doubt seriously if your average plumber has a Phd.

drkitten

17th November 2010, 12:02 PM

Darwin had a degree in Theology, not Biology.

And he also had several dozen monographs on biology even before Origin was published.

Need I point out that you're not Darwin? That no one except Darwin is Darwin?

The Wright brothers were high school dropouts.

And also had a functional airplane.

Need I point out that your're not the Wright Brothers, either?

If your argument is that one person in a thousand can achieve notable success without formal schooling, then you're right but not relevant.

If your argument is that to benefit that one person, we should screw over the other nine hundred ninety nine, then you're not even right.

Garrison0fMars

17th November 2010, 12:06 PM

Darwin had a degree in Theology, not Biology. The Wright brothers were high school dropouts. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Ben Franklin attended school for two years.

And all of your examples are as DrKittne puts it, exceptions to the rule. They also tend to be from at least 100 years ago, and Ben Franklin being centuries ago. Would you really trust a surgeon who just read medical textbooks in his spare time?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

17th November 2010, 01:22 PM

Need I point out that you're not Darwin? That no one except Darwin is Darwin?...Need I point out that your're not the Wright Brothers, either?Need I point out that you're moving the goal posts again? I establish that people accept real performance as a credential. The best credential, really.If your argument is that one person in a thousand can achieve notable success without formal schooling, then you're right but not relevant. If your argument is that to benefit that one person, we should screw over the other nine hundred ninety nine, then you're not even right.My argument is this:
1. Certification processes that mandate class time create incentives for those who conduct classes and bill taxpayers to expand student residence time in school.
2. Certification processes that mandate class time create precedents which those who conduct classes and bill taxpayers will use to expand the range of occupations subject to occupational licensure which require time in school.
3. Credit-by-exam saves taxpayers' money and students' time.
4. Credit-by-exam limits the potential for abuse by instructors.
5. The arguments for tax subsidization of K-PhD instruction are weak. The arguments for State operation of schools are weaker still. The education industry is not a natural monopoly. Beyond a very low level there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education industry as it currently operates. Education only mareginally qualifies as a public good as economists use the term and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an induustry. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education", and the State's definition will then bind students, teachers, taxpayers, and employers.

I recommended Ivar Berg's Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery.
Here's a review (http://harriettubmanagenda.blogspot.com/2009/07/ivar-berg-education-and-jobs-great.html).

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

17th November 2010, 01:30 PM

And all of your examples are as DrKittne puts it, exceptions to the rule. They also tend to be from at least 100 years ago, and Ben Franklin being centuries ago.The current obsession with academic credentials is the exception to the rule, over historical time.
Would you really trust a surgeon who just read medical textbooks in his spare time?Strawman. I certainly would trust someone who learned surgery through apprenticeship to a veterinarian at age 12, apprenticeship as a surgical nurse at 18, and apprenticeship to an established surgical practice at 26. Above most of today's MDs.

Please explain "argument from antiquity". You used the phrase.

Garrison0fMars

17th November 2010, 01:36 PM

The current obsession with academic credentials is the exception to the rule, over historical time.

So is personal hygiene.

Strawman. I certainly would trust someone who learned surgery through apprenticeship to a veterinarian at age 12, apprenticeship as a surgical nurse at 18, and apprenticeship to an established surgical practice at 26. Above most of today's MDs.

Are you referring to someone specific here? Some surgeon that practiced 300 years ago?

Please explain "argument from antiquity". You used the phrase.

It's the argument that "if it made sense in the past, it makes sense now", a fallacy you're very guilty of.

Example "Herbal medicine works, we've used it for thousands of years". Reality "When we used herbal medicine, we died like flies, with modern medicine, we've greatly expanded human health and lifespan"

drkitten

17th November 2010, 01:41 PM

So is personal hygiene.

And effective treatments for bacterial infections.

Example "Herbal medicine works, we've used it for thousands of years". Reality "When we used herbal medicine, we died like flies, with modern medicine, we've greatly expanded human health and lifespan"

But for some reason, that argument doesn't apply to medical school?

"Medical education by apprenticeship works, we've used it for thousands of years." Reality is that when doctors were trained by apprenticeship, we died like flies. Now we have a panorama of drugs that let us treat many more diseases, but the panorama is far to complex to pick up via apprenticeship.

Garrison0fMars

17th November 2010, 01:43 PM

But for some reason, that argument doesn't apply to medical school?

"Medical education by apprenticeship works, we've used it for thousands of years." Reality is that when doctors were trained by apprenticeship, we died like flies. Now we have a panorama of drugs that let us treat many more diseases, but the panorama is far to complex to pick up via apprenticeship.

Yes, of course it would, no need to be rude about it though...

But thank you for putting it better than I did :)

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

17th November 2010, 03:21 PM

It's the argument that "if it made sense in the past, it makes sense now", a fallacy you're very guilty of.Flat false. Garrison asked for examples of exam-based certification and apprenticeship-based instruction in fields now served by post-secondary schools and I provided them (law, medicine, actuaries). I do not make the argument he "quotes".Example "Herbal medicine works, we've used it for thousands of years". Reality "When we used herbal medicine, we died like flies, with modern medicine, we've greatly expanded human health and lifespan"Whom do you quote, here? Speaking of fallacious arguments, how 'bout post hoc, ergo propter hoc? Before the detonation of the atomic bomb, the world's population was under three billion. It is now over 7 billion. Like, the bomb caused population growth?

Neither Kitten nor Garrison addressed the argument about class time being expensive. If class time really makes a difference to test performance (the bar exam, supposedly), then legal requirements of class time for a credential or occupational license serve no useful purpose as screening devices; you could use the exam alone. If class time makes no difference, what is the argument for it? I see legally-enforced rent-seeking by college professors.

(Garrison): "Would you really trust a surgeon who just read medical textbooks in his spare time?"
(MK): "I certainly would trust someone who learned surgery through apprenticeship to a veterinarian at age 12, apprenticeship as a surgical nurse at 18, and apprenticeship to an established surgical practice at 26. Above most of today's MDs."Are you referring to someone specific here? Some surgeon that practiced 300 years ago?Today, I would trust someone with the medical education I described. The corpsman on my ship thirty years ago went through the Navy's training program then worked his way up. He was our only medical care provider, authorized to set bones, administer antibiotics, and even to perform some surgeries.

School is a means, not an end in itself.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

17th November 2010, 03:28 PM

...Reality is that when doctors were trained by apprenticeship, we died like flies. Now we have a panorama of drugs that let us treat many more diseases, but the panorama is far to complex to pick up via apprenticeship.Medical schools did not create antibiolics. Medical schools did not build wastewater treatment plants. Louis Pasteur was a chemist, not an MD. Why suppose that profit-motivated hospitals would pay no attention to successful therapies? Why suppose that hospital staff would pay no attention to professional development? Somehow, paying $30,000 tuition for the privilege of kissing some professor's
toes is supposed to generate more interest in professional development than working around colleagues? There's a gaping hole in the argument for school, seems to me.

Garrison0fMars

17th November 2010, 03:30 PM

Medical schools did not create antibiolics.

I see the point flew over your head. As usual :rolleyes:

Mr. Purple

17th November 2010, 03:40 PM

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your tone, but I feel a bit insulted (surely not the first or last time...no worries).

No, and that's one of the problems. Autodidacts have a validation problem; many of them merely demonstrate that they have the capacity to fool themselves into thinking they have achieved goals.

Uh, I have no validation problem. I am an autodidact. I have 15 years experience proving it (and getting paid well for it- that is to say well paid for my field-lol).
I am not a working at CERN, but that is only a difference of degree (no pun intended). The same truths would hold. If inbred-Jed walks out of the forest and is able to better analyze the data than a PHD, well, then he is better able to analyze the data.

E.g., the vast majority of "law readers" in Virginia, who feel they have mastered the principles of the law, but demonstrably haven't. Very few people sit the bar exam who don't think they can pass -- that's a very expensive and unpleasant way to spend an otherwise unoccupied day.

The question becomes -- if the bar exam and licensure were not in place, how many of those "law readers" would be trying to practice law right now and be incompetent at it?

That is exactly the point, who cares how an attorney achieved his knowledge set- the point is they either did or did not achieve it. For that matter, all degrees are not created equal, who decides which ones are valid?

... but that's exactly the point; that's not an assumption that most people are willing to make for any given person. If you want to explain that through self-study and personal initiative, you have achieved an understanding of physics that transcends what most physics Ph.D.'s have, I'm not going to take your unsupported word for it. Show me validation. Show me your journal articles. Show me your prizes. Show me the practice of physics.

That is a 'them' or 'you' problem. Use whatever criteria you choose to help decide the intellectual prowess of the person in question. You should critically evaluate the person in question, however, a 4 year (PHD, etc.) is only one possible criteria. In my opinion, a poor criteria.

Hell, look at this forum alone. We've got too many "cranks" as it is, telling us that every academic discipline from physics to chemistry to economics to medicine is wrong, and that they're the subject of a conspiracy to preserve the lies as taught in school.

Did you know that Patrick Ewing has a degree from Georgetown University in Fine Art? Would you feel comfortable describing him as an 'authority' on the subject?

Why not? He has a degree from a very prestigious school. But, I would hope that you would agree there isn't much 'intellectual' about Mr. Ewing (no disrespect intended, just calling it like I see it). Remember that the next time you hear about someone with a degree from Georgetown. Patrick Ewing graduated from the same school. Must be tough....

For that matter, Mike Vick went to Virginia Tech. I have seen Mike Vick speak in person- not a good endorsement for the school. No he didn't graduate, but he was there for a couple of years. So by this logic he surely must be better educated than me (for example).

It isn't just athletes, it is people that apply for jobs from me, colleagues I work with, etc. There are many, many, many uneducated folks walking around with a 4 year (or more advanced) degree.

Of course, one could also find geniuses that graduated from these schools. So maybe, just maybe, there is a better indicator of intelligence or knowledge set than a 4 year degree.

Mark6

18th November 2010, 08:20 AM

Would you really trust a surgeon who just read medical textbooks in his spare time?
If he passed same exam as every other surgeon, why not? That seems to be the thrust of Malcolm's argument, and I happen to agree with it. Now, as to how many self-taught people nowadays actually COULD pass medical certification... my guess is very few.

I actually like the idea that degree -- any degree, not just law or medicine, -- should be awarded by a body independent of any university, and it should not matter whether the applicant spent 4 years at Harvard, 2 years at No Name College, or 10 years at a library. As things stand now, universities have a conflict of interest -- they teach people, and they award degrees. They have an incentive to award degree whether applicant deserves it or not.

But I recognize that under such system vast majority of degree recipients still will NOT be autodidacts, and it does not in any way conflict with government subsidizing higher education.

Garrison0fMars

18th November 2010, 08:30 AM

If he passed same exam as every other surgeon, why not? That seems to be the thrust of Malcolm's argument, and I happen to agree with it. Now, as to how many self-taught people nowadays actually COULD pass medical certification... my guess is very few.

I actually like the idea that degree -- any degree, not just law or medicine, -- should be awarded by a body independent of any university, and it should not matter whether the applicant spent 4 years at Harvard, 2 years at No Name College, or 10 years at a library. As things stand now, universities have a conflict of interest -- they teach people, and they award degrees. They have an incentive to award degree whether applicant deserves it or not.

But I recognize that under such system vast majority of degree recipients still will NOT be autodidacts, and it does not in any way conflict with government subsidizing higher education.

Sure, I'd trust them if they had to pass the same exam as everyone else. Though it may be rather problematic for a surgeons education, since doesn't that require practice on cadavers? Anyway.. I'd support allowing those alternatives for all degrees, we do it in some cases for law and I think throughout the US with general bachelors degrees (you can test out with CLEP I believe). However, your position is far more nuanced than Kirkpatrick's. He's not only advocating the unrealistic position that it should replace the entire higher education model as it is today, his position seems to be derived from a mix of extreme libertarianism and/or paleoconservative position and tinfoil kookery, since in his mind schools are there to produce union "due paying" satanist homosexuals or whatever, and not derived out of any objective position that it would improve education.

But anyway, should it be an option for those who really can pull it off? Sure, absolutely. It's not a replacement though for our education system at large though.

Mark6

18th November 2010, 08:35 AM

since in his mind schools are there to produce union "due paying" satanist homosexuals or whatever
Curse you!

I was drinking coffee when I read that... and now must clean my desk! :)

Garrison0fMars

18th November 2010, 08:39 AM

Curse you!

I was drinking coffee when I read that... and now must clean my desk! :)

Sorry about that! :D

drkitten

18th November 2010, 08:52 AM

But anyway, should it be an option for those who really can pull it off?

Well, I find it interesting that at least some people on this thread who are complaining about the existing educational institutions are doing so on a cost-effectiveness basis.

Evidently it's more cost-effective to take ten years "reading law" on your own so that you can fail the bar exam, then it is to pay money to a professional to teach you sufficiently well that you'll pass?

If I ran a private, for-profit law school that could only achieve a 23% pass rate on the local bar exam, in most of the world I would be shut down by the local government under consumer protection laws. I am essentially taking money and time from my students by making the entirely unrealistic promise that they'll learn law from me. I'd certainly lose my accreditation when the local professional organization like the ABA looked at my standards.

Indeed, that's what the whole "for profit" college mess currently before the US government is about -- too many colleges are offering meaningless "programs" for which they charge exorbitant fees, knowing that most of the students are neither qualified nor likely to complete, and that even the graduates will be unable to find work in the fields that were advertised to them.

So it's deeply unfair if any individual agents holds out unrealistic promises of educational attainment for a program,.... but if "we as society" collectively hold out promises of educational attainment for autodidacticism as a whole, that's something not only fair, but something we should aspire to?

Garrison0fMars

18th November 2010, 09:02 AM

Well, I find it interesting that at least some people on this thread who are complaining about the existing educational institutions are doing so on a cost-effectiveness basis.

I'm not making that argument though, only Kirk Tinfoil hat in an airtight bunker Patrick is making such an argument, and it's a disingenuous one at that. He doesn't care about cost effectiveness, but about getting "gubmint" out of the education process.

Evidently it's more cost-effective to take ten years "reading law" on your own so that you can fail the bar exam, then it is to pay money to a professional to teach you sufficiently well that you'll pass?

I'd never make that argument. However, if someone can demonstrate the same knowledge that someone who went through the traditional higher ed system, and can pass the same exams and overall demonstrate similar proficiency, why not? I mean, if such an individual can do so by shaking around a couple of chickens while chanting incoherent slogans to Zeus, I wouldn't care, as long as they can objectively prove they are proficient in X profession.

Indeed, that's what the whole "for profit" college mess currently before the US government is about -- too many colleges are offering meaningless "programs" for which they charge exorbitant fees, knowing that most of the students are neither qualified nor likely to complete, and that even the graduates will be unable to find work in the fields that were advertised to them.

Agreed, and it's why I called Kirkpatrick out on his idiotic proposal to let the "University of Phoenix" administrate such exams. They're part of the problem, not the solution.

it's deeply unfair if any individual agents holds out unrealistic promises of educational attainment for a program,.... but if "we as society" collectively hold out promises of educational attainment for autodidacticism as a whole, that's something not only fair, but something we should aspire to?

I don't think it's a matter of we as a society collectively holding out a promise for autodidacticism, but that if you can demonstrate the same knowledge and proficiency, why does it matter where it necessarily came from? While it's not a system that can be adopted by society as a whole, it does work for some people. The 23% that pass the bar exam I'm guessing afterwards practice law, yes?

So, do I think it should be an option for those that can, and want to do it that way? Sure, but they have to pass the same tests, and portray the same proficiency as the traditional students as well.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

18th November 2010, 10:05 AM

...your position is far more nuanced than Kirkpatrick's. He's not only advocating the unrealistic position that it should replace the entire higher education model as it is today...Ummmm...I'm usually pretty careful with this "should" business....his position seems to be derived from a mix of extreme libertarianism and/or paleoconservative position and tinfoil kookery, since in his mind schools are there to produce union "due paying" satanist homosexuals or whatever, and not derived out of any objective position that it would improve education."Seems to be"? That's strange....But anyway, should it be an option for those who really can pull it off? Sure, absolutely. It's not a replacement though for our education system at large though.I agree with this "should", I expect.
I have been trying to decide where we disagree (aside from about the style in which we conduct this discussion). Defenders of credential policies which require attendance at school have a strange burden of proof, how to answer the following question: "What information can brick-and-morter schools impart that libraries and on-the-job training not impart?"
As Wittgenstein concluded in his Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one express onesself through plastic arts, music, and interpretive dance." Something like that, anyway.

I'm not making that argument though, only Kirk Tinfoil hat in an airtight bunker Patrick is making such an argument, and it's a disingenuous one at that. He doesn't care about cost effectiveness, but about getting "gubmint" out of the education process.Joe College here learned the Academicese for "liar": "disingenuous". If you had a stronger argument than insults, I expect you'd make it. Since you haven't...
Agreed, and it's why I called Kirkpatrick out on his idiotic proposal to let the "University of Phoenix" administrate such exams. They're part of the problem, not the solution.Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher than per-unit costs of colleges operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, after you include tax subsidies?I don't think it's a matter of we as a society collectively holding out a promise for autodidacticism, but that if you can demonstrate the same knowledge and proficiency, why does it matter where it necessarily came from? While it's not a system that can be adopted by society as a whole, it does work for some people. The 23% that pass the bar exam I'm guessing afterwards practice law, yes?

So, do I think it should be an option for those that can, and want to do it that way? Sure, but they have to pass the same tests, and portray the same proficiency as the traditional students as well.That's enough agreement for me. The current system would not survive a legislated requirement that tax-supported colleges and government agencies accept credits and degrees earned through exams. The opportunity costs to students of the time they spend in school would kill classroom-based instruction, I expect.

Garrison0fMars

18th November 2010, 10:10 AM

If you had a stronger argument than insults, I expect you'd make it. Since you haven't...

Because someone like you is meant to be ridiculed, not debated.

Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher than per-unit costs of colleges operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, after you include tax subsidies?

Yes I am. Especially since UoP is one of the biggest tax guzzlers in the nation.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

18th November 2010, 10:16 AM

Well, I find it interesting that at least some people on this thread who are complaining about the existing educational institutions are doing so on a cost-effectiveness basis.As opposed to what other sort of criticism?Evidently it's more cost-effective to take ten years "reading law" on your own so that you can fail the bar exam, then it is to pay money to a professional to teach you sufficiently well that you'll pass?Depends on how much you got paid as a legal aide, how much law school cost you and the taxpayers, how much you will earn as a lawyer, and how much lawyers are worth to society, seems to me.If I ran a private, for-profit law school that could only achieve a 23% pass rate on the local bar exam, in most of the world I would be shut down by the local government under consumer protection laws.That would depend on how much you charged, wouldn't it?I am essentially taking money and time from my students by making the entirely unrealistic promise that they'll learn law from me. I'd certainly lose my accreditation when the local professional organization like the ABA looked at my standards.Accreditation agencies have serious conflicts-of-interest.Indeed, that's what the whole "for profit" college mess currently before the US government is about -- too many colleges are offering meaningless "programs" for which they charge exorbitant fees, knowing that most of the students are neither qualified nor likely to complete, and that even the graduates will be unable to find work in the fields that were advertised to them.Can anyone say "Women's Studies"? "Ethnic Studies"? I thought so.So it's deeply unfair if any individual agents holds out unrealistic promises of educational attainment for a program,.... but if "we as society" collectively hold out promises of educational attainment for autodidacticism as a whole, that's something not only fair, but something we should aspire to?Across industries, monopolies deliver poor products at high prices, relative to competitive industries, and subsidized goods are over-consumed. The State has a serious conflict of interest when it simultaneously operates and regulates schools. The current political attack on for-profit schools is payback to politically loyal faculty in government-operated universities.

drkitten

18th November 2010, 10:25 AM

Across industries, monopolies deliver poor products at high prices,

Which would be at all relevant if higher education were in any way shape or form a monopoly. Higher education is fiercely competitive as any admissions officer will tell you.

Mark6

18th November 2010, 11:22 AM

Which would be at all relevant if higher education were in any way shape or form a monopoly. Higher education is fiercely competitive as any admissions officer will tell you.
Then why do so few of them advertise on the basis of lower cost?

That actually does happen, but very rarely AFAICT.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

18th November 2010, 12:14 PM

(MK): "If you had a stronger argument than insults, I expect you'd make it. Since you haven't... "Because someone like you is meant to be ridiculed, not debated.If I had as little to support my side, I suppose I might feel the same way.
(MK): "Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher than per-unit costs of colleges operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, after you include tax subsidies?"Yes I am. Especially since UoP is one of the biggest tax guzzlers in the nation.Let's see:
Table 352 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_352.asp?referrer=list).
Revenues of public degree-granting institutions, by source of revenue and type of institution: 2003-04 through 2006-07
2006-2007___$268,556,045,000
Table 356 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_356.asp?referrer=list). Total revenues of private not-for-profit degree-granting institutions
2006-2007___$182,381,275,000
Table 357 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_357.asp?referrer=list) Total revenue of private for-profit degree granting institutions
2006-2007___$13,978,218,000

private (total) = $196,359,493,000
Table 190 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_190.asp?referrer=list). Enrollment, 2006-2007
public = 13,180,133
private = 4,578,737
Table 193 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_193.asp?referrer=list). Total enrollment by control and type of institutions
All students
a = total = 18,248,128
b = public = 13,490,780
c = private(total) = 4,757,348
d = private not-for-profit = 3,571,150
c-d = 1,186,198

Table 194 (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_194.asp?referrer=list). Enrollment, 2008
public = 13,972,153
private = 5,130,661
non-profit = 3,661,519
for-profit = 1,469,142

Revenues over enrollment:...
public = 268,556,045,000/13,490,780 = $19,906.65
private (total) = (182,381,275,000+13,978,218,000)/(4,757,348) = $ 41,274.99
not-for-profit = 182,381,275,000/3,571,150 = $51,070.74
for-profit = 13,978,218,000/1,186,198 = $11,784

Unless I pushed the wrong calculator buttons, it looks like for-profits operate at lower per-pupil costs.

Now, some will object to the use of figures from different years (2006-2007 revenue and 2008 enrollment) but unless these changed systematically in favor of the public sector, the resulting rank will not change. Some might object that not("enrolment"="graduate"). Again, unless there is a systematic difference between public-sector institutions and private institutions, the rank will not change.

Some may also object that elite not-for-profits like Harvard and public research universities also support research. This makes sense. It constitutes an argument for separating the research functions from instruction. That's a large argument in itself. Some academic economists have argued for a move away from employment of scholars and toward prizes as a way to generate research. That's how the British government motivated the solution to the problem of determining longitude. See Dava Sobel's Longitude.

Anyway, these figures do not support Garrison's argument that for-profit institution per-unit costs are higher. Anyone have a better way to get at this?

mike3

18th November 2010, 12:38 PM

mike3

18th November 2010, 12:41 PM

Correct. In Australia, at least, science graduates have amonst the highest employability rates - just not in scientific fields. The skills and disciplines gained along the way makes them highly valued employees. I currently do business with an organisation which "enbeds" science graduates in companies to give the company new perspectives.

However, the problem is that not everyone has the mental faculty(?) necessary to do science good. So then there must be some other method to gain the other stuff, which seems more important and that, I believe, is what "everyone should get", while the degrees themselves may not be. Indeed, to make everyone get it one may have to cheapen ("dumb down") the programs, and that would ruin it for the people who _can_ do good.

Garrison0fMars

18th November 2010, 01:40 PM

Unless I pushed the wrong calculator buttons, it looks like for-profits operate at lower per-pupil costs.

Well, given I never made such a claim, your numbers are kind of meaningless in context. I thought you were referring to tuition at for-profit colleges, which are usually more expensive than their public counterpart.

However, keep in mind for profit universities like UoP have terrible graduation rates (currently at a ridiculously low rate of 15%), while being some of the biggest recipients of federal financial aid, like Pell Grants and Stanford loans. Seems they take in more federal tax dollars than they pay out (graduated students) Honestly, your per cost pupil numbers mean little to me if the majority of that money is going into students who will not graduate, and thus bay back that "reduced" cost.

Students at for-profit institutions represent only 9% of all college students, but receive roughly 25% of all Federal Pell Grants and loans, and are responsible for 44% of all student loan defaults. http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=56473

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

18th November 2010, 02:22 PM

(MK): "Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher than per-unit costs of colleges operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, after you include tax subsidies?"
Yes I am. Especially since UoP is one of the biggest tax guzzlers in the nation.
...Anyway, these figures do not support Garrison's argument that for-profit institution per-unit costs are higher. Anyone have a better way to get at this?
Well, given I never made such a claim, your numbers are kind of meaningless in context. I thought you were referring to tuition at for-profit colleges, which are usually more expensive than their public counterpart.Really? Is "...after you include tax subsidies" so hard to comprehend?...However, keep in mind for profit universities like UoP have terrible graduation rates (currently at a ridiculously low rate of 15%), while being some of the biggest recipients of federal financial aid, like Pell Grants and Stanford loans. Seems they take in more federal tax dollars than they pay out (graduated students).Dunno what you mean by "pay out". However, students who transfer from UoP to a State university will not count as graduates of UoP....Honestly, your per cost pupil numbers mean little to me if the majority of that money is going into students who will not graduate, and thus bay back that "reduced" cost.

Students at for-profit institutions represent only 9% of all college students, but receive roughly 25% of all Federal Pell Grants and loans, and are responsible for 44% of all student loan defaults. http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=56473 Pell grants and student loans are a small slice of tax subsidies.

We're drifting far afield from the proposal to license UoP, Kumon, and Sylval Learning Centers to proctor exams for credit in government-authorized courses. Why would competition not reduce the cost of unsubsidized administration of exams? Why would this not cost less than a 16 week semester at the feet of a $300/hr. State U professor?

Garrison0fMars

18th November 2010, 02:27 PM

Dunno what you mean by "pay out"

As in graduation rates, as I said above. As in worth the money we put in, so it doesn't get sucked into a black hole like UoP is. What's so hard to understand there?

Why would competition not reduce the cost of unsubsidized administration of exams? Why would this not cost less than a 16 week semester at the feet of a $300/hr. State U professor?

We've already been through that. A system replacement like that would be inferior by all counts, DrKitten has already addressed it. Also I could easily see those "unsubsidized" administrative exam institutions becoming degree mills, practically giving them away to anyone who pays.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

18th November 2010, 02:58 PM

As in graduation rates, as I said above. As in worth the money we put in, so it doesn't get sucked into a black hole like UoP is. What's so hard to understand there?If public-sector per-pupil costs exceed for-profit per pupil costs, public-sector "pay-out" is less in the public sector.
(MK): "Why would competition not reduce the cost of unsubsidized administration of exams? Why would this not cost less than a 16 week semester at the feet of a $300/hr. State U professor?"We've already been through that. A system replacement like that would be inferior by all counts, DrKitten has already addressed it.Where? Not in the Bar exam discussion; that related to the relative effectiveness of apprenticeship training versus law school instruction on the same exam. So, ...where?Also I could easily see those "unsubsidized" administrative exam institutions becoming degree mills, practically giving them away to anyone who pays.a) Sounds like any State school's Ethnic Studies or Women's Studies program.
b) There is always the risk of fraud: that schools will alter tests if students pay enough. It would be easier to police this fraud than to police the fraud of a wasted semester in vapid university classes.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

18th November 2010, 04:22 PM

(MK): "Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher..."
(Garrison): "Yes I am."
(MK): "Anyway, these figures do not support Garrison's argument that for-profit institution per-unit costs are higher."
(Garrison): "Well, given I never made such a claim..."

Explain?

Garrison0fMars

18th November 2010, 04:26 PM

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

19th November 2010, 01:57 AM

Talk about baiting...:rolleyes:Okay. Let's......his position seems to be derived from a mix of extreme libertarianism and/or paleoconservative position and tinfoil kookery, since in his mind schools are there to produce union "due paying" satanist homosexuals......only Kirk Tinfoil hat in an airtight bunker Patrick is making such an argument, and it's a disingenuous one at that. He doesn't care about cost effectiveness, but about getting "gubmint" out of the education process...
...it's why I called Kirkpatrick out on his idiotic proposal......someone like you is meant to be ridiculed, not debated.I have not done this,

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

19th November 2010, 11:02 AM

(Kitten): "Indeed, that's what the whole 'for profit' college mess currently before the US government is about -- too many colleges are offering meaningless "programs" for which they charge exorbitant fees, knowing that most of the students are neither qualified nor likely to complete, and that even the graduates will be unable to find work in the fields that were advertised to them."
(Garrison): "Agreed, and it's why I called Kirkpatrick out on his idiotic proposal to let the 'University of Phoenix' administrate such exams. They're part of the problem, not the solution."
(MK): "Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher..."
(Garrison): "Yes I am."
(MK): "Anyway, these figures do not support Garrison's argument that for-profit institution per-unit costs are higher."
(Garrison): "Well, given I never made such a claim..."
(MK): "Explain?"
(Garrison): "I've already stated it was a misunderstanding, and explained."
You mean:...
I thought you were referring to tuition at for-profit colleges, which are usually more expensive than their public counterpart.I said nothing about tuition. I challenged your assent to Kitten's slam against for-profit schools, when you wrote: "UoP is one of the biggest tax guzzlers in the nation."

Taxes. Revenues derived through the threat to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and to forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, and then paid to $300/hr parasites who work 32 weeks a year, six hours a week, piling debt on kids and taxpayers and cranking out "The Myth of the Individual in the Films of Clint Eastwood" (really), by Dr. Noel Kent, "Mumford, Mailer, and the Machine" (Governor-elect Dr. Neil Abercrombie's American Studies PhD thesis--a 50-page book report), or "A Feminist-Marxist Deconstruction of 1950's Era Advertising in the Sears Catalogue" (I made that up, but I would not be surprised).

Tax-guzzlers, indeed. For the price of one major US research university's Women's Studies Department budget we could probably get the entire annual output of all US academic publications in that discipline if we paid the Chinese government to construct a Sinkiang labor camp for dissident intellectuals and gave them 15 years of back issues of "peer-reviewed" periodicals in that discipline.

Garrison0fMars

19th November 2010, 11:04 AM

You're still trying eh?

and to forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone

Lol wut? See, this is why I can't take you seriously.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

19th November 2010, 11:58 AM

You're still trying eh?To get you to admit "disingenuous" statements and apologize for gratutious insults? Sorta, but more to reveal your character. Keep it up,

(MK): "Taxes. Revenues derived through the threat to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue), and to forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone..."Lol wut? See, this is why I can't take you seriously.Your determined denial of the obvious (http://www.avert.org/prisons-hiv-aids.htm) is why I cannot take you seriously.In prisons across the world, the HIV and AIDS epidemic presents a major challenge. HIV prevalence within prisons is often far higher than in the general community, and prisons are a high-risk environment for HIV transmission... Rape: The often violent nature of non-consensual sex can cause tearing and bleeding, which increases the risk of HIV transmission. Rape in prisons is rarely reported, but the WHO estimate that prevalence ranges from 0 to 16 percent.24 In 2003 in the United States it was estimated that over 1 million inmates had been sexually assaulted in the past 20 years.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

19th November 2010, 12:43 PM

And this last, btw, everyone, relates to our theme: shilling for superfluous paper validation of knowledge that adults can acquire on their own is disguised jobs protection for public-sector employees. It comes at a high price, in money, the opportunity cost of student time, and real human life.

drkitten

19th November 2010, 12:56 PM

Then why do so few of them advertise on the basis of lower cost?

Because it's not a very effective advertisement for that particular group.

Traditional students, first, tend not to be as emotionally aware of the actual numbers involved; the difference between $15,000 and $30,000 doesn't impact them because they're both large enough for "number numbness" to set in. Second, of course, students expect to be able to take out loans for arbitrarily large amounts and to be able to pay them back out of their completely unrealistic salary expectations.

Basically, colleges don't advertise on the basis of low cost for the same reason that sports cars and luxury restaurants don't advertise on the basis of low cost. Because that's not the message they're trying to convey.

lightfire22000

19th November 2010, 01:15 PM

Who would sweep, vacuum and mop the floors and clean the toilets? A person with a Batchelors degree in liberal arts would balk at being a mailclerk. Who would wash and dry our cars and mow our lawns (don't answer that) Who would service our sewers? Lots of essential jobs that don't require a degree.

This is the same fallacy of the hypothetical Cyprus experiment in the book Brave New World. If people became better educated, those jobs would still be there and people would do them for money. Educated people would do those jobs if the demand was high enough. Just because someone has a degree, doesn't mean that the job they'll do necessarily requires a degree or the equivalent education. The reason those jobs are undesirable is usually because they're either lower paying, physically more taxing, or just gross and unhealthy. If people wouldn't take those jobs, the jobs would become higher paying and an equilibrium would be reached. The idea that a population needs ignorant stupid people to work jobs is itself stupid. Besides, those jobs would become obsolete eventually as automation improved.

Because you suggested that people who go to college should be steered into "an education with real tangible job skills" in order to "secure better job prospects." Someone wants to go to school and study linguistics, for example, and we should discourage them from doing that an instead study medicine, because there's real tangible job skills in an MD that there isn't in linguistics.

I actually know of a few undergraduate linguistic majors who became MDs. They do neuroscience research. Graduate school is a good option for practical training.

If it turns out that I'm right that the CS boom is over, and the linguistics boom is cooling, and the literature boom is on the horizon,.... great. But if not, no one went into literature because they thought they could make money at it. They went into it because they like literature studies.

You can approximate the financial practicality of a certain education though. A literature major should have additional training in a more practical field because for every J.K. Rowling and George Lucas there are at least 10 John Cheevers and J.D. Salingers.

Usually when literature or philosophy majors financially succeed in a field, it isn't because of prerequisite knowledge acquired in their curriculum, but because their academic success required them to develop certain thought processes that are also important in some professions. Take George Soros for example; he was a philosophy major.

Mr. Purple

19th November 2010, 03:43 PM

Usually when literature or philosophy majors financially succeed in a field, it isn't because of prerequisite knowledge acquired in their curriculum, but because their academic success required them to develop certain thought processes that are also important in some professions. Take George Soros for example; he was a philosophy major.

It is funny that both sides are claiming this point as evidence for their argument.
Again, I will re-iterate that someone who educates themselves, almost by definition, demonstrates these skills.

I still fail to see why a degree is necessary to be qualified for anything. Skills, knowledge set, etc. are obviously the important criteria.

Garrison0fMars

19th November 2010, 03:45 PM

I still fail to see why a degree is necessary to be qualified for anything. Skills, knowledge set, etc. are obviously the important criteria.

Well, we do need a way to objectively verify one has those aforementioned skills and knowledge set, yes?

Mr. Purple

19th November 2010, 04:09 PM

Well, we do need a way to objectively verify one has those aforementioned skills and knowledge set, yes?

How is this possible?

Is a degree from Harvard equivalent to a degree from UoP?

What about someone who obtains a degree in one field, but then (as they gain other knowledge, skills, etc.) changes fields?

There is no objective criteria, other than observation of a person doing profession X. Degrees are in my view, hardly objective.

At the end of the day, our own critical analysis (hardly objective) is all we can go on.

To be clear, I am not "anti-education". I simply disagree that a degree equates with competency. Many times it will, but not always. Conversely, a lack of a degree doesn't indicate the absence of appropriate knowledge/skill.

Garrison0fMars

19th November 2010, 04:17 PM

Is a degree from Harvard equivalent to a degree from UoP?

No, of course not. The institution behind them also matters. UoP is generally considered a joke by employers, and generally gets your application sent to the trash bin.

What about someone who obtains a degree in one field, but then (as they gain other knowledge, skills, etc.) changes fields?

Depends I suppose. If I am an engineer, but decide all of a sudden I want to be a medical doctor, well, I'm going to have to go to medical school for that.

There is no objective criteria, other than observation of a person doing profession X. Degrees are in my view, hardly objective.

Then, how exactly are we to prove one has competency in one's professed field? Do they simply tell the employer "Yeah, I know how to do this", and the employer should take his/her word for it?

To be clear, I am not "anti-education". I simply disagree that a degree equates with competency. Many times it will, but not always. Conversely, a lack of a degree doesn't indicate the absence of appropriate knowledge/skill.

Of course it doesn't always indicate competency, but someone with a medical degree from UCI is far more likely by many fold to be a competent physician compared to some random guy who has no educational experience claiming that he too can be a physician. Nothing is 100% You don't refuse a medical treatment just because it may not work, and you don't expect neglecting treatment to be a better option just because the treatment doesn't always work.

Mr. Purple

19th November 2010, 04:30 PM

No, of course not. The institution behind them also matters. UoP is generally considered a joke by employers, and generally gets your application sent to the trash bin.

Perhaps we disagree about the term 'objective', or perhaps I misunderstood your point. I thought you were advocating that a degree is in fact objective.

Depends I suppose.

Uh oh...that isn't a good start to an objective statement.
:)

Then, how exactly are we to prove one has competency in one's professed field?

That is just the problem, there isn't a way to objectively discern these facts. At least not prior to observing the practice of whatever skills are in question.

Of course it doesn't always indicate competency, but someone with a medical degree from UCI is far more likely by many fold to be a competent physician compared to some random guy who has no educational experience claiming that he too can be a physician.

100% agreed, though the opposite also occurs. I am not pointing out a pretty truth, just a truth.

Garrison0fMars

19th November 2010, 04:34 PM

Perhaps we disagree about the term 'objective', or perhaps I misunderstood your point. I thought you were advocating that a degree is in fact objective.

If by "objective" you mean "100% certainty to be competent enough for employment in this field", no of course not. Is something though with a medical degree from UCI FAR more likely to be a competent physician, than say Joe Schmoe who acquired their professed education from talking to chickens? I'd say so. There's never going to be any fool proof method, it's about finding a method that works better than all the available ones, or in other words, the least worst. If you have a method that can produce better results, let's hear it.

Mr. Purple

19th November 2010, 04:48 PM

I mean objective as in polar. Yes/no, right/wrong, or in our case qualified/not qualified.

What did you mean by objective?
No matter....

I have advocated from the beginning, that like it or not, the hiring agent's (or client as the case may be) critical thinking skills are what should be used.

Garrison0fMars

19th November 2010, 04:56 PM

I have advocated from the beginning, that like it or not, the hiring agent's (or client as the case may be) critical thinking skills are what should be used.

That's seems a rather inferior system for a number of reasons.

First off, say I have 100 applicants, as an employer, how exactly am I going to weed out the potentially unqualified candidates with the potentially qualified candidates? How is one such applicant going to demonstrate their education? Remember, even when people test out with CLEP, they still earn the same degree as the university graduates.

Second off, if there's no independent certification, then I can see employers having to run burdensome tests on pretty much every potential candidate, among other needless probationary methods to weed out the viable ones.
'm going to WANT any help that narrows down the candidacies, which is why after all, employers generally favor things such as certification, and degrees.

Third off, if I'm a client who for example, has no knowledge of plumbing, how am I supposed to dis concern the good plumbers from the bad plumbers? Just a roll of dice hoping they know what the hell they're doing? What's to stop some quack from claiming to be a medical doctor to medically illiterate individuals and charging for scams like "nerve tonic"? (Yes, I know things like this still happen here and there, but if we rely on the general public's ability to dis concern the quacks from the real deal, well, that kind of thing would greatly increase I'd argue)

NewtonTrino

19th November 2010, 05:18 PM

I would argue that just passing the exam is not the same thing as earning the degree by going through the program. As an employer I expect that someone who has a degree actually had to do some hard work, cooperate with people and learn how to work within a system. I also expect that they should have spent the time during school networking and getting to know some of the other best and brightest from their class. Many great people and deals have been found through these types of connections.

Now that's not to say that I refuse to hire people without degrees. Far from it, I have plenty of employees who don't have them. However most of these people are truly gifted individuals and I wouldn't use them as a reason to skip getting one yourself (assuming you enjoy intellectual pursuits, if you don't there are *plenty* of ways to make a decent living that don't involve calculus or latin).

Mr. Purple

19th November 2010, 06:16 PM

The presence or absence of a degree is one component of a critical analysis of a person in question.
And in my view, not necessarily the best one. Critical thinking is still part of the equation (as per all of your examples). Do you know which plumbing schools are good ones? I don't either, ergo we must use (this and) other criteria to discern the best candidates.

daenku32

19th November 2010, 06:57 PM

Do something with a battery, couple switches, resistors, capacitors and inductors and then tell them to derive Maxwell's equations from what they just observed.

daenku32

19th November 2010, 07:06 PM

Here is something to consider: Quit your job so you can have time to go to take college courses, and people will say "hey, good for you". Quit your job so you can study the college text books on your own, and people will say "hey, what the heck are you doing!?"

Personal anecdote: I did the first case. Second case may become a reality in the spring. Hoping the latter part of the second case doesn't come true if that's how it has to be. I'm really thinking about learning things that wouldn't be for credit since I wouldn't be going for a dual/triple degree.

Garrison0fMars

19th November 2010, 07:15 PM

Kid Eager

20th November 2010, 01:05 AM

How is this possible?

Is a degree from Harvard equivalent to a degree from UoP?

What about someone who obtains a degree in one field, but then (as they gain other knowledge, skills, etc.) changes fields?

There is no objective criteria, other than observation of a person doing profession X. Degrees are in my view, hardly objective.

At the end of the day, our own critical analysis (hardly objective) is all we can go on.

To be clear, I am not "anti-education". I simply disagree that a degree equates with competency. Many times it will, but not always. Conversely, a lack of a degree doesn't indicate the absence of appropriate knowledge/skill.

Partly disagree with the above: you don't need to rely *entirely* on your own critical analysis.

So far the discussion around degrees seems to approach them as if they were operating in the absence of other forms of certification. This is not the case - trade and professional certifications continue, supplement or substitute for degrees with a specific intention: to establish that the person has achieved some specific minimum level of competency in a subject.

On to the issue of crossing disciplines. If I get a degree in one subject but later enter another profession, the degree counts - but only as evidence that I'm capable of thinking and learning. Conversely, you can use degrees as a mechanism to change professions - as I have done.

Degree certification as a means of vetting candidates for IT management roles has worked pretty well for me in the past. If you have 200 applications, there has to be some mechanism for narrowing the field to the people you actually want to talk to. I used degrees as a basis for both included and excluding candidates when considered in combination with their professional experience:
- hard science and engineering degree with techie work history, you're outta here for a customer-facing relationship management role, whereas...
- hard science and engineering degree with service desk and support work history, you'd likely get an interview.

On a related note, I had an entirely arbitrary secondary method for reducing the pile of CVs - I rejected anybody with weird hobbies. Not because they had the hobbies, but because they thought it was important that I knew about it....

KE

Mr. Purple

20th November 2010, 05:00 AM

I rejected anybody with weird hobbies. Not because they had the hobbies, but because they thought it was important that I knew about it....

KE

No time to respond right now, gotta go to work. But that is hysterical.

hodgy

20th November 2010, 06:31 AM

Degree certification as a means of vetting candidates for IT management roles has worked pretty well for me in the past.

I have recruited for IT roles in the past. I never did or will use education as a filter. The vast majority of candidates for the roles I recruited for had degrees so it would not function as a great time saver. It would just provide the possibility to exclude potentially excellent candidates for what is a pretty much arbitrary reason.

hodgy

20th November 2010, 06:37 AM

On a related note, I had an entirely arbitrary secondary method for reducing the pile of CVs - I rejected anybody with weird hobbies. Not because they had the hobbies, but because they thought it was important that I knew about it....

I think that method would be about as effective (for identifying the best candidates) as excluding every 3rd CV (which would save you time over the hobbies approach).

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

20th November 2010, 10:23 AM

...why did you ignore my earlier questions?Good question.
(MK): "Why would competition not reduce the cost of unsubsidized administration of exams? Why would this not cost less than a 16 week semester at the feet of a $300/hr. State U professor?"...We've already been through that. A system replacement like that would be inferior by all counts, DrKitten has already addressed it.(MK): "Where? Not in the Bar exam discussion; that related to the relative effectiveness of apprenticeship training versus law school instruction on the same exam. So, ...where?"
Which post of Dr. Kitten addressed the role of competition in restraining the cost of exam administration?

Another "misunderstanding" like "tax-guzzlers", "tax support", and "per-pupil costs" = tuition?

Please explain "argument from antiquity". You used the phrase.It's the argument that "if it made sense in the past, it makes sense now", a fallacy you're very guilty of.Interesting that you say this, in view of......Seems to me the burden of proof properly belongs on the people who would use the State's coercive power to impose taxes in support of K-PhD schooling and to limit employment opportunities to people with certificates granted by $300 per hour university faculty.If you're proposing a new system of education altogether, isn't the burden of proof that it would work rests upon the person advocating it?

Kid Eager

20th November 2010, 11:18 AM

I think that method would be about as effective (for identifying the best candidates) as excluding every 3rd CV (which would save you time over the hobbies approach).

That approach might work. Should I use prime numbers only? :p

Kid Eager

20th November 2010, 11:22 AM

I have recruited for IT roles in the past. I never did or will use education as a filter. The vast majority of candidates for the roles I recruited for had degrees so it would not function as a great time saver. It would just provide the possibility to exclude potentially excellent candidates for what is a pretty much arbitrary reason.

As I said in my OP, I used education in combination with work experience as criteria for both including and excluding candidates. If potentially excellent candidates are missed out sometimes, so be it. They just didn't have a resume that made the grade whereas other excellent candidates did.

KE

Garrison0fMars

20th November 2010, 05:32 PM

On a related note, I had an entirely arbitrary secondary method for reducing the pile of CVs - I rejected anybody with weird hobbies. Not because they had the hobbies, but because they thought it was important that I knew about it....

What were some of the weird hobbies? In fact, why would someone put down hobbies on a CV? Maybe it's a trend I never caught onto...

Kid Eager

20th November 2010, 06:23 PM

What were some of the weird hobbies? In fact, why would someone put down hobbies on a CV? Maybe it's a trend I never caught onto...

You know, the usual weird stuff: butterfly collecting, antique banjo collecting, anything to do with line dancing, alien visitation research, dentistry...

Mark6

21st November 2010, 12:21 PM

Because it's not a very effective advertisement for that particular group.

Traditional students, first, tend not to be as emotionally aware of the actual numbers involved; the difference between $15,000 and $30,000 doesn't impact them because they're both large enough for "number numbness" to set in. Second, of course, students expect to be able to take out loans for arbitrarily large amounts and to be able to pay them back out of their completely unrealistic salary expectations.

Speak for yourself. All college-age people I know, including my daughter, undestand very well the difference between $15,000 and $30,000, and would jump onto cut-rate quality college -- if they could find one.

Basically, colleges don't advertise on the basis of low cost for the same reason that sports cars and luxury restaurants don't advertise on the basis of low cost. Because that's not the message they're trying to convey.
IOW, they are lying. They market a necessity as if it were a luxury. Which is another thing my daughter and her friends understand -- but can do little about.

Sorry, but your claim that colleges "fiercely compete" is a joke.

Garrison0fMars

21st November 2010, 12:23 PM

You know, the usual weird stuff: butterfly collecting, antique banjo collecting, anything to do with line dancing, alien visitation research, dentistry...

Alien visitation research..lol

I guess I'm just used to keeping such hobbies to myself...

Garrison0fMars

21st November 2010, 12:25 PM

Speak for yourself. All college-age people I know, including my daughter, undestand very well the difference between $15,000 and $30,000, and would jump onto cut-rate quality college -- if they could find one.

As do I. Which is why I try to minimize how much I have to borrow as much as possible (thank you Pell Grant..)

Malcolm Kirkpatrick

21st November 2010, 02:36 PM

...IOW, they are lying. They market a necessity as if it were a luxury. Which is another thing my daughter and her friends understand -- but can do little about. Sorry, but your claim that colleges "fiercely compete" is a joke.Remember this (http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/4998.html):...?In 1991, the Antitrust Division sued MIT and the eight schools in the Ivy League under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for engaging in a conspiracy to fix the prices that students pay. The Antitrust Division claimed that the schools conspired on financial aid policies in an effort to reduce aid and raise their revenues. The schools justified their cooperative behavior by explaining that it enabled them to concentrate aid on only those in need and thereby helped the schools to achieve their goals of need-blind admission coupled with financial aid to all needy admittees. This paper analyzes the empirical determinants of tuition and finds that the schools' agreement had no effect on average tuition paid. The paper also analyzes the appropriate application of the antitrust laws to not-for-profit institutions. The Court of Appeals found that it is appropriate for the courts to consider non-profit institutions' justifications for collective action (in this case, to enable the poor to attend school) under a Rule of Reason. The Court of Appeals overturned the District Court's opinion against MIT, citing the failure of the District Court to properly apply the Rule of Reason.