Is College ************? I think it is.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I've always wondered about College and what exactly its point is. There are several things that really don't make sense about College and most people’s view of College and it's adequacy.

For instance, Why in our society is it impossible to become a doctor or lawyer without a college education? What if you are self-taught and can demonstrate your ability and knowledge to anyone? Why do you still have to go through 4-6 years of school to learn what you already know? In the United States it’s illegal to practice law without a law degree. Why? Even if you have the knowledge you still have to go to law school? Isn’t this basically a logical fallacy?

In my opinion there should be some government ran organization that oversees the skills of everyone applying for a license for a specific profession. They should not discriminate based on educational history but should judge based on SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE. They would test their skill and ability in every area conceivable in the specific field. Such as if they want to get a license to be a doctor they would spend several weeks going through extensive testing to determine their actual ability in the field. This makes the most sense in my opinion. Giving licenses to people based on their ABILITY rather than their educational history.

Of course we all know that even with a college degree that doesn’t guarantee skill or knowledge in the area the person got their degree. There are so many people out there who have degrees in various areas yet know less about those areas than most laymen. Lawyers, Doctors, Businessmen..etc.

This is just the main problem with college and it’s impact on our society. Other problems include colleges themselves . Many colleges don’t even adequately teach students or educate them. Many colleges simply con students out of their money and the end result is the students not being any more intelligent or having anymore knowledge than when they first entered college.
Colleges are too expensive as well. The price of college rose something like 400% in the past 35 years. Yet I read somewhere the courses they are providing and the success rate of their graduates actually decreased. Most of the money doesn’t even go to books or teachers but goes to things like absurd construction ventures and Jacuzzis and other useless things that don’t belong in college.

In my opinion college should be the judge of whether someone gets a job or not. Their SKILL should be the judge of that. College should simply be there to help educate people who can’t educate themselves. That’s it. Period.

Discuss.

[slingblade]

Is it okay if I practice my surgical skills on you?

[JamesDillon]

Spoken like a high-school dropout. Or a petulant 14 year old.

P.S. One handy thing you learn in college is the difference between "it's" and "its." You might someday find that's a handy bit of knowledge to have in the job market, as are the rules about capitalizing common nouns (general rule: don't do it).

P.P.S. While there are no doubt incompetent attorneys and physicians in the world, you'll have a hard time finding any licensed practitioners who "know less about those areas than most laymen."

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Is it okay if I practice my surgical skills on you?



If you have shown that you do indeed have the skills to do a specific surgery and have a reputable past in the medical field and yet don’t have a college degree.. Absolutely. If of course it were legal.


Of course I currently do choose my doctors based on their professional history not on their educational history. If one doctor has many more credentials than another yet who’s professional past is extremely sketchy then I would choose the doctor who has less medical history yet a reputable reputation and professional history.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Spoken like a high-school dropout. Or a petulant 14 year old.


Nice Ad hominem.;)

No. I have a highschool diploma and i'm not a 14 year old.

P.S. One handy thing you learn in college is the difference between "it's" and "its." You might someday find that's a handy bit of knowledge to have in the job market, as are the rules about capitalizing common nouns (general rule: don't do it).

Nice red herring.;)

P.P.S. While there are no doubt incompetent attorneys and physicians in the world, you'll have a hard time finding any licensed practitioners who "know less about those areas than most laymen."

Yet there are plenty of them.

[toddjh]

In terms of the job market, a college degree isn't necessarily about the applicant's knowledge; rather, it's important because it shows that he or she can stick with something difficult and see it through. A valuable trait in most jobs, completely apart from what you do or don't know.

Edited to add: Obviously this isn't the case so much in specialized fields such as law or medicine, but it's an important consideration overall.

[JamesDillon]

Nice Ad hominem.;)
I think it's a fair and accurate assessment of the level of your opening post.


Yet there are plenty of them.

Name one.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

In terms of the job market, a college degree isn't necessarily about the applicant's knowledge; rather, it's important because it shows that he or she can stick with something difficult and see it through. A valuable trait in most jobs, completely apart from what you do or don't know.

Edited to add: Obviously this isn't the case so much in specialized fields such as law or medicine, but it's an important consideration overall.


I doubt that's what most employers think when they are looking for someone to hire. I think they see "PHD" and think "Oh, He must be a genius!" not "Oh, He must have good work ethic". I think a vast employment history would express their work ethic much more than having a 4 year degree, Or any degree for that matter.

[toddjh]

I doubt that's what most employers think when they are looking for someone to hire. I think they see "PHD" and think "Oh, He must be a genius!" not "Oh, He must have good work ethic". I think a vast employment history would express their work ethic much more than having a 4 year degree, Or any degree for that matter.

Speaking as someone who's on interview committees fairly regularly, I can tell you that's definitely not the case, at least where I work. And yes, solid work experience can demonstrate the same thing.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Name one.



My last Dermatologist. She knew less about acne than I did. She made all sorts of absurd claims including claiming 'blackheads' aren't a type acne or that Isotretinoin wouldn't get rid of blackheads even though numerous studies i've read said otherwise (and even though my own personal experience with the drug said otherwise).


This is just one among many of the cases in my personal experience where people with educational background have less knowledge than many laymens.

[daredelvis]

In my opinion there should be some government ran organization that oversees the skills of everyone applying for a license for a specific


"government rUn organization"

You still need more schooling whippersnapper.

Daredelvis

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Speaking as someone who's on interview committees fairly regularly, I can tell you that's definitely not the case, at least where I work. And yes, solid work experience can demonstrate the same thing.



Not going to nitpick.


However wouldn't you agree that college being used as the sole gauge to determine skill or intelligence in many specialized trades is absurd?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"government rUn organization"

You still need more schooling whippersnapper.

Daredelvis



I can't tell if you're joking and being sarcastic or if you're actually implying my confusion between "government run" and "government ran" implies I am uneducated.


:boggled:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Penn & Teller actually did a show making all of the points I made and more in their series "********".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7427067542845351261&q=penn+and+teller+********


Worth a watch

[JamesDillon]

My last Dermatologist. She knew less about acne than I did. She made all sorts of absurd claims including claiming 'blackheads' aren't a type acne or that Isotretinoin wouldn't get rid of blackheads even though numerous studies i've read said otherwise (and even though my own personal experience with the drug said otherwise).
Even if your account is entirely accurate, a claim of which I'm skeptical, how does that support the contention in your opening post that there are licensed professionals who "know less about [their] areas than most laymen"? Most laymen don't read dermatological studies. If your claim now is that some laymen know some facts about a particular field of specialization that are unknown to some professionals working in that area, that's a substantially weaker claim than your original statement. I would also add that, even if it is true that you were more familiar with the effects of Isotretinoin than your dermatologist was, that's no evidence that you are better acquanted with the entire field of dematology than she is.

This is just one among many of the cases in my personal experience where people with educational background have less knowledge than many laymens.
Laymens?

I'm not picking on your spelling and grammar just to be a jerk. The point is that you can't compensate for the lack of a college education just by reading a couple of books on a particular subject and then assume that you're equally well-qualified as someone with an undergraduate (and, in the case of doctors and lawyers, additional professional) degree.

Penn & Teller actually did a show making all of the points I made and more in their series "********".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7427067542845351261&q=penn+and+teller+********


Worth a watch
I have great respect for Penn as an entertainer, and I agree with him on a lot of political and philosophical issues, but I'd hardly look at him as a model of intellectual achievement, nor, as far as I know, does he represent himself as such.

[a_unique_person]

If you have shown that you do indeed have the skills to do a specific surgery and have a reputable past in the medical field and yet don’t have a college degree.. Absolutely. If of course it were legal.


Of course I currently do choose my doctors based on their professional history not on their educational history. If one doctor has many more credentials than another yet who’s professional past is extremely sketchy then I would choose the doctor who has less medical history yet a reputable reputation and professional history.

Standards and education for Doctors are important, but what also happens is that the surgeons, here at least, get together to create a 'closed shop', where they strictly control the numbers trained, which is always never quite enough to get rid of the waiting lists.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Even if your account is entirely accurate, a claim of which I'm skeptical, how does that support the contention in your opening post that there are licensed professionals who "know less about [their] areas than most laymen"? Most laymen don't read dermatological studies. If your claim now is that some laymen know some facts about a particular field of specialization that are unknown to some professionals working in that area, that's a substantially weaker claim than your original statement. I would also add that, even if it is true that you were more familiar with the effects of Isotretinoin than your dermatologist was, that's no evidence that you are better acquanted with the entire field of dematology than she is.

No. Most laymen know that blackheads are indeed a form of Acne.

Secondly I could go on for hours about the nonsense this particular dermatologist has spued but I don't see the point. I could easily list cases of well known 'professionals' who hold absurd notions in their specific field that most laymen might not know but that proves having a degree isn't proof of knowledge of the field in which it is held.

Case in point..Michael Behe

Laymens?

I'm not picking on your spelling and grammar just to be a jerk. The point is that you can't compensate for the lack of a college education just by reading a couple of books on a particular subject and then assume that you're equally well-qualified as someone with an undergraduate (and, in the case of doctors and lawyers, additional professional) degree.


You're attacking my spelling and grammar because you have nothing else to attack. Even though my spelling and grammar are completely comprehendible and the errors I make are extremely small.
It's spelled 'acquainted' not 'acquanted' and it's spelled 'dermatology' not 'dematology'. :rolleyes:
I never claimed 'reading a few books' is equal to a 4 year degree. That is a strawman.I have great respect for Penn as an entertainer, and I agree with him on a lot of political and philosophical issues, but I'd hardly look at him as a model of intellectual achievement, nor, as far as I know, does he represent himself as such.


I don't think I ever claimed he was a 'model of intellectual achievement'. But if you want me to give you examples of 'models of intellectual achievement' who never went to college and some who didn't even finish highschool then I will.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Standards and education for Doctors are important, but what also happens is that the surgeons, here at least, get together to create a 'closed shop', where they strictly control the numbers trained, which is always never quite enough to get rid of the waiting lists.

Standards and education are important for any field. However I believe those standards could be met without restricting it to those who have degrees.

I also believe education is possible without college.

[JamesDillon]

No. Most laymen know that blackheads are indeed a form of Acne.
Whether that is or is not the case, and I can't imagine how you'd prove such a thing without resort to a public poll (personally I had never given the slightest thought to the medical classification of blackheads until this thread came along), you're missing my point: that you can't take a particular fact in isolation and extrapolate from that to the conclusion that you therefore know more about dermatology than your doctor does. There's no basis for that conclusion.

Secondly I could go on for hours about the nonsense this particular dermatologist has spued but I don't see the point. I could easily list cases of well known 'professionals' who hold absurd notions in their specific field that most laymen might not know but that proves having a degree isn't proof of knowledge of the field in which it is held.
It isn't proof of inerrant knowledge of every aspect of that body of knowledge, but it is virtually irrefutable evidence that the person in question is more familiar with that area of knowledge than someone who lacks special training. Your anecdotes provide no evidence to the contrary.

Case in point..Michael Behe
Behe's degree, I believe, is in biochemistry, and I have no doubt that he knows a lot more about biochemistry than either you or I do. Of course, that doesn't qualify him to make authoritative statements on other aspects of evolutionary biology, but the fact that a person who is an authority in one area may lack expertise in other areas is hardly controversial.



You're attacking my spelling and grammar because you have nothing else to attack. Even though my spelling and grammar are completly comprehendable and the errors I make are extremly small.
I have plenty of other areas for criticism, and have been making those criticisms as well. My point is that proficiency with written English is important to one's credibility and employability in the job market, and notwithstanding your apparent conviction to the contrary, one (of the many) benefits of a college education that simply can't be replicated is the practice and feedback in developing one's writing style that it provides.

It's spelled 'acquainted' not 'acquanted' and it's spelled 'dermatology' not 'dematology'. :rolleyes:
My keyboard is sticking because I spilled soup on it. What's your excuse?

I never claimed 'reading a few books' is equal to a 4 year degree. That is a strawman.
It seems to me that's exactly what you're claiming. What is your argument, then?

I don't think I ever claimed he was a 'model of intellectual achievement'. But if you want me to give you examples of 'models of intellectual achievement' who never went to college and some who didn't even finish highschool then I will.
Please offer one example of an accomplished physician or attorney who didn't go to college.

[pipelineaudio]

I can think of many trades that are better off from apprentices or self taught than school taught(obviously you could do any of these things AND school but Im talking school by itself)

1. Construction/Painting

2. Plumbing

3. Audio Recording/ Engineering

4. Military leadership ( yes weve seen how "well" making someone a LT just for having gone to college works out )

[timhau]

In my opinion there should be some government ran organization that oversees the skills of everyone applying for a license for a specific profession. They should not discriminate based on educational history but should judge based on SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE. They would test their skill and ability in every area conceivable in the specific field.

And how much time does it take to test someone's ability 'in every area conceivable in the specific field'?

[boooeee]

And how much time does it take to test someone's ability 'in every area conceivable in the specific field'?Probably about four years or so. You could test them every December and May. Although you should probably set up some sort of facility for this testing. And maybe a staff of qualified experts in the subject matter they're being tested on?

[JamesDillon]

And how much time does it take to test someone's ability 'in every area conceivable in the specific field'?

Sounds vaguely like, I don't know, the state-sponsored education system?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Whether that is or is not the case, and I can't imagine how you'd prove such a thing without resort to a public poll (personally I had never given the slightest thought to the medical classification of blackheads until this thread came along), you're missing my point: that you can't take a particular fact in isolation and extrapolate from that to the conclusion that you therefore know more about dermatology than your doctor does. There's no basis for that conclusion.


See below

It isn't proof of inerrant knowledge of every aspect of that body of knowledge, but it is virtually irrefutable evidence that the person in question is more familiar with that area of knowledge than someone who lacks special training. Your anecdotes provide no evidence to the contrary.

My knowing my previous doctors comments are absurd is indeed proof I know more about those specific areas than my doctor does even if I don't know more about the entire area of dermatology.


Behe's degree, I believe, is in biochemistry, and I have no doubt that he knows a lot more about biochemistry than either you or I do. Of course, that doesn't qualify him to make authoritative statements on other aspects of evolutionary biology, but the fact that a person who is an authority in one area may lack expertise in other areas is hardly controversial.

You haven't read any of his books or his claims have you? He makes claims that relate to biochemistry that anyone who knows the basics of biochemistry knows is absurd.



I have plenty of other areas for criticism, and have been making those criticisms as well. My point is that proficiency with written English is important to one's credibility and employability in the job market, and notwithstanding your apparent conviction to the contrary, one (of the many) benefits of a college education that simply can't be replicated is the practice and feedback in developing one's writing style that it provides.


My grasp of the English language is more than enough to have just about any occupation in and of itself. If you only knew the writing skills or spelling skills of many doctors you'd agree.
Yet you make just as many spelling and grammatical errors as I do. Did you go to college?My keyboard is sticking because I spilled soup on it. What's your excuse?

I don't have an excuse. I'm not a liar. I'm truthful enough to admit I make mistakes.

Why aren't you?


It seems to me that's exactly what you're claiming. What is your argument, then?

You really believe 'reading a few books' is the only means to educate oneself?


How about working closely with those who know what you're trying to learn?
Reading more than just a 'few books'. Reading dozens of books.
Reading online material based on what you're trying to learn.
Reading studies or other material that those who work in the field read
Practice? Obviously not in the medical fields but practice in business or law or other things.
Growing up in an environment which you learned these things. Having a father who was a biologist and you spent so much time with him that you know as much about biology as someone with a degree for instance.The fact is...There's NOTHING that you can learn in college that you can't learn out of college. Period. I challenge you to name something.


Please offer one example of an accomplished physician or attorney who didn't go to college.


I can't name alot. Not in the past 100 years at least. Most countries have laws prohibiting people from working in those fields without degrees. In the U.S. you can't practice law for instance without a law degree. It's illegal.


However I can name several people who were accomplished physicians or attorneys or scientists who didn't have a formal education.

Some of the most accomplished scientists in the past never had formal educations in the areas they excelled at. Here are a few examples of people who may or may not of attended college but excelled in areas in which they never went to college for. (Most never
attended college)


Charles Darwin
Issac Newton
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew jackson
Andrew Johnson
Albert Einstein
Steve Jobs
Benjamin Franklin
Walt Disney
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Srinivasa Ramanujan
Michael Faraday"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." – Albert Einstein

"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." – Albert Einstein

"I never let schooling get in the way of my education." – Mark Twain

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I can think of many trades that are better off from apprentices or self taught than school taught(obviously you could do any of these things AND school but Im talking school by itself)

1. Construction/Painting

2. Plumbing

3. Audio Recording/ Engineering

4. Military leadership ( yes weve seen how "well" making someone a LT just for having gone to college works out )


I think ANY trade can be self taught or apprenticed.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And how much time does it take to test someone's ability 'in every area conceivable in the specific field'?


Less time than college.


A few months tops. Depending on the field.

To test someones knowledge of for instance carpentry it takes less time than to test their knowledge of biochemistry or brain surgery or astro physics.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Probably about four years or so. You could test them every December and May. Although you should probably set up some sort of facility for this testing. And maybe a staff of qualified experts in the subject matter they're being tested on?




4 years to test someones knowledge of contract law for instance? C'mon!:rolleyes:

I would say no more than a few months at most.

If your entire high-school education can be tested in 2 days 4 hours a day, I think knowledge provided in a 4 year degree could be tested in a few months.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sounds vaguely like, I don't know, the state-sponsored education system?



The guy in your sig whom you quote. Thomas Paine. He left school at the age of 12. Never attened college.


Thomas Paine also said "Every person of learning is finally his own teacher".

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm not saying College is useless. I'm simply saying it should not be used as a determination of someone’s intelligence or their ability to do specific things or work in specific fields. College has a use. It’s use is to educate those who can’t educate themselves. Which may include most people however that’s beyond the point. I don’t believe those who never attended college should be limited by that if they have the ability, knowledge and skill to do what they want to do.

[JamesDillon]

See below



My knowing my previous doctors comments are absurd is indeed proof I know more about those specific areas than my doctor does even if I don't know more about the entire area of dermatology.
It might be proof that you are more familiar with the medical classification of blackheads than she is, but once again, your initial claim was far broader than that: that some licensed professionals know less about their fields than most laymen. As you've conceded, your blackhead anecdote shows nothing about whether you know more about dermatology in general than your dermatologist did, nor does it say anything about her degree of knowledge with respect to most laymen.

You haven't read any of his books or his claims have you? He makes claims that relate to biochemistry that anyone who knows the basics of biochemistry knows is absurd.
I have not read any of his books, and am passingly familiar with his claims (though I probably couldn't distingush Behe's specific claims from those of Dembski or the I.D. movement in general). Even if it's true that he makes claims that "anyone who knows the basics of biochemistry knows is absurd," it would also have to be true that most laymen know the basics of biochemistry in order for your initial claim to be true. I very much doubt that this is the case.


My grasp of the English language is more than enough to have just about any occupation in and of itself. If you only knew the writing skills or spelling skills of many doctors you'd agree.
Yet you make just as many spelling and grammatical errors as I do. Did you go to college?

No, I don't, but who's counting? In any case, picking on your spelling was probably unnecessary, so I apologize for that.

I don't have an excuse. I'm not a liar. I'm truthful enough to admit I make mistakes.

Why aren't you?
I don't see how I'm being untruthful.




You really believe 'reading a few books' is the only means to educate oneself?


How about working closely with those who know what you're trying to learn?
Reading more than just a 'few books'. Reading dozens of books.
Reading online material based on what you're trying to learn.
Reading studies or other material that those who work in the field read
Practice? Obviously not in the medical fields but practice in business or law or other things.
Growing up in an environment which you learned these things. Having a father who was a biologist and you spent so much time with him that you know as much about biology as someone with a degree for instance.
I very much doubt that any of those experiences would consistently replicate the proficiency gained by formal academic study in the classroom. I wonder if there have been any studies conducted of on-the-job performance of recipients of online or correspondence degrees, as opposed to individuals who studied at a traditional college? I predict that the performance of the latter group will be consistently higher.

The fact is...There's NOTHING that you can learn in college that you can't learn out of college. Period. I challenge you to name something.
Surgery.

That aside, it's certainly true that the information one would gain in a four-year college program is also available in any major public library. But I would submit that the method of presentation and evaluation provided by a structured educational program, and the opportunity for discussion with and feedback from experts in the field, provides a greater degree of consistency and quality control than would simply opening up the library doors and inviting everyone to indulge their own intellectual appetites.

Some of the most accomplished scientists in the past never had formal educations in the areas they excelled at. Here are a few examples of people who may or may not of attended college but excelled in areas in which they never went to college for. (Most never attened college)


Charles Darwin
Issac Newton
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew jackson
Andrew Johnson
Albert Einstein
Steve Jobs
Benjamin Franklin
Walt Disney
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Srinivasa Ramanujan
Michael Faraday


Without going through your entire list, I know off the top of my head that Darwin studied natural history at Cambridge, that Einstein had a Ph.D. in physics, and that Lincoln was trained as a lawyer. Given that, I'm rather disinclined to take your word as to the other examples. In any case, three further responses. First, it's somewhat disingenuous to offer examples from previous centuries, because the educational system was quite different then. Newton may or may not have studied in a university setting (I honestly have no idea), but I'm pretty certain that he received a comparably formal education for his time. Second, the fact that a few outstanding individuals in our own time have managed to achieve success despite the lack of a formal education is more a testament to those individuals' commendable personal qualities and ability to overcome adversity than any evidence that the university system is useless for the great majority of people. Third, success in business is as much a matter of personality, instinct, and luck as it is formal training; many successful businesspeople have no educational background in business, but I don't think tbe same is true of the more academic pursuits such as medicine, law, and science.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It might be proof that you are more familiar with the medical classification of blackheads than she is, but once again, your initial claim was far broader than that: that some licensed professionals know less about their fields than most laymen. As you've conceded, your blackhead anecdote shows nothing about whether you know more about dermatology in general than your dermatologist did, nor does it say anything about her degree of knowledge with respect to most laymen.


As i've stated...I could go on naming instances of my dermatologists ignorance but it's a waste of time.


I have not read any of his books, and am passingly familiar with his claims (though I probably couldn't distingush Behe's specific claims from those of Dembski or the I.D. movement in general). Even if it's true that he makes claims that "anyone who knows the basics of biochemistry knows is absurd," it would also have to be true that most laymen know the basics of biochemistry in order for your initial claim to be true. I very much doubt that this is the case.

You're not reading what I said. I said that in that example most laymen wouldn't know. But anyone who knows the basics of biochemistry would. Proving his education doesn't equal his knowledge of biochemistry.



No, I don't, but who's counting? In any case, picking on your spelling was probably unnecessary, so I apologize for that.


Actually i'm counting.

It's distinguish not 'distingush'Add another to the list?

Yes..You were wrong to use my spelling against me. I accept your apology.


I don't see how I'm being untruthful.

:rolleyes:

I very much doubt that any of those experiences would consistently replicate the proficiency gained by formal academic study in the classroom. I wonder if there have been any studies conducted of on-the-job performance of recipients of online or correspondence degrees, as opposed to individuals who studied at a traditional college? I predict that the performance of the latter group will be consistently higher.

Nothing I listed couldn't teach you what you can learn in a college.


Surgery.


You can learn surgery without attending a college. There's nothing you can do in a college that you couldn't do apprenticing with a real surgeon or practicing on kidabers.


That aside, it's certainly true that the information one would gain in a four-year college program is also available in any major public library. But I would submit that the method of presentation and evaluation provided by a structured educational program, and the opportunity for discussion with and feedback from experts in the field, provides a greater degree of consistency and quality control than would simply opening up the library doors and inviting everyone to indulge their own intellectual appetites.

You can discuss what you're learning and get feedback from experts without going to college. Also your exposure to 'experts' is very limited in college anyway. There are numerous ways to get in contact with experts and numerous programs in which you can converse with experts in any field. Espically mailing lists in which many experts communicate with eachother.


Without going through your entire list, I know off the top of my head that Darwin studied natural history at Cambridge, that Einstein had a Ph.D. in physics, and that Lincoln was trained as a lawyer.


Darwin attened a few 'lectures' on taxonomy but never recived a degree in natural history or even went to college specifically for it.
Einstein's discoveries weren't limited to 'physics'
Lincoln never even went to college. Sure he trained as a Lawyer but that training wasn't from college. Which supports my point.
Second, the fact that a few outstanding individuals in our own time have managed to achieve success despite the lack of a formal education is more a testament to those individuals' commendable personal qualities and ability to overcome adversity than any evidence that the university system is useless for the great majority of people.

I never said college is 100% useless. I'm simply saying it should not be used as a determination of someone’s intelligence or their ability to do specific things or work in specific fields.


Third, success in business is as much a matter of personality, instinct, and luck as it is formal training; many successful businesspeople have no educational background in business, but I don't think tbe same is true of the more academic pursuits such as medicine, law, and science.


It's not true in medicine or law in modern times because of our legal system. Period. It's against the law to practice medicine or law without a college degree. Get it?

However in science there are TONS of more examples of people even in modern times who have excelled in areas for which they were never 'formally educated'.

[Nightlord]

If you propose an alternate and quicker method of qualifying skills and knowledge in a field than college I would be quite scared of the possibility of having also a method to prepare complete laymans that can't educate themselves so they can pass this simpler examination.

I mean, even if you are looking at a 1 month long examination to become a lawyer I don't think it's impossible to have a 6 months course that allow almost anybody to pass this examination (but not to be a competent lawyer).

If you can find professionals that are not really that well prepared even after attending college I would not want to make easier this process but exactly the opposite.

[SwissSkeptic]

I'm not saying College is useless. I'm simply saying it should not be used as a determination of someone’s intelligence or their ability to do specific things or work in specific fields. College has a use. It’s use is to educate those who can’t educate themselves. Which may include most people however that’s beyond the point. I don’t believe those who never attended college should be limited by that if they have the ability, knowledge and skill to do what they want to do.

I think you underestimate the amount of training it takes to be a doctor, lawyer or a scientist. Colleges were built for a reason. They are the most efficient means of transferring expertise in complex subjects while securing quality control at the same time. The curricula and professors offer a structure and direct access to long years of experience from people excelling in their field. You can't make up for that by reading dozens of books.

Furthermore, I really don't see the problem. Colleges cost money. Education costs money. Big deal. There are grants and loans to encourage potential students who otherwise couldn't afford to go to college. If somebody wants to play doctor or scientist he should have the same education as the other scientists do, and the most efficient way to make sure he does is sending him to college.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If you propose an alternate and quicker method of qualifying skills and knowledge in a field than college I would be quite scared of the possibility of having also a method to prepare complete laymans that can't educate themselves so they can pass this simpler examination.

I'm not saying there is a "quicker" method of qualifying skills and knowledge. I'm saying there are other methods of getting skills and knowledge than going to college.

Read my other post


I mean, even if you are looking at a 1 month long examination to become a lawyer I don't think it's impossible to have a 6 months course that allow almost anybody to pass this examination (but not to be a competent lawyer).

If you can find professionals that are not really that well prepared even after attending college I would not want to make easier this process but exactly the opposite.

College is supposed to be a process of "educating" people not of testing their skills. Judging by the number of people out there who went to college but who's intelligence and skills are completly inadequate.

You say there could be "courses" to pass an examination to be a lawyer for instance? However the examination would frequently change and switch around so to prevent any possible way to pass except for having the knowledge in the field. Just like any other state issued test.

[SwissSkeptic]

How about working closely with those who know what you're trying to learn?
Reading more than just a 'few books'. Reading dozens of books.
Reading online material based on what you're trying to learn.
Reading studies or other material that those who work in the field read
Practice? Obviously not in the medical fields but practice in business or law or other things.
Growing up in an environment which you learned these things. Having a father who was a biologist and you spent so much time with him that you know as much about biology as someone with a degree for instance.

These are mostly things many college students do anyway, besides going to college.

[CFLarsen]

No. Most laymen know that blackheads are indeed a form of Acne.

Evidence?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I think you underestimate the amount of training it takes to be a doctor, lawyer or a scientist. Colleges were built for a reason. They are the most efficient means of transferring expertise in complex subjects while securing quality control at the same time. The curricula and professors offer a structure and direct access to long years of experience from people excelling in their field. You can't make up for that by reading dozens of books.

But you can make it up by other means of traning that doesn't include college. Means i've already mentioned.

Furthermore, I really don't see the problem. Colleges cost money. Education costs money. Big deal. There are grants and loans to encourage potential students who otherwise couldn't afford to go to college. If somebody wants to play doctor or scientist he should have the same education as the other scientists do, and the most efficient way to make sure he does is sending him to college.



Colleges cost TOO MUCH money and their methods of teaching are becoming more and more degenerated and ineffective. (Atleast in America)

Secondly...Grants and Loans? Ha! Have you ever tried getting a college scholarship or grant in America? I have. And trust me...It's near impossible unless you're black or have had perfect grades in highschool.

The average cost of college in America for 4 years is about $45,000 and is increasingly rising.(Average, Some universities can cost up to 130,000 for 4 years)

Loans are a bad choice unless you KNOW you will be making alot of money right out of college. Which generally is NOT the case. The federal loan interest rate in America is over 3%.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

These are mostly things many college students do anyway, besides going to college.


These are mostly things that college students do WHILE IN college.



Name one thing that you can do in College that you can't do otherwise.


Just one that is required to have an ability to work in a specific field..Say Law.


What can you do in College while learning Law that you can't do otherwise?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evidence?



You know I don't have evidence of such a thing. You're going to have to take my word for it.

[The Atheist]

I've always wondered about College and what exactly its point is...

I'm a recruiter of professional and other skilled workers of many years standing and I assure you that most professional occupations - doctor, engineer, veterinarian, scientist, etc. - can NOT be adequately trained outside of a tertiary institution. There is a world of difference between a carpenter cutting the wrong piece of wood and a surgeon cutting the wrong piece of human.

Accountants can certainly train on the job and never have to attend a university, and accordingly, I'm sure that with appropriate on-the-job training, lawyers could be trained at work as well. Simply put, there's no incentive for employers to invest the requisite amount of money in training and systems for it ever to happen.

On the other hand, universities do indeed churn out a large number of highly qualified bulls*** artists.

Psychology, marketing, commerce, international business, political science, sociology, etc. graduates are churned out in their millions.

Yes, they keep MacDonalds well staffed, but do they need those degrees? Does the having of those degrees confer greater job prospects on the holders?

Not really, is the bad news for all those studying towards a BA/BS instead of a BSc. Your degree will open doors, but it won't help you become a CEO, a millionaire or any type of success - that comes from working hard and that's an ethic many graduates lack.

In sales especially, I have placed men with no high school diploma [equivalent in NZ/UK terms] in top management positions at the expense of multi-degreed graduates because one has proven skills and the other can't match them. Yes, there have amazing success stories of dropouts achieving great success, but they are a minority. Often, they just get highlighted to encourage others to try and emulate the example, and for the same reason, some of those perceived to have been born with a silver spoon in their mouths have to struggle for recognition.

The reason many graduates succeed is that when intellect meets attitude and creativity, only success can result. In the majority of cases, those three traits are most likely to be wrapped in a package with a degree.

One final point, which JamesDillon has rightly hammered home is that use of written English is a crucial skill in executive positions and you will be judged on it if you apply for a job at that level. I'll give you that there are no points to be gained using correct English here, but bad habits become hard to break.

[SwissSkeptic]

Colleges cost TOO MUCH money and their methods of teaching are becoming more and more degenerated and ineffective. (Atleast in America)

Secondly...Grants and Loans? Ha! Have you ever tried getting a college scholarship or grant in America? I have. And trust me...It's near impossible unless you're black or have had perfect grades in highschool.

The average cost of college in America for 4 years is about $45,000 and is increasingly rising.(Average, Some universities can cost up to 130,000 for 4 years)

Loans are a bad choice unless you KNOW you will be making alot of money right out of college. Which generally is NOT the case. The federal loan interest rate in America is over 3%.

I won't argue with that point as I don't have much knowledge about the american college system except that it's quite different from ours. However, college being too expensive isn't an argument against colleges, it's an argument against too expensive colleges.

I still stand by my point, college education is the most efficient (and thus: economic) way to teach a high degree of expertise while securing quality control.



These are mostly things that college students do WHILE IN college.

That's exactly the point. They do it while in college, i.e. while they also attend classes, seminars, write assignements etc. Someone who doesn't attend college only does the things you've listed.


Name one thing that you can do in College that you can't do otherwise.


How about regular papers, homework and presentations that are corrected and criticised by people with dozens of years of experience in the field?

Just one that is required to have an ability to work in a specific field..Say Law.


What can you do in College while learning Law that you can't do otherwise?

Moot courts.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm a recruiter of professional and other skilled workers of many years standing and I assure you that most professional occupations - doctor, engineer, veterinarian, scientist, etc. - can NOT be adequately trained outside of a tertiary institution. There is a world of difference between a carpenter cutting the wrong piece of wood and a surgeon cutting the wrong piece of human.

Give examples of what you can learn in College but can't learn out of college. That's what i'm asking for yet there are none.


Accountants can certainly train on the job and never have to attend a university, and accordingly, I'm sure that with appropriate on-the-job training, lawyers could be trained at work as well. Simply put, there's no incentive for employers to invest the requisite amount of money in training and systems for it ever to happen.

Beyond the point. There are many people out there who would be willing to work with apprentices or hire people to do on the job training in many fields.

On the other hand, universities do indeed churn out a large number of highly qualified bulls*** artists.

Yes

Psychology, marketing, commerce, international business, political science, sociology, etc. graduates are churned out in their millions.

Yes


Yes, they keep MacDonalds well staffed, but do they need those degrees? Does the having of those degrees confer greater job prospects on the holders?

No


Not really, is the bad news for all those studying towards a BA/BS instead of a BSc. Your degree will open doors, but it won't help you become a CEO, a millionaire or any type of success - that comes from working hard and that's an ethic many graduates lack.

I'm not arguing that your degree won't 'open doors' I'm saying it shouldn't be the only key to those doors. I'm saying SKILL and INTELLIGENCE and ABILITY should be the judge,,Not ones "degree". This is obvious.


In sales especially, I have placed men with no high school diploma [equivalent in NZ/UK terms] in top management positions at the expense of multi-degreed graduates because one has proven skills and the other can't match them. Yes, there have amazing success stories of dropouts achieving great success, but they are a minority. Often, they just get highlighted to encourage others to try and emulate the example, and for the same reason, some of those perceived to have been born with a silver spoon in their mouths have to struggle for recognition.

Which supports my assertion that judging people purely by their college education is absurd. Ignoring potential applicants because they don't have a college education even if they have the skills is absurd.


The reason many graduates succeed is that when intellect meets attitude and creativity, only success can result. In the majority of cases, those three traits are most likely to be wrapped in a package with a degree.

Degrees are for the most part fairly easy to get. Just expensive.

Look at the statistics. As the encome of the persons family goes up...Their education goes up as well. This is no coincidence.


One final point, which JamesDillon has rightly hammered home is that use of written English is a crucial skill in executive positions and you will be judged on it if you apply for a job at that level. I'll give you that there are no points to be gained using correct English here, but bad habits become hard to break.


I never said knowledge of English isn't crucial in most positions.

I stated...


MY english skill is adequate for most positions.
It was a fallacy to point out my spelling errors.
He made just as many errors.
Obviously people who talk like 'yo wat up wit dat yo hommie dog' won't go far in most occupations.

[CFLarsen]

You know I don't have evidence of such a thing. You're going to have to take my word for it.

You know I don't take your word for it. And I won't.

Do you have evidence of anything else you have said? Or do we similarly have to take your word for it?

[JLam]

Colleges cost TOO MUCH money and their methods of teaching are becoming more and more degenerated and ineffective. (Atleast in America)Evidence?

Secondly...Grants and Loans? Ha! Have you ever tried getting a college scholarship or grant in America? I have. And trust me...It's near impossible unless you're black or have had perfect grades in highschool. Wow. That's perhaps one of the most uninformed, ignorant things I've read on this board. So you're saying that because you had trouble obtaining grants and loans, that it's near impossible unless you're black or had perfect grades? :confused:

The average cost of college in America for 4 years is about $45,000 and is increasingly rising.(Average, Some universities can cost up to 130,000 for 4 years)

Loans are a bad choice unless you KNOW you will be making alot of money right out of college. Which generally is NOT the case. The federal loan interest rate in America is over 3%.
Loans are very easy to get and the government is VERY flexible regarding paying them back. Government-provided student loans are probably the cheapest forms of money borrowing available to the average citizen. 3% is VERY cheap money.

Dustin, have you recently had trouble getting into the college of your choice?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I won't argue with that point as I don't have much knowledge about the american college system except that it's quite different from ours. However, college being too expensive isn't an argument against colleges, it's an argument against too expensive colleges.

Most colleges are simply too expensive for the average middle class family in America. It's also increasing.

I still stand by my point, college education is the most efficient (and thus: economic) way to teach a high degree of expertise while securing quality control.

Yet self education is still a means for the specifically intelligent and should not be discriminated against.


That's exactly the point. They do it while in college, i.e. while they also attend classes, seminars, write assignements etc. Someone who doesn't attend college only does the things you've listed.

No...This is mostly WHAT they do in college.


How about regular papers, homework and presentations that are corrected and criticised by people with dozens of years of experience in the field?

You can learn to correct your own mistakes through study and discussion with people who have the knowledge. Example i've already provided such as E-mail lists where experts communicate. Asking questions and getting answers.




Moot courts.


Why can't this be simulated outside of college?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evidence?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/18/pf/college/college_costs/


Wow. That's perhaps one of the most uninformed, ignorant things I've read on this board. So you're saying that because you had trouble obtaining grants and loans, that it's near impossible unless you're black or had perfect grades?

I'm saying that the vast majority of college students don't get 'grants' or scholarships.


Loans are very easy to get and the government is VERY flexible regarding paying them back. Government-provided student loans are probably the cheapest forms of money borrowing available to the average citizen. 3% is VERY cheap money.

Loans are easy to get? Of course they are. But they are near impossible to pay back unless you're making tons of money right out of college. Which as i've said..Most people don't do.

3% is very cheap money? Compound it over several years. Which is how long you will take to pay back the loan. On a 60,000 loan you've just added about 15,000.

Moreover being in debt that much hurts...Not a good thing.


Dustin, have you recently had trouble getting into the college of your choice?


No.


How much did you spend on college?

[Nightlord]

I'm not saying there is a "quicker" method of qualifying skills and knowledge. I'm saying there are other methods of getting skills and knowledge than going to college.

College is supposed to be a process of "educating" people not of testing their skills. Judging by the number of people out there who went to college but who's intelligence and skills are completly inadequate.

But in your post I don't see that your problem is with having or not other ways of getting skills and knowledge, the problem is that those other methods are not taken in account when deciding who can practice or not a profession. So I thought that you would be looking for a different way to decide if somebody is allow or not to do something.
If the problem is not with the people having the college degree as a way to prove they are capable of doing something, then the solution would be to adquire the skills and knowledge elsewere but still get into and graduate from college to prove they do.

You say there could be "courses" to pass an examination to be a lawyer for instance? However the examination would frequently change and switch around so to prevent any possible way to pass except for having the knowledge in the field. Just like any other state issued test. Even having only anecdotical evidence I know that there is no state issued test that can be trusted to pass only people really capable of doing what its being tested.

[SwissSkeptic]

Most colleges are simply too expensive for the average middle class family in America. It's also increasing.

Even if that's the case, how is it an argument for anything other than lower college costs?


Yet self education is still a means for the specifically intelligent and should not be discriminated against.

Of course it shouldn't. If a self-educated person has a significant contribution to make to, say, physics, I don't think the scientific community is going to dismiss him as long as he has evidence for his claims. However that's not the same as getting a practicing licence and it shouldn't be.




No...This is mostly WHAT they do in college.


It's only part of what they do in college, that's the whole point.



You can learn to correct your own mistakes through study and discussion with people who have the knowledge. Example i've already provided such as E-mail lists where experts communicate. Asking questions and getting answers.


You'll have to excuse me, but I'm highly skeptical of correcting one's own mistakes.

Why can't this be simulated outside of college?

It can, but who would be interested in it except the participants? It's currently a means of competition between colleges as well as a way for companies to look for potential. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be interested in moot courts that don't have any academic backing.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

But in your post I don't see that your problem is with having or not other ways of getting skills and knowledge, the problem is that those other methods are not taken in account when deciding who can practice or not a profession. So I thought that you would be looking for a different way to decide if somebody is allow or not to do something.

That IS what I was saying.

The problem is discrimination against those people who didn't go to college yet have the skills and ability to do the job.


If the problem is not with the people having the college degree as a way to prove they are capable of doing something, then the solution would be to adquire the skills and knowledge elsewere but still get into and graduate from college to prove they do.

Go to college and graduate just to prove you have the skills to do so?

Are you serious?

Spend tens of thousands of dollars to get into a college. Waste 4 years going to college just to 'prove' you have the skill you already had?

:hit:



Even having only anecdotical evidence I know that there is no state issued test that can be trusted to pass only people really capable of doing what its being tested.


And there is also no college that can be trusted to teach it's students everything they need to know about the field and assure all have the knowledge required at graduation either.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Even if that's the case, how is it an argument for anything other than lower college costs?


It isn't.



Of course it shouldn't. If a self-educated person has a significant contribution to make to, say, physics, I don't think the scientific community is going to dismiss him as long as he has evidence for his claims. However that's not the same as getting a practicing licence and it shouldn't be.

Of course it's the same. If someone is self-educated and wants to be a lawyer for instance, Why should they be able to practice law and get a license to do so? Why?


It's only part of what they do in college, that's the whole point.


Yet there's nothing they do in College that they can't out of college.


You'll have to excuse me, but I'm highly skeptical of correcting one's own mistakes.

And i'm highly skeptical of those who claim one can't learn from their mistakes.

That's the basis of the entire scientific method. Yet you are 'skeptical' of it?:rolleyes:


It can, but who would be interested in it except the participants? It's currently a means of competition between colleges as well as a way for companies to look for potential. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be interested in moot courts that don't have any academic backing.


You're arguing from authority here and jumping the point itself.

First you claimed Moot courts couldn't be reproduced outside of college.

Now you're claiming they can except they wouldn't be the same since companies use college mootcourts to find potential and wouldn't with a non-academic backed moot court. This is also beyond the point. This doesn't mean one can't get skills from a moot court outside of college.

With changes, I think moot courts run societies or clubs for those interested in Law could exist where companies looked for potential. All outside of college.

[CFLarsen]

I'm saying that the vast majority of college students don't get 'grants' or scholarships.

Evidence?

Loans are easy to get? Of course they are. But they are near impossible to pay back unless you're making tons of money right out of college. Which as i've said..Most people don't do.

So what? In Denmark, where you get paid to take an education, instead of paying for it, university students usually end up with loans, too. That takes them often decades to pay back, even when they have high salaries.

3% is very cheap money? Compound it over several years. Which is how long you will take to pay back the loan. On a 60,000 loan you've just added about 15,000.

Now you show your young and tender age, Dustin. 3% is ridiculously low, when you compare it to what people had to live with 15-25 years ago. Savor the good times that are now.

Moreover being in debt that much hurts...Not a good thing.

No, it isn't. But debt can also be seen - especially when it comes to education - as an investment in the future. Somebody is going to pay for your education, and if you don't have a system like Denmark, where it is paid for through taxes, you're going to have to cough up the money yourself.

Perhaps you favor high taxes for all instead?

[Nightlord]

The problem is discrimination against those people who didn't go to college yet have the skills and ability to do the job.

Go to college and graduate just to prove you have the skills to do so?

Are you serious?

Spend tens of thousands of dollars to get into a college. Waste 4 years going to college just to 'prove' you have the skill you already had?

Then my first post was true, you want a much more simple, quick and cheap method to demonstrate that you have the skills and knowledge than graduating from college. And if you are so upset with the results of 4 or more years of constant evaluation I don't see how having this other cheap, quick and simple options can help to improve the quality of the professionals, That is why I said that then the solution would be to make even more difficult for people to have a professional degree, not easier.

(Unless that your point is to avoid wasting 4 years to give somebody a degree he should not have when it could be given in a few weeks in a test as much as unreliable)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evidence?


I don't have any websites or statistics showing the number of college students(in America) who have grants or scholarships however I have seen the statistics before and I can tell you only a small fraction of college students actually get grants or scholarships. Something like 5%.


So what? In Denmark, where you get paid to take an education, instead of paying for it, university students usually end up with loans, too. That takes them often decades to pay back, even when they have high salaries.

That's the way it should be of course. Seeing as how much of a contribution people with educations are to society.

Now you show your young and tender age, Dustin. 3% is ridiculously low, when you compare it to what people had to live with 15-25 years ago. Savor the good times that are now.

3% seems low if you haven't done the math. Compound that 3% over several years and you've got a good amount of money you owe.


No, it isn't. But debt can also be seen - especially when it comes to education - as an investment in the future. Somebody is going to pay for your education, and if you don't have a system like Denmark, where it is paid for through taxes, you're going to have to cough up the money yourself.

An investment in the future? That's funny.

Only about 1/3 of college grads actually get hired after graduation.



Let's say you have 100,000$. (You are living in America)

Is it better to spend it on college?

Or is it better to invest it and get a job?

(I already know the answer)


Perhaps you favor high taxes for all instead?

If America didn't spend it's money so pathetically then we could have the same taxes we do now and still pay for college for everyone.

Do you know how much we spend on the 'war on drugs'?

[Skeptic]

Give examples of what you can learn in College but can't learn out of college. That's what i'm asking for

Medicine. Engineering. Law. Just about any specialized scientific field, from Archeology to Zoology. This is not only because of qualified teachers, but, in the sciences especially, that the qualified *laboratories* and *researchers* and *Hospitals* and *funds* to learn these things are found (mostly) in universities and colleges.

Of course it depends what you mean by "can" and "can't". If the Medical faculty of Harvard agrees to come to my home and teach me everything they teach their students, then I suppose I can be as good a doctor without a formal degree than with it. Not likely.

Another possibility is that you get into a totally new field just when it is developing--such as Bill Gates or Steve Jobs with computers, or Darwin with evolution, when, naturally, it is hardly yet taught in colleges. Again, not likely.

A third is that you are a one-in-a-million exceptional person, such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Alva Edison, that (in your historical circumstances) you amount to a lot even without a college education. Even less likely.

But apart from such theoretical or exceedingly rare cases, college education is an absolute necessity for those in any scientific or technical field. Your examples are not to the point since they either give exceedingly rare cases of extraordinary persons as if they are typical. In reality, the era of the lone, self-educated inventor or expert has been all but over in the scientific field (the humanities is something else) for the last 100 years.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then my first post was true, you want a much more simple, quick and cheap method to demonstrate that you have the skills and knowledge than graduating from college. And if you are so upset with the results of 4 or more years of constant evaluation I don't see how having this other cheap, quick and simple options can help to improve the quality of the professionals, That is why I said that then the solution would be to make even more difficult for people to have a professional degree, not easier.

I didn't say it would improve the "quality of professionals" firstly. I said it would make it easier for those who have the skill to do a job to do the job. That's it.

Secondly...As i've said and proven..Many people who do go to college and have degrees don't automatically have knowledge in the field.


(Unless that your point is to avoid wasting 4 years to give somebody a degree he should not have when it could be given in a few weeks in a test as much as unreliable)


What??? I don't know what you're saying here.

[SwissSkeptic]

It isn't.
OK.

Of course it's the same. If someone is self-educated and wants to be a lawyer for instance, Why should they be able to practice law and get a license to do so? Why?
It's not the same. If I have evidence for a scientific breakthrough, I have...evidence. What evidence does the self educated "lawyer" have that he can practice law?

Yet there's nothing they do in College that they can't out of college.




And i'm highly skeptical of those who claim one can't learn from their mistakes.

That's the basis of the entire scientific method. Yet you are 'skeptical' of it?:rolleyes:



First, I didn't claim that one can't learn from one's own mistakes, that's a misrepresentation of what I said. I said "I'm highly skeptical of correcting one's own mistakes. "

Furthermore the mistake we were talking about are mistakes in "papers, homework or presentations". Are you claiming that somebody can correct his homework with the same accuracy as a professor with years of experience can?

Lastly, the scientific method doesn't work simply by people correcting their own papers (that's pretty much a given). Correction of mistakes is what peer-review is for.



You're arguing from authority here and jumping the point itself.

First you claimed Moot courts couldn't be reproduced outside of college.

Now you're claiming they can except they wouldn't be the same since companies use college mootcourts to find potential and wouldn't with a non-academic backed moot court. This is also beyond the point. This doesn't mean one can't get skills from a moot court outside of college.

With changes, I think moot courts run societies or clubs for those interested in Law could exist where companies looked for potential. All outside of college.

Where am I arguing from authority?

I'll concede that moot courts can be simulated outside of college. However,
I don't think what I said is beyond the point. I emphasized the college and company background because that's what makes moot courts competitive and interesting. It's a means of quality control, which is a central point in this debate that you seem to ignore.

What is beyond the point is the question "what can you do in college that you can't do somewhere else?". It doesn't address the issues of efficiency and quality control.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Medicine. Engineering. Law. Just about any specialized scientific field, from Archeology to Zoology. This is not only because of qualified teachers, but, in the sciences especially, that the qualified *laboratories* and *researchers* and *Hospitals* and *funds* to learn these things are found (mostly) in universities and colleges.


You could use these labs and simply pay fees to use them opposed to enrolling in the university and paying tens of thousands of dollars?
You could have specific instruction on lab procedure instead of going through the entire 3 or 4 years to get a degree in the field itself
You could have your own lab.
This only applies to specific sciences. Not including zoology or archeology where you could learn the skills without a lab. Also not including law.


Of course it depends what you mean by "can" and "can't". If the Medical faculty of Harvard agrees to come to my home and teach me everything they teach their students, then I suppose I can be as good a doctor without a formal degree than with it. Not likely.

What can they teach you that you can't learn at the Public Library?


Nothing.



A third is that you are a one-in-a-million exceptional person, such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Alva Edison, that (in your historical circumstances) you amount to a lot even without a college education. Even less likely.

Unlikely but still a chance.


But apart from such theoretical or exceedingly rare cases, college education is an absolute necessity for those in any scientific or technical field. Your examples are not to the point since they either give exceedingly rare cases of extraordinary persons as if they are typical. In reality, the era of the lone, self-educated inventor or expert has been all but over in the scientific field (the humanities is something else) for the last 100 years.


You claim that the day of self-taught scientist or experts is 'over' yet I can name dozens of contemporary examples in science or technology where people exceeded without college educations.
Also it isn't beyond the point. It's a point because people CAN teach themselves. College isn't "absolutely necessary" for someone to teach their self skills.


Moreover...None of which has anything to do with the fact (as you yourself admit) people can be self taught and are currently being prohibited from perusing careers because they didn't take the 'common means' to getting their education.

We have people who simply go to college because they couldn't get into their field of choice without a degree. EVEN IF they have the knowledge. People who could be contributing to our society but are being forced to waste time in college learning what they already know.

[JamesDillon]

As i've stated...I could go on naming instances of my dermatologists ignorance but it's a waste of time.
This entire discussion is a waste of time, so feel free to go on.

You're not reading what I said. I said that in that example most laymen wouldn't know. But anyone who knows the basics of biochemistry would. Proving his education doesn't equal his knowledge of biochemistry.
I think the problem is that I am reading what you said, and holding you to it. You said that there are people with specialized degrees who know less than most laymen about their field of study. When challenged to name one, you came up with Behe, and now you're trying to apply a different standard than the one you originally articulated. If your position is not that Behe knows less about biochemistry than most laymen, then he's irrelevant to your point and you still haven't offered an example.

Actually i'm counting.

It's distinguish not 'distingush'Add another to the list?
I'm afraid I've lost count of your misspellings (but, really, kidaber??), but, once again, my keyboard is sticking because I spilled soup on it. The fact that the "mistakes" on my part you've cited are obvious missing-letter typos, as opposed to phonetic misspellings or grammatical mistakes, demonstrates the categorical distinction here.

Yes..You were wrong to use my spelling against me. I accept your apology.
It may have been unnecessary to make an issue of it, but it nevertheless illustrates my larger point. You seem to think that you're one of the people who's too smart to be bothered with higher education. Everything I've seen of you so far suggests otherwise.

:rolleyes:
Which means?

Nothing I listed couldn't teach you what you can learn in a college.
How do you know?

You can learn surgery without attending a college. There's nothing you can do in a college that you couldn't do apprenticing with a real surgeon or practicing on kidabers.
So you propose an apprenticeship program instead? Who's going to administer it? How is that different from a program in which a bunch of "apprentices" meet on a regular basis to learn from an established surgeon, and maybe cut open some, ah, kidabers, whose credentials have been verified by a professional body? Actually, I think we have something like that already-- it's called medical school.

You can discuss what you're learning and get feedback from experts without going to college. Also your exposure to 'experts' is very limited in college anyway. There are numerous ways to get in contact with experts and numerous programs in which you can converse with experts in any field. Espically mailing lists in which many experts communicate with eachother.
And do you really think that practicing experts are going to take the time to correspond with five hundred aspiring doctors, lawyers, scientists, whatevers, if doing so is not part of their job description?



Darwin attened a few 'lectures' on taxonomy but never recived a degree in natural history or even went to college specifically for it.
Entirely false. Darwin was an avid student of natural history at Cambridge, enrolling in courses in botany and geology and was the favorite student of his botany professor, John Henslow. The university system worked a bit differently back then, I'm not sure if "degrees" as such were offered, but while it is the case that Darwin's primary emphasis was on theology in preparation for a life in the clergy, his Cambridge education was steeped in natural history.

Einstein's discoveries weren't limited to 'physics'
This is so vague I have no idea how to respond to it.
Lincoln never even went to college. Sure he trained as a Lawyer but that training wasn't from college. Which supports my point.
I don't understand this "apprenticeship" program you keep referring to. I thought your point was that we can learn everything we need to from library reading? As I suggested in the discussion of medical school, isn't the university system, especially at the graduate level, simply a more efficient replacement for the old practice of apprenticeship?

I never said college is 100% useless.
The term "********" generally indicates a pretty low opinion of something.

I'm simply saying it should not be used as a determination of someone’s intelligence or their ability to do specific things or work in specific fields.
Well, obviously a person's I.Q. is not affected by their obtaining or not obtaining a college degree, although I wouldn't be surprised to find some correlation between I.Q. and academic achievement. But as to the suggestion that there shouldn't be some formal system to ensure that a candidate is well-prepared for a specialized career, I say, once again, that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

It's not true in medicine or law in modern times because of our legal system. Period. It's against the law to practice medicine or law without a college degree.
And for good reason.

However in science there are TONS of more examples of people even in modern times who have excelled in areas for which they were never 'formally educated'.
TONS, you say? Such as?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's not the same. If I have evidence for a scientific breakthrough, I have...evidence. What evidence does the self educated "lawyer" have that he can practice law?

His passing of a comprehensive exam proving he can practice law.


I already said this numerous times. You haven't been reading my post.


First, I didn't claim that one can't learn from one's own mistakes, that's a misrepresentation of what I said. I said "I'm highly skeptical of correcting one's own mistakes. "

Learning from ones mistakes IS a means to correcting ones own mistakes.
If I make a mistake and learn from it...Why can't I correct it? :rolleyes:


Furthermore the mistake we were talking about are mistakes in "papers, homework or presentations". Are you claiming that somebody can correct his homework with the same accuracy as a professor with years of experience can?

If they are thorough enough. Why not? Professors generally correct the mistakes based on their own personal knowledge. How often do they examine every single thing and look it up online or in books to verify if he (the professor) knows if it's correct or not?

Of course "papers" are a means of proving to the teacher you have the knowledge to begin with. Generally autodidacts don't write 'papers' and self correct them since they correct their notions and knowledge from more study.


Lastly, the scientific method doesn't work simply by people correcting their own papers (that's pretty much a given). Correction of mistakes is what peer-review is for.

Yes..And this peer-review exists outside of college. Why can't autodidacts have peer review?

This forum itself is an example of 'peer review' outside of college in action. People post thoughts and it gets reviewed by their others. They argue their points. Like i'm doing right now.


Where am I arguing from authority?

Saying that moot courts outside of college aren't really "as good" because they don't have "academic backing".


I'll concede that moot courts can be simulated outside of college. However,
I don't think what I said is beyond the point. I emphasized the college and company background because that's what makes moot courts competitive and interesting. It's a means of quality control, which is a central point in this debate that you seem to ignore.

Quality control can exist outside of college too.

If clubs exist that do moot trials(Don't know if they do), I'm more than sure professional lawyers would join them for practice on various cases. Why would they pass up the chance to practice a case before doing it?

This is where people who are up and coming lawyers(without college education) can learn all sorts of things.


What is beyond the point is the question "what can you do in college that you can't do somewhere else?". It doesn't address the issues of efficiency and quality control.

No it doesn't. However quality control and efficiency can be up to par with college..Or even BEYOND that of college if done correctly.


I'm willing to bet there are DOZENS of people on this forum who have expert knowledge in numerous areas and don't have degrees in those areas. Who know more about those areas than many who do have degrees in those areas.

I'm not one of them though...But I personally know plenty.

[brodski]

No it doesn't. However quality control and efficiency can be up to par with college..Or even BEYOND that of college if done correctly.

Evidence?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm afraid I've lost count of your misspellings (but, really, kidaber??), but, once again, my keyboard is sticking because I spilled soup on it. The fact that the "mistakes" on my part you've cited are obvious missing-letter typos, as opposed to phonetic misspellings or grammatical mistakes, demonstrates the categorical distinction here.

Your excuse of "sticking keys" and "spilled soup" is a blatant lie. The words you're misspelling are misspelled in such a way that sticking keys couldn't account for them. I.E. Replacing one letter for another.

Not that spelling has any relevance to this discussion. You're the one who brought it up.

It may have been unnecessary to make an issue of it, but it nevertheless illustrates my larger point. You seem to think that you're one of the people who's too smart to be bothered with higher education. Everything I've seen of you so far suggests otherwise.

You're putting words into my mouth.

I never made that claim.
My spelling is just fine. Except a few mistakes in spelling. I have great knowledge of the English language.



So you propose an apprenticeship program instead? Who's going to administer it? How is that different from a program in which a bunch of "apprentices" meet on a regular basis to learn from an established surgeon, and maybe cut open some, ah, kidabers, whose credentials have been verified by a professional body? Actually, I think we have something like that already-- it's called medical school.

It's different because it's a different means of doing it rather than paying for medical school and going through that process. If it's just as effective(or more effective since it's 1 on 1 opposed to 1 on 50) I think it should be used.



And do you really think that practicing experts are going to take the time to correspond with five hundred aspiring doctors, lawyers, scientists, whatevers, if doing so is not part of their job description?

There are thousands of experts out there...I'm more than sure many would correspond with people interested in the fields since I myself correspond with many of them on Mailing lists and personally. Some might not..So what?


Entirely false. Darwin was an avid student of natural history at Cambridge, enrolling in courses in botany and geology and was the favorite student of his botany professor, John Henslow. The university system worked a bit differently back then, I'm not sure if "degrees" as such were offered, but while it is the case that Darwin's primary emphasis was on theology in preparation for a life in the clergy, his Cambridge education was steeped in natural history.

Degrees were offered then and he didn't get one. He transfered to theology school.


This is so vague I have no idea how to respond to it.

Astronomy? Cosmology?


I don't understand this "apprenticeship" program you keep referring to. I thought your point was that we can learn everything we need to from library reading?

We can learn the specific facts but we can't practice them.


As I suggested in the discussion of medical school, isn't the university system, especially at the graduate level, simply a more efficient replacement for the old practice of apprenticeship?

More efficient? No.


The term "********" generally indicates a pretty low opinion of something.

College as it exists currently in American Society is "B.S.". That doesn't mean it's completely useless. It just means a lot of changes need to be made to college and our societies perception of it.


Well, obviously a person's I.Q. is not affected by their obtaining or not obtaining a college degree, although I wouldn't be surprised to find some correlation between I.Q. and academic achievement. But as to the suggestion that there shouldn't be some formal system to ensure that a candidate is well-prepared for a specialized career, I say, once again, that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

More strawmen..

I never said a "standard system" should be in place to determine if candidates are prepared for careers. I said that COLLEGE should not be that only system.


And for good reason.


Good reasons? You haven't named any.


TONS, you say? Such as?

In the sciences...

R. Buckminster Fuller
Michael Dell
Lawrence Ellison
Bill Gates
Jane Goodall(Has a degree now but made her discoveries without having a college education)
Hazel Henderson
Steven Jobs
Jaron Lanier
Richard E. Leakey(was educated in the field not in a traditional university)
John Romero
Steve Wozniak


Non-sciences

Shelby Foote(historian)
Richard Grasso(CEO of NYSE)
Catherine Elizabeth Hughes
Peter Jennings
Kevin Kelly
Kirk Kerkorian
Jimmy Lai
Steven Spielberg
Ted Turner


Just to name a few.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Evidence?


Aside from the currently declining success rate of college grads and the fact that colleges are more and more wasting money and not spending it on the actuall education of the students....My entire post?

I've been giving detailed examples of how quality control can be maintained out of college.

[SezMe]

In terms of the job market, a college degree isn't necessarily about the applicant's knowledge; rather, it's important because it shows that he or she can stick with something difficult and see it through. A valuable trait in most jobs, completely apart from what you do or don't know.

Edited to add: Obviously this isn't the case so much in specialized fields such as law or medicine, but it's an important consideration overall.
No, that is not obvious. My son has an undergraduate degree in physics but decided to go into intellectual property (patent) law. He originally focused on law schools that had that as a speciality but changed his mind when he met with a practicing attorney. He (the attorney) told him to go to the best law school he could get into and learn everything about the practice of law in general. Then he (my son) would learn about the specific practice of patent law under the wing of a practicing mentor.

Which is exactly what happened.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

There's a form of discrimination against people who never went through formal education or didn't attend a college or don't have a degree. It's called 'Credentialism'. It's basically the same thing as ad hominem fallacies or arguments from authority.

"You can't do this job because you didn't go to college or have a degree."


It's a typical fallacy of logic.

[timhau]

Probably about four years or so. You could test them every December and May. Although you should probably set up some sort of facility for this testing. And maybe a staff of qualified experts in the subject matter they're being tested on?

That sounds good. And maybe, just to improve the candidates' chances of passing those tests, you could arrange for some kind of instruction prior to the tests.

This sounds like a terrific idea. I bet most those self-taught experts pass the exams with flying colors. That'll show those snotty college graduates!

[SezMe]

In the U.S. you can't practice law for instance without a law degree. It's illegal.
Really? All one has to do is pass the bar exam. Where one got the knowledge to pass that exam is totally irrelevant.

[SwissSkeptic]

His passing of a comprehensive exam proving he can practice law.


I already said this numerous times. You haven't been reading my post.

I have been reading your posts. You wish to redefine what's accepted as proof for being able to practice law. No problem, but please show me a test that can replace four years worth of college education.

EDIT: Nope, according to SezMe you don't.

Learning from ones mistakes IS a means to correcting ones own mistakes.
If I make a mistake and learn from it...Why can't I correct it? :rolleyes:

You have to find and correct the mistake before you can learn from it.

Professors generally correct the mistakes based on their own personal knowledge. How often do they examine every single thing and look it up online or in books to verify if he (the professor) knows if it's correct or not?
A self educating person is definatly not in the same position as the professor to spot mistakes. Anyway, I'm highly suspicious of any professor who relies solely on himself to correct his mistakes.

Of course "papers" are a means of proving to the teacher you have the knowledge to begin with. Generally autodidacts don't write 'papers' and self correct them since they correct their notions and knowledge from more study.

Papers are mainly a means to learn to express oneself in the field of study.

Yes..And this peer-review exists outside of college. Why can't autodidacts have peer review?
Because they aren't experts.

This forum itself is an example of 'peer review' outside of college in action. People post thoughts and it gets reviewed by their others. They argue their points. Like i'm doing right now.

Peer-review is usually defined as the professional evaluation of the work of others in the same field of profession. "Peer review" isn't the same as peer review.


Saying that moot courts outside of college aren't really "as good" because they don't have "academic backing".
I didn't base my claim on the authority of the academic backing itself, but on it's effects.

Quality control can exist outside of college too.
Sure. Show me a way of quality control in academic fields that's better than or equal to what we have now.


If clubs exist that do moot trials(Don't know if they do), I'm more than sure professional lawyers would join them for practice on various cases. Why would they pass up the chance to practice a case before doing it?
Because they would be practicing with complete laymen.


No it doesn't. However quality control and efficiency can be up to par with college..Or even BEYOND that of college if done correctly.

How would that look like? I don't think what you suggested comes even near to four years of college education.

I'm willing to bet there are DOZENS of people on this forum who have expert knowledge in numerous areas and don't have degrees in those areas.
Absolutely.

Who know more about those areas than many who do have degrees in those areas.
Possible. Not sure, though.


I'm not one of them though...But I personally know plenty.
Neither am I. ;)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, that is not obvious. My son has an undergraduate degree in physics but decided to go into intellectual property (patent) law. He originally focused on law schools that had that as a speciality but changed his mind when he met with a practicing attorney. He (the attorney) told him to go to the best law school he could get into and learn everything about the practice of law in general. Then he (my son) would learn about the specific practice of patent law under the wing of a practicing mentor.

Which is exactly what happened.



It's entirely possible to learn all you need to know about case law or law in general from the library or some academic library and all self taught and then learn the rest of the details through practice and the mentoring of an attorney.

However it's illegal.

[brodski]

Really? All one has to do is pass the bar exam. Where one got the knowledge to pass that exam is totally irrelevant.
You mean you become qualified by passing an exam? Does eating in a formal setting not come into it at all?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I have been reading your posts. You wish to redefine what's accepted as proof for being able to practice law. No problem, but please show me a test that can replace four years worth of college education.

A test isn't supposed to "replace 4 years of college education". Your self education is supposed to replace it.

The test is supposed to be there for determining if you have the knowledge to practice in the field or not.


Obviously no such test exists.(Atleast to my knowledge)

But one could be made.



You have to find and correct the mistake before you can learn from it.

Which isn't hard if you are constantly educating yourself and re-examining conflicts of information.


A self educating person is definatly not in the same position as the professor to spot mistakes. Anyway, I'm highly suspicious of any professor who relies solely on himself to correct his mistakes.

I'm not aware of any that do. They rely on independent sources from which they study to spot conflicts of facts.


Papers are mainly a means to learn to express oneself in the field of study.

"express onself in the field of study"? That's a new one!

Why can't you learn such a thing directly from those who actually do it?

For instance I personally know exactly how to put together a scientific paper. I know how to format it and how to use sources and references. If I had the information to put a paper together I wouldn't have a problem doing so.

I have no degrees in science.

How do I know? I've probably read thousands of scientific papers in the past.


Because they aren't experts.

Who aren't experts?

Generally in a college the only expert peer reviewing is the 1 single professor.

However that in itself is limiting.



I didn't base my claim on the authority of the academic backing itself, but on it's effects.

We don't know it's effects compaired to an independent mock trial since to my knowledge..None exist.


Sure. Show me a way of quality control in academic fields that's better than or equal to what we have now.

Huh?

I said quality control can exist OUTSIDE of college.



Because they would be practicing with complete laymen.

They wouldn't be 'laymen'. They would be basically experts who are highly interested in the field of study. Some just wouldn't have college degrees.


How would that look like? I don't think what you suggested comes even near to four years of college education.

How would it look like? :confused:


Absolutely.


Possible. Not sure, though.


Neither am I. ;)


If you agree that people exist who have expert knowledge of a field. Knowledge that is beyond that of some who have degrees in the field.

Why do you object to these people being able to do work in that field?

That doesn't make sense.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Really? All one has to do is pass the bar exam. Where one got the knowledge to pass that exam is totally irrelevant.

According to wiki...



Each state has its own rules which are the ultimate authority concerning admission to its bar. Generally, admission to a bar requires that the candidate do the following:

Earn a Juris Doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor) from a law school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_school) approved by that state (often, but not always, this means accredited by the American Bar Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association)); or, where permitted, participate in an approved Law Clerk program ("reading the law").
Pass a state-administered bar examination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_examination). Usually this consists of several parts administered over two or three days, typically including:
The Multistate Bar Examination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistate_Bar_Examination) (MBE), in all states except Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana) and Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington);
A professional responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_responsibility) ("ethics") exam, usually the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistate_Professional_Responsibility_Examination ) (MPRE);
State-specific examinations, such as essays in Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington) and Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts).
Be certified (usually by the state bar association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_bar_association)) as having the good moral character and fitness to practice law.
Apply to that state's authority responsible for licensing lawyers and pay required fees. Upon approval by that authority, the admittee takes an oath to comply with the rules governing the practice of law in that state, and receives a certificate of admission.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_United_States

[CFLarsen]

For instance I personally know exactly how to put together a scientific paper. I know how to format it and how to use sources and references. If I had the information to put a paper together I wouldn't have a problem doing so.

Do you have enough information about any scientific subject to put together a paper?

How do I know? I've probably read thousands of scientific papers in the past.

Ah, the old post-modernistic approach: You've seen it done, and it doesn't seem all that hard, so you can do it.

Sure.

I have no degrees in science.

Now, why doesn't that come as a total surprise?

[timhau]

What can they teach you that you can't learn at the Public Library?


Nothing.

There's at least one thing a book can't give you: a clarification, a demonstration, or another, different (and hopefully clearer) explanation of an issue you didn't understand. That's why I tell students in my introductory classes that if they don't want to show up, they don't have to. I don't care where they get their knowledge, as long as they can show they have it in the final exam. However, if they attend classes, they can always ask questions if there was something they didn't get, or if they're not sure they got it right, or if something is otherwise bothering them about the issue at hand, and I'll be happy to answer -- it's an important part of my job. On the other hand, any whining in the mold of "I thought I'd just read the book instead, but I didn't understand any of it" will be met with derision and hostility.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Do you have enough information about any scientific subject to put together a paper?

No. But that's not the point I was making.


Ah, the old post-modernistic approach: You've seen it done, and it doesn't seem all that hard, so you can do it.

Actually i've practiced doing it several times.

I frequently edit wikipedia and that's not far from a short scientific paper.


Now, why doesn't that come as a total surprise?


Why doesn't it? Nothing i'm talking about in this thread requires alot of knowledge of science.


You just said that to be malicious.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

There's at least one thing a book can't give you: a clarification, a demonstration, or another, different (and hopefully clearer) explanation of an issue you didn't understand. That's why I tell students in my introductory classes that if they don't want to show up, they don't have to. I don't care where they get their knowledge, as long as they can show they have it in the final exam. However, if they attend classes, they can always ask questions if there was something they didn't get, or if they're not sure they got it right, or if something is otherwise bothering them about the issue at hand, and I'll be happy to answer -- it's an important part of my job. On the other hand, any whining in the mold of "I thought I'd just read the book instead, but I didn't understand any of it" will be met with derision and hostility.


Ha.. Questions can be asked and clarification can be made without paying 60,000 for college. It's called "Cross checking". You can easily ask questions to those who know about what you're studying without paying for college also.

Secondly...I don't think the "I thought I'd just read the book instead, but I didn't understand any of it" would be a problem if you're intellectually honest and know when you understand something or don't understand it.

The more critical and intelligent someone is..The less they need some single teacher to say "that's wrong" or "that's right". They rely on the body of research out there.

[SwissSkeptic]

A test isn't supposed to "replace 4 years of college education". Your self education is supposed to replace it.

The test is supposed to be there for determining if you have the knowledge to practice in the field or not.


Obviously no such test exists.(Atleast to my knowledge)

But one could be made.
I mentioned four years of college because staying in college for four years and passing the exams is a test in itself. However the point is moot, as SezMe pointed out that no law degree is needed to pass the bar.

Which isn't hard if you are constantly educating yourself and re-examining conflicts of information.

Now we're getting into a somewhat circular argument. You educate yourself by correcting your mistakes and you correct your mistakes by educating yourself...

Anyway, most of your arguments don't take into account the huge knowledge gap that exists between students and their teachers.


I'm not aware of any that do. They rely on independent sources from which they study to spot conflicts of facts.
Yeah, I misread you there. I apologize for that.


"express onself in the field of study"? That's a new one!
My phrasing might be awkward (english isn't my first, or second, language) but that's exactly what it is. Papers are mainly an exercise for the student, to learn how to compose scientific papers.

Why can't you learn such a thing directly from those who actually do it?
That's exactly what college students do. Only that they are in direct contact with those who actutally do it.

For instance I personally know exactly how to put together a scientific paper. I know how to format it and how to use sources and references. If I had the information to put a paper together I wouldn't have a problem doing so.

I have no degrees in science.

How do I know? I've probably read thousands of scientific papers in the past.

I don't dispute that you know how to write a scientific paper. Every college student should know how to do that, and still they are required to write several papers. It's called practice.

Who aren't experts?
The autodidacts. This ties in with the definition of peer review.

Generally in a college the only expert peer reviewing is the 1 single professor.

However that in itself is limiting.
Nothing stops him from getting more opinions. The fact that he's in college makes it pretty easy to get more expert opinions.
EDIT: "Him"= college student


Huh?

I said quality control can exist OUTSIDE of college.

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. By "academic fields" I meant fields of study that are currently considered academic, like science, law etc.
How would you ensure quality control in those fields that's equal or even better than the way it's now?


If you agree that people exist who have expert knowledge of a field. Knowledge that is beyond that of some who have degrees in the field.

Why do you object to these people being able to do work in that field?

That doesn't make sense.
I only agree with the first phrase. I answered "Possible. I'm not sure" to the second, which doesn't mean that I agree.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Anyway....I didn't post this thread to address and refute every opposition to it or my claims. I posted this thread for everyone to discuss this whether they agree with it or not.

So if I don't address your post and refute it...Don't think I can't. Just realize I don't have the time or patience to do so.

I'll address some posts that I think are important but I won't address everything or rebuttals to what I’ve already posted from here on out.


:flamed:

[CFLarsen]

No. But that's not the point I was making.

I'm sorry, but I thought you were making the point that you could do as well as a scientist in writing a paper.

You are nothing but...dare I say it?....a paper tiger, then? A hot air balloon?

Actually i've practiced doing it several times.

I frequently edit wikipedia and that's not far from a short scientific paper.

:eek:

You have got to be kidding.

Tell me you are kidding. Please. You can't be that naive.

Why doesn't it? Nothing i'm talking about in this thread requires alot of knowledge of science.

No, you are quite right about that. You are, however, claiming to be able to perform as well as any scientist when it comes to writing scientific papers.

You just said that to be malicious.

No, I said that to point out that you are full of something that comes out of a horse's rectum.

[CFLarsen]

Anyway....I didn't post this thread to address and refute every opposition to it or my claims. I posted this thread for everyone to discuss this whether they agree with it or not.

So if I don't address your post and refute it...Don't think I can't. Just realize I don't have the time or patience to do so.

I'll address some posts that I think are important but I won't address everything or rebuttals to what I’ve already posted from here on out.


:flamed:

You really think that will stick here? On a skeptics' forum?

You are in for a harsh wake-up call, Dustin.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I mentioned four years of college because staying in college for four years and passing the exams is a test in itself. However the point is moot, as SezMe pointed out that no law degree is needed to pass the bar..

That's false. SezMe is incorrect.



Now we're getting into a somewhat circular argument. You educate yourself by correcting your mistakes and you correct your mistakes by educating yourself...


There's nothing wrong with that if it's been proven to work.


Anyway, most of your arguments don't take into account the huge knowledge gap that exists between students and their teachers.

What about the huge knowledge gap between a single teacher and the entire scientific community for instance? I'd rather learn from the entire scientific community than a single teacher.


My phrasing might be awkward (english isn't my first, or second, language) but that's exactly what it is. Papers are mainly an exercise for the student, to learn how to compose scientific papers.

When I was in school papers were used to determine the progress of the student. They were a means to an end. The end being determining the students progress. They were graded and scored.


That's exactly what college students do. Only that they are in direct contact with those who actutally do it.

That doesn't mean it's the only means to do so.


I don't dispute that you know how to write a scientific paper. Every college student should know how to do that, and still they are required to write several papers. It's called practice.

And? One can practice without attending a college.:rolleyes:

The autodidacts. This ties in with the definition of peer review.

Why aren't they experts? Because they don't have a college degree?

I think you're the one using circular reasoning here.

Your argument is as follows...

College is better because you learn from 'experts'.
Experts are experts because they are in college or went to college.
Therefor you can't possibly learn from experts unless you learn from college students or college grads.



Nothing stops him from getting more opinions. The fact that he's in college makes it pretty easy to get more expert opinions.

Not when there is a single professor for the specific field. And he/she is the only expert there.

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. By "academic fields" I meant fields of study that are currently considered academic, like science, law etc.
How would you ensure quality control in those fields that's equal or even better than the way it's now?

Explain what problems you think might arise from lack of 'quality control' and i'll tell you how to fix or avoid them. You need to be specific here.


I only agree with the first phrase. I answered "Possible. I'm not sure" to the second, which doesn't mean that I agree.

You don't believe there are alot of people in the world in general who have knowledge of a field that surpasses that of those with degrees?

I've named a few already.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You have got to be kidding.

Tell me you are kidding. Please. You can't be that naive.

It looks like someone neither reads scientific papers or edits wikipedia.


No, you are quite right about that. You are, however, claiming to be able to perform as well as any scientist when it comes to writing scientific papers.

I never said that. I said I could put a scientific paper together equal to that of many i've read in the past....Assuming I had the information.


No, I said that to point out that you are full of something that comes out of a horse's rectum.

And you're a waste of my time.

[Nightlord]

I didn't say it would improve the "quality of professionals" firstly. I said it would make it easier for those who have the skill to do a job to do the job. That's it.


But that it will make also easier for those who don't have the proper skills to do a job to get a degree.


Secondly...As i've said and proven..Many people who do go to college and have degrees don't automatically have knowledge in the field.
And that is one excellent reason to put even more and more obstacles for people to get a degree, not to make it easier. What I'm trying to say is that opening the options to get a degree for anybody that thinks "I can do this job", will of course include that very few that don't need a college education and are capable; but will also make easier to all those people who do need that college education to get a degree and we will have quite a lot of new professionals who may be skilled in passing a examination, not in doing a job.

The problem is not what anybody is capable or not of do, the problem is that your solution is to improve the sensitivity of a (skill or knowledge) test even if it means to lower the specificity, and what I don't understand is that at the same time you complain about having such a low specificity (considering people as professionals when they are not)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You really think that will stick here? On a skeptics' forum?

You are in for a harsh wake-up call, Dustin.



What 'stick'? The fact that I don't have the time to reply to the dozens of posts that will no doubt have popped up by the next time I sign on?:rolleyes:


Oh...I forgot to mention...I don't spend all of my waking hours on this forum like you do..Mr. 28,000 posts. I actually have a life.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

But that it will make also easier for those who don't have the proper skills to do a job to get a degree.



And that is one excellent reason to put even more and more obstacles for people to get a degree, not to make it easier. What I'm trying to say is that opening the options to get a degree for anybody that thinks "I can do this job", will of course include that very few that don't need a college education and are capable; but will also make easier to all those people who do need that college education to get a degree and we will have quite a lot of new professionals who may be skilled in passing a examination, not in doing a job.

The problem is not what anybody is capable or not of do, the problem is that your solution is to improve the sensitivity of a (skill or knowledge) test even if it means to lower the specificity, and what I don't understand is that at the same time you complain about having such a low specificity (considering people as professionals when they are not)



You're underestimating the ability of an extremely comprehensive test. This wouldn't be some SAT or GED styled test. But a test that takes literally weeks to complete and tests all areas of knowledge that is taught in universities.

If your only objection is the adequacy of a test to test such a wide variety of skills....Trust me. It can be done.

[JamesDillon]

Your excuse of "sticking keys" and "spilled soup" is a blatant lie. The words you're misspelling are misspelled in such a way that sticking keys couldn't account for them. I.E. Replacing one letter for another.
If you knew how to spell any of the words in question correctly, you'd see that there have been no replaced letters, only missing ones, caused by the fact that my keyboard is sticking, because I spilled soup on it. For example:
It's spelled 'acquainted' not 'acquanted' and it's spelled 'dermatology' not 'dematology'.
It's distinguish not 'distingush'
Care to try again?

Not that spelling has any relevance to this discussion. You're the one who brought it up.
Because your inability to express yourself adequately in standard written English is, I suspect, at least partially a product of your lack of a college education.

You're putting words into my mouth.
[LIST=1]
I never made that claim
No, it's an inference I've drawn from your words, and I believe it's entirely accurate.
My spelling is just fine.
Clearly not.

Except a few mistakes in spelling. I have great knowledge of the English language.
Except for a "few mistakes" in mathematics, I have great knowledge of astrophysics, too.

It's different because it's a different means of doing it rather than paying for medical school and going through that process. If it's just as effective(or more effective since it's 1 on 1 opposed to 1 on 50) I think it should be used.
Do you think that some practitioner of a given craft would graciously take you on for free? And how do you propose to achieve this 1:1 ratio for each of the thousands of students seeking to learn a given area of knowledge?

Aside from that, a formal undergraduate education has the additional benefit of providing a well-rounded body of curriculum outside the major area of emphasis, which you seem not to have considered.

There are thousands of experts out there...I'm more than sure many would correspond with people interested in the fields since I myself correspond with many of them on Mailing lists and personally. Some might not..So what?
Again, you seem to be doing nothing more than making pointless criticisms of a good system, without offering anything substantial to replace it.

Degrees were offered then and he didn't get one. He transfered to theology school.
Darwin did not "transfer" to "theology school." He was sent to Cambridge for the purpose of studying theology; while there, he immersed himself in the study of natural history.

Astronomy? Cosmology?
Again, I don't see what you're getting at. Einstein's scientific achievements are certainly related to his formal education. It's not unusual for experts at his level (and well below his level) to make contributions to several related fields, but that hardly supports the view that their formal education had nothing to do with their expertise in those areas.

We can learn the specific facts but we can't practice them.
Again, how is the system you offer better than the established university approach?

College as it exists currently in American Society is "B.S.". That doesn't mean it's completely useless. It just means a lot of changes need to be made to college and our societies perception of it.
No doubt someone who has never been, and seems to have only a tenuous grasp of what goes on there, is just the person to reform the system.

I never said a "standard system" should be in place to determine if candidates are prepared for careers. I said that COLLEGE should not be that only system.
So people who are "just as smart as those college kids" but can't be bothered to prove it face no disadvantage in the job market? I see no benefit to that proposal.

Good reasons? You haven't named any.
Had you gone to college, you might have taken a course in composition and rhetoric, in which case you would realize that the burden of persuasion is on you, not me.




In the sciences...

R. Buckminster Fuller
Michael Dell
Lawrence Ellison
Bill Gates
Jane Goodall(Has a degree now but made her discoveries without having a college education)
Hazel Henderson
Steven Jobs
Jaron Lanier
Richard E. Leakey(was educated in the field not in a traditional university)
John Romero
Steve Wozniak


Non-sciences

Shelby Foote(historian)
Richard Grasso(CEO of NYSE)
Catherine Elizabeth Hughes
Peter Jennings
Kevin Kelly
Kirk Kerkorian
Jimmy Lai
Steven Spielberg
Ted Turner


Just to name a few.
Once again, the fact that a handful of people managed to become successful without completing a college degree (and I would add that at least some of them did spend several years in college but never finished) is weak evidence that the current system is not adequate, or indeed optimal, for the vast majority.

[JamesDillon]

Oh...I forgot to mention...I don't spend all of my waking hours on this forum like you do..Mr. 28,000 posts. I actually have a life.

... editing Wikipedia.

(Note to self: never cite Wikipedia again).

[LW]

Do you think that some practitioner of a given craft would graciously take you on for free?

Back when the apprentice system was the standard, the apprenticeship contract was usually made for seven years (at least here it was). The actual teaching of the craft begun around year three or four. Before that the apprentice was essentially an unpaid servant: sweeping floors, chopping firewood, carrying water buckets, and doing other chores. He would usually get his food from his master, but in some cases his family would need to pay for it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If you knew how to spell any of the words in question correctly, you'd see that there have been no replaced letters, only missing ones, caused by the fact that my keyboard is sticking, because I spilled soup on it. For example:


Care to try again?

Those are only the ones I mentioned.:rolleyes:

But I see your spelling has suddenly became perfect.


Did you get a new keyboard or start using a spell checker? :rolleyes:


Because your inability to express yourself adequately in standard written English is, I suspect, at least partially a product of your lack of a college education.

I've made a few mistakes in 5 pages of postings and I suddenly 'can't express myself adequately in english'?

You seem to have no problem replying to my posts....I guess my expression isn't that bad.



Do you think that some practitioner of a given craft would graciously take you on for free? And how do you propose to achieve this 1:1 ratio for each of the thousands of students seeking to learn a given area of knowledge?

I don't.



Again, you seem to be doing nothing more than making pointless criticisms of a good system, without offering anything substantial to replace it.

Nothing is pointless about my criticisms. I never said 'college should be replaced' I simply said there are 1.other means of learning and 2.College has problems which should be fixed.


Darwin did not "transfer" to "theology school." He was sent to Cambridge for the purpose of studying theology; while there, he immersed himself in the study of natural history.


Not formally.

Again, I don't see what you're getting at. Einstein's scientific achievements are certainly related to his formal education. It's not unusual for experts at his level (and well below his level) to make contributions to several related fields, but that hardly supports the view that their formal education had nothing to do with their expertise in those areas.

If you want to nitpick then I guess you could argue that study in biology has a relation to law for instance.



Again, how is the system you offer better than the established university approach?

I never said it was better.

You have reading comprehension problems.

I said
1.It works
and
2.It should not be excluded.



No doubt someone who has never been, and seems to have only a tenuous grasp of what goes on there, is just the person to reform the system.

Ad hominem.:rolleyes:


So people who are "just as smart as those college kids" but can't be bothered to prove it face no disadvantage in the job market? I see no benefit to that proposal.

Again..You lack reading comprehension.

I've stated numerous times that there would be a government regulated test to determine the students skill in the field.


Had you gone to college, you might taken a course in composition and rhetoric, in which case you would realize that the burden of persuasion is on you, not me.


I've named dozens of good reasons.



Once again, the fact that a handful of people managed to become successful without completing a college degree (and I would add that at least some of them did spend several years in college but never finished) is weak evidence that the current system is not adequate, or indeed optimal, for the vast majority.


I'm not arguing that the college isn't adequate for the 'vast majority'.

However it isn't adequate for a good number of people who..

Are self taught
Have no need to attend collegeSecondly, The current system of college(in America) isn't adequate because(to the majority) for numerous other reasons.


It's too expensive.
It doesn't cover nearly the amount of information it should.
Many colleges in America waste money.
I'm not saying college should be done away with because of this. I'm saying these are problems that should be fixed.

[timhau]

Ha.. Questions can be asked and clarification can be made without paying 60,000 for college. It's called "Cross checking". You can easily ask questions to those who know about what you're studying without paying for college also.

I'm sure that's true. However, you have to locate them, contact them, and then hope that they'll bother to take their time to explain the stuff to you free of charge.

Of course, there's always the possibility of streamlining the process by gathering a largish number of experts in one place, and having them available to explain the stuff at pre-set times to several people at once. And since that starts to sound a lot like work, I think it's only fair that those people should be paid for their time. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something strangely familiar about this...

(Note that this is not an endorsement of the ballooning costs of college education. However, note that in your scheme, someone has to pay for the costs of those exams which determine whether you can practice law or medicine.)


Secondly...I don't think the "I thought I'd just read the book instead, but I didn't understand any of it" would be a problem if you're intellectually honest and know when you understand something or don't understand it.

It's less of a problem when you're honest about not understanding something. But not understanding the basics of the field you're supposed to study is a problem.


The more critical and intelligent someone is..The less they need some single teacher to say "that's wrong" or "that's right". They rely on the body of research out there.

I'd say it depends on how advanced you are in the subject. When you're tackling the basics, you get by with "Yes" and "No", and in my experience it's often best not to go much further since you're just mapping the field at that point. Later, you'll get to the point where many a "Yes" becomes "Yes, but..." and often "No" is actually "Not really, but...". This, however, isn't so much because of intelligence but because of level of advancement (although my personal opinion is that the smarter the person, the more ready he/she is to deal with the fact that most of the important questions don't have a clear-cut Yes or No for an answer).

[LW]

I frequently edit wikipedia and that's not far from a short scientific paper.

As a person who has both edited wikipedia and published about a dozen of peer-reviewed scientific papers, I have to say that editing wikipedia is far from even the shortest scientific paper.

[JamesDillon]

Back when the apprentice system was the standard, the apprenticeship contract was usually made for seven years (at least here it was). The actual teaching of the craft begun around year three or four. Before that the apprentice was essentially an unpaid servant: sweeping floors, chopping firewood, carrying water buckets, and doing other chores. He would usually get his food from his master, but in some cases his family would need to pay for it.

I believe it's rather implausible to think that such a system would work in today's world, with the many thousands of students who enter the university system all being shifted to a one-on-one apprenticeship experience. Aside from the impracticality, as I pointed out in my last post, college is not just about learning a trade or a specialized set of skills. That's certainly part of it, but the supplemental education in the basic liberal arts and sciences that virtually every degree requires is a vital and worthwhile part of the experience, and that simply couldn't be replicated in an apprenticeship program.

Of course, many college programs do have internships and other such programs that are very much like the old apprenticeships in terms of providing hands-on experience in the student's field, and I don't think anyone would suggest that those aren't worthwhile parts of an undergraduate education. But there's much more to college than that.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Back when the apprentice system was the standard, the apprenticeship contract was usually made for seven years (at least here it was). The actual teaching of the craft begun around year three or four. Before that the apprentice was essentially an unpaid servant: sweeping floors, chopping firewood, carrying water buckets, and doing other chores. He would usually get his food from his master, but in some cases his family would need to pay for it.




I think a 'work & learn' system would work just fine. Where you learn from actually doing the work in the field. Say working closely with a Lawyer as a Legal secretary for a while and then moving up to helping directly with cases and then doing your own cases.

[CFLarsen]

It looks like someone neither reads scientific papers or edits wikipedia.

Oh, dear.

I read plenty of scientific papers, and I also edit Wikipedia - although I find the latter increasingly futile. Especially because people like yourself find Wikipedia comparable to writing scientific papers.

But no way are those two similar. Don't even begin to kid yourself.

I never said that. I said I could put a scientific paper together equal to that of many i've read in the past....Assuming I had the information.

Yeah, sure. You could if you just bothered to! You can do whatever you want, if only you wanted to.

There are no limits to your (perceived) abilities, are there?

And you're a waste of my time.

Apparently not:

What 'stick'? The fact that I don't have the time to reply to the dozens of posts that will no doubt have popped up by the next time I sign on?:rolleyes:

No, it's not the time you lack. It's the answers.

Oh...I forgot to mention...I don't spend all of my waking hours on this forum like you do..Mr. 28,000 posts. I actually have a life.

And I have 12 fingers and an incredibly agile tail (for the mouse).

[SwissSkeptic]

There's nothing wrong with that if it's been proven to work.
If that's the case I'm sure you can point me to the proof.

What about the huge knowledge gap between a single teacher and the entire scientific community for instance? I'd rather learn from the entire scientific community than a single teacher.
That's a false dichotomy. The college student learns directly from the teacher and indirectly from the rest of the scientific community. The autodidact doesn't learn from the teacher.

When I was in school papers were used to determine the progress of the student. They were a means to an end. The end being determining the students progress. They were graded and scored.
Papers being graded is part of the practice. There are many other means of measuring the progress of a student.

That doesn't mean it's the only means to do so.
Learning from those who actually do it was your argument, I just showed that that's what college students do, only that they have direct access to the sources.

And? One can practice without attending a college.:rolleyes:
We're definatly running in circles here.


Why aren't they experts? Because they don't have a college degree?

I think you're the one using circular reasoning here.

Your argument is as follows...

College is better because you learn from 'experts'.
Experts are experts because they are in college or went to college.
Therefor you can't possibly learn from experts unless you learn from college students or college grads.


Please show me where I said that. The part of my post that you quoted talked about peer review. I said that autodidacts can't possibly peer review each other because they aren't experts (in the sense of: professionals) in the field. I referred to the definition of the word "peer review".


Explain what problems you think might arise from lack of 'quality control' and i'll tell you how to fix or avoid them. You need to be specific here.

I think the answer's fairly clear. If there is no (or not enough) quality control in the medical profession, people can come to harm. An unqualified surgeon who's licensed can kill people. The fact that there will always be bad surgeons isn't relevant - it's a question of quantity.
Lack of quality control in the legal profession can harm the clients as well.


You don't believe there are alot of people in the world in general who have knowledge of a field that surpasses that of those with degrees?

I've named a few already.

I believe that there are a very few people who match that description.

Frankly I still have trouble seeing what the point of this discussion is. If you're saying that self educated people regularly know more about a whole field than people who have a respective degree, please prove that assertion. Listing a few extraordinary people who didn't go to college isn't proof of anything. It only makes one wonder what those people could have accomplished if they had a higher education.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I believe it's rather implausible to think that such a system would work in today's world, with the many thousands of students who enter the university system all being shifted to a one-on-one apprenticeship experience. Aside from the impracticality, as I pointed out in my last post, college is not just about learning a trade or a specialized set of skills. That's certainly part of it, but the supplemental education in the basic liberal arts and sciences that virtually every degree requires is a vital and worthwhile part of the experience, and that simply couldn't be replicated in an apprenticeship program.

Of course, many college programs do have internships and other such programs that are very much like the old apprenticeships in terms of providing hands-on experience in the student's field, and I don't think anyone would suggest that those aren't worthwhile parts of an undergraduate education. But there's much more to college than that.


I never said college would be done away with. It looks like I’m not the only who doesn't comprehend the English language, You can't even read my posts.

I said that for those few people who are self taught or have the skills from other means would have the ability to start doing the work without attending a college or getting a degree.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As a person who has both edited wikipedia and published about a dozen of peer-reviewed scientific papers, I have to say that editing wikipedia is far from even the shortest scientific paper.



As a person who has read THOUSANDS of scientific papers and edited dozens of wikipedia articles...I'd say it's nearly the same with a few minor differences.


Look at a comprehensive wiki article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2

It's detail and citation of sources.


Then look at a common short scientific article in some medical journal.

Nearly the same...Except wikipedia is much more difficult.



But this is off topic and I won't persue it any futher...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You see, I can't continue to respond to everyone. I just don't have the time. Hopefully someone will come along who didn't spend $80,000 and 4 years of their life on college and now wants to attack anyone who might insinuate that wasn't necessary.

[JamesDillon]

Those are only the ones I mentioned.:rolleyes:
What were the other ones?

But I see your spelling has suddenly became perfect.
I'm surprised you could tell.


Did you get a new keyboard or start using a spell checker? :rolleyes:
Yes, as it happens, I connected another keyboard to my laptop.

I've made a few mistakes in 5 pages of postings and I suddenly 'can't express myself adequately in english'?

You seem to have no problem replying to my posts....I guess my expression isn't that bad.
Jus kuz ah kan unnerstend u duzznt meen yer doin it rite.

I don't.
Then your apprenticeship proposal doesn't sound very practical, does it?

Nothing is pointless about my criticisms. I never said 'college should be replaced' I simply said there are 1.other means of learning and 2.College has problems which should be fixed.
If I'm reading the title of this thread correctly, I believe what you said was "college is ********." That's a far more sweeping indictment of the system than you now claim to be making.

Not formally.
How is the study of natural history in a university classroom not "formal"? Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about, or are you just making it up as you go along?

If you want to nitpick then I guess you could argue that study in biology has a relation to law for instance.
Once again, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I never said it was better.

You have reading comprehension problems.

I said
1.It works
and
2.It should not be excluded.
Well, unless it's also "********," which I take to not be your position, it would then seem that you're saying it's better. In any case, I and others in this thread have offered any number of reasons why your proposal does not work, and why it should be excluded.

Ad hominem.:rolleyes:
No, it isn't. You placed your qualifications at issue by purporting to offer a cure for a system that may have problems, but is not remotely broken. The fact that you clearly don't understand that system very well is quite relevant to the discussion.


Again..You lack reading comprehension.

I've stated numerous times that there would be a government regulated test to determine the students skill in the field.
You're right, I haven't responded to that.

That's a stupid idea, and it would never work. Besides which it provides no advantages over the current system.

Moving on..

I've named dozens of good reasons.
I'd ask you what they are, but I'm afraid you'd tell me.

I'm not arguing that the college isn't adequate for the 'vast majority'.

However it isn't adequate for a good number of people who..

Are self taught
Have no need to attend college
There are no people who have "no need" to attend college. Even if someone is capable of making a valuable contribution to a field, or becoming a business success, without completing a formal undergraduate education, that person still can and ideally should benefit from the well-rounded curriculum provided by a four-year undergraduate degree program.

Secondly, The current system of college(in America) isn't adequate because(to the majority) for numerous other reasons.


It's too expensive.
Compared to what?
It doesn't cover nearly the amount of information it should.
How do you know?
Many colleges in America waste money.
Every business in America wastes money, if you're holding them to a standard of 100% efficiency. So what?
I'm not saying college should be done away with because of this. I'm saying these are problems that should be fixed.
That's the first reasonable thing I've heard you say, but that doesn't support your initial proposal in the slightest.

[Nightlord]

You're underestimating the ability of an extremely comprehensive test. This wouldn't be some SAT or GED styled test. But a test that takes literally weeks to complete and tests all areas of knowledge that is taught in universities.


Being english my second languaje I think I'm not making myself clear, you already accepted that (as college) no test can guarantee that all the people who "pass" are really capable of doing what was being tested, so if somebody cannot graduate from college but can pass a test (even if takes weeks) then that somebody is going to be one more person who is not qualified and got a degree thanks to the fact that he did got an easier option.


If your only objection is the adequacy of a test to test such a wide variety of skills....Trust me. It can be done.
Well, if you think that a test (even a SAT or GED type of test) cannot be passed by somebody who has no real qualification... Trust me. It can be passed.

In a utopy your idea can work, but I do think that in the real world this non-college option can and will be abused by people who have no right nor capacity to get a job and are being stopped just because there is not this non-college option.

[timhau]

Look at a comprehensive wiki article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2

It's detail and citation of sources.


Then look at a common short scientific article in some medical journal.

Nearly the same...Except wikipedia is much more difficult.


Um... it's more difficult because it's longer?

Sorry, but your credibility just plummeted. Provided you have something to write about, long is easy. Short is hard. Try it. Write a double-spaced one-page comprehensive account of, say, the Nanking Massacre. With generous margins and size 12 font. And a list of references.

[hgc]

Colleges cost TOO MUCH money and their methods of teaching are becoming more and more degenerated and ineffective. (Atleast in America)Really? How are they becoming degerated and ineffective? Over what period of time?

[pipelineaudio]

I'm a recruiter of professional and other skilled workers of many years standing and I assure you that most professional occupations - doctor, engineer, veterinarian, scientist, etc. - can NOT be adequately trained outside of a tertiary institution.

most? maybe. But not all. Certainly. Im also a recruiter or professional engineers and the LAST thing I would do is pick from someone who has only school, and usually count school against them, except schooling in parallel areas. The skills I require are pretty hard to pick up and take a lot more sticktuitiveness than just sitting thru a classroom. The technology changes sometimes on a daily basis and the learning must continue at all times. Unlike the medical profession, there is no professor or manual to run back to if things get rough, as each person is expected to be top in the field.


There is a world of difference between a carpenter cutting the wrong piece of wood and a surgeon cutting the wrong piece of human.

You wont be saying that when a roof falls on your head...I hope you are not the eletist snot this line makes you out to be

[hgc]

You see, I can't continue to respond to everyone. I just don't have the time. Hopefully someone will come along who didn't spend $80,000 and 4 years of their life on college and now wants to attack anyone who might insinuate that wasn't necessary.You're all on notice. Those with a college education are disqualified from this discussion (except if you had a full scholarship).

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Millions of people pay a king’s ransom for college tuition to learn what is free for the taking when motivated by a compelling desire to learn. In the movie Good Will Hunting, Will (played by Matt Damon) chides an arrogant Ivy League student for paying a fortune for an education that would be free but for the price of a library card. Although this is absolutely valid, very few people believe it. Instead they are convinced the knowledge they could acquire on their own is secondary to paying a lot of money to an institution which will attest that they have, even if they cheated their way through the process.


Credentialism has existed for centuries in one form or another as groups with an information or knowledge advantage have tried to maintain their position of superiority with everything from guilds and associations to secret societies and esoteric languages. And even though teachers and educators have noble intentions, their position in our economy, by design is dependent upon a psychology of the scarcity of knowledge.


Whole categories of attributes from self-help to self-directed inquiry have been coined to disguise and set apart individual learning as an aberration so as not to displace the hierarchical power of educators. And yet, throughout history self-educated men and women from all walks of life and social stations have risen to the occasion of the challenges facing them. In so doing, they have set new standards for learning, which without question have raised the bar of achievement for their respective societies. But only in the latter half of the twentieth-century has the insidious notion that one must have the blessing of an institution to function in society been generally accepted without protest.


We need colleges and universities just as we need teachers and people who are enthusiastic about sharing their knowledge with others. But the idea that the only learning respectable enough for economic compensation comes from institutions, which treat it as a scarce resource, is patently absurd.

http://www.autodidactic.com/profiles/profiles.htm



You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library.-Will from Goodwill Hunting.

[JamesDillon]

Your persuasive use of 16-point font has shown me the logic of your position. You're right; I'll go shred my diplomas right now.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Um... it's more difficult because it's longer?

Sorry, but your credibility just plummeted. Provided you have something to write about, long is easy. Short is hard. Try it. Write a double-spaced one-page comprehensive account of, say, the Nanking Massacre. With generous margins and size 12 font. And a list of references.


Stop putting words into my mouth.


I never said it was 'more difficult because it was longer'. :rolleyes:

[timhau]

You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library.-Will from Goodwill Hunting.

Ha! Argument from authority!

[timhau]

Stop putting words into my mouth.


I never said it was 'more difficult because it was longer'. :rolleyes:

OK, so tell me: why is it more difficult?

[Badger]

Well, that was definitely taking a cheese grater to the ole privates.

Won't be reading anything with your name on it again.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Really? How are they becoming degerated and ineffective? Over what period of time?

I watched this on the News the other night. Over the past 30 years the number of courses given on average in college went down as did the graduation rate and the difficulty of those courses.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

OK, so tell me: why is it more difficult?



More detailed
Area it's explaining is much more vast than a single study on a single topic in most cases.
Sources are more varied.Just to name a few reasons.


But your insulting tone and lack of reading comprehension is making me decide not to respond to your posts anymore.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Well, that was definitely taking a cheese grater to the ole privates.

Won't be reading anything with your name on it again.



Who are you again?






:rolleyes:

[Lurker]

Why doesn't it? Nothing i'm talking about in this thread requires alot of knowledge of science.

In the XX years of your life (fill in XX with your age) you have yet to self-correct your error above. And you wonder why we are doubtful on the merits of self-corrrection?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

In the XX years of your life (fill in XX with your age) you have yet to self-correct your error above. And you wonder why we are doubtful on the merits of self-corrrection?



You aren't making any sense.


In my life I have yet to 'self correct' my claim in this thread that there isn't alot of scientific discussion in this thread?


:confused:




HAHA, You're actually refering to my mispelling of "a lot"? Bahaha!

[CFLarsen]

I think a 'work & learn' system would work just fine. Where you learn from actually doing the work in the field. Say working closely with a Lawyer as a Legal secretary for a while and then moving up to helping directly with cases and then doing your own cases.

Any professional will tell you that, while there are benefits to learning from others, there is no way you can learn the basics of any trade by piggy-backing someone. At some point, you will run into problems, simply because you haven't been taught how to understand what it is you are doing.

Education is pivotal, Dustin. You can't avoid it. It takes work to get an education - which is why I think you shun it so much.

You have very high thoughts of your own capabilities, but you fear that they don't live up to the harsh realities of life.

You know what? You're absolutely right.

[JamesDillon]

I think a 'work & learn' system would work just fine. Where you learn from actually doing the work in the field. Say working closely with a Lawyer as a Legal secretary for a while and then moving up to helping directly with cases and then doing your own cases.

Wow, I somehow missed this one.

Let me assure you from personal experience that there is simply no way that one could learn to practice law by working as a secretary or a paralegal. The legal system is a complex and nuanced body of information that requires years of dedicated study to acquire even the most basic proficiency. It's not something you can just pick up on the side while making photocopies.

Edit: Which illustrates yet another shortcoming of your inane scheme: it would create a class of hyper-specialists who were proficient in only one small area of a profession. Continuing with the legal example, even if it were possible to pick up the trade while working as an assistant, which it isn't, really, at most you'd be learning only the narrow area of law that your employer practices. If you learn from a criminal attorney, forget about ever doing civil litigation or transactional work; you'll have no idea how it's done. Constitutional law? Forget it, unless you do an apprenticeship with the ACLU or the government. The benefit to graduate programs like law and medical school is that, while highly specialized, they also provide a comprehensive introduction to the practice of a particular profession, leaving the student with a greater appreciation for the big picture and also greater flexibility to choose an area for subsequent specialization.

[Lurker]

You aren't making any sense.


In my life I have yet to 'self correct' my claim in this thread that there isn't alot of scientific discussion in this thread?

:confused:

HAHA, You're actually refering to my mispelling of "a lot"? Bahaha!

Yep, the whole idea of someone correcting your work is they have a better understanding of the topic on which you are writing. They can see your errors more easily. I used your continual misspelling of a lot not to denigrate you, but to demonstrate how the concept of self-correction fails. You have had 20+ years to self-correct that error yet have not done so despite your claims to be a master of the English language.

But on the main point, I actually agree with you that people can learn much outside the university system. I just question how comprehensively they can learn specific fields through visits to the public library. There is no room for feedback of ideas. When you write your critique on "The Mayor of Casterbridge" and slam it as melodrama, who will be there to critique your opinions? Who will point out errors in assumptions you made or leaps of logic? You? How would you know if you wrote the paper in the first place?

[HarryKeogh]

Just my two cents...sure, for some professions a degree is bull but you usually need it to get your foot in the door of a company. With some jobs you'll learn more information that's applicable to your job in the first month than you did in 4 years of college. But without that degree you're not getting the interview.

I learned more practical and useful information about management working at the Gap during college than I did in my management classes in college.

And now, when I consider going for my Master in management I ask myself "why?". If I worked for another firm where it may get me a raise I'd do it but I own my business. I'd learn more taking management seminars from AMA.

People who I've seen go for their masters did it for the potential payoff (in the form of a raise) than actually thinking they're going to learn a wealth of information that will make them a better business person.

For the business fields I think it is possible to learn as much practical information on the job than in 4 years of college.

Of course, I wouldn't trade my college years for anything as aside from being fun they exposed me to courses in a wide variety of subjects.

Anyway...I know my experiences don't reflect everyone else's so take them as the anecdotes they are.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yep, the whole idea of someone correcting your work is they have a better understanding of the topic on which you are writing. They can see your errors more easily. I used your continual misspelling of a lot not to denigrate you, but to demonstrate how the concept of self-correction fails. You have had 20+ years to self-correct that error yet have not done so despite your claims to be a master of the English language.

But on the main point, I actually agree with you that people can learn much outside the university system. I just question how comprehensively they can learn specific fields through visits to the public library. There is no room for feedback of ideas. When you write your critique on "The Mayor of Casterbridge" and slam it as melodrama, who will be there to critique your opinions? Who will point out errors in assumptions you made or leaps of logic? You? How would you know if you wrote the paper in the first place?


1.I never said I was an 'expert'. I often spell 'alot' as 'a lot'. Some times I don't. It has nothing to do with 'self correcting' it's a habbit that not even college would or could fix. Fixing it has to be from personal practice.

2.Nothing you listed can't be done outside of college....Again.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Just my two cents...sure, for some professions a degree is bull but you usually need it to get your foot in the door of a company. With some jobs you'll learn more information that's applicable to your job in the first month than you did in 4 years of college. But without that degree you're not getting the interview.

I learned more practical and useful information about management working at the Gap during college than I did in my management classes in college.

And now, when I consider going for my Master in management I ask myself "why?". If I worked for another firm where it may get me a raise I'd do it but I own my business. I'd learn more taking management seminars from AMA.

People who I've seen go for their masters did it for the potential payoff (in the form of a raise) than actually thinking they're going to learn a wealth of information that will make them a better business person.

For the business fields I think it is possible to learn as much practical information on the job than in 4 years of college.



All true. Which is obviously a problem.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Education is pivotal, Dustin. You can't avoid it. It takes work to get an education - which is why I think you shun it so much.


I agree...Except...

You can get an education without college.

[Johnny Pixels]

My university education included the use of software packages that come with licenses in the thousands of pounds each range. How do you propose I learn how to use those, seeing as I can't afford them?

It also included access to engineers from Ford and Jaguar, whose personal insights were very important. How do you propose I would talk to those people otherwise?

It also allowed me to use engine mapping software and equipment, where would I find that to practice on? Seeing as parts of the equipment were personally begged/borrowed/stolen by a lecturer with personal links to racing teams?

Universities and colleges have resources. I don't. That's why I needed to go there.

[Lurker]

One of the original purposes of our university system was not to teach specifics so much but to teach processes. A more rounded education enabled you to apply your college wisdom across a broader spectrum.

Basically, we used to learn logic and critical thinking better which are applicable to pretty much all areas. It seems colleges have moved away form this basic and beocme a tad too specialized IMO.

[CFLarsen]

I agree...Except...

You can get an education without college.

Sure you can. But you still have to work for it.

What is your education, btw? I may have missed it, but.....enlighten me.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

My university education included the use of software packages that come with licenses in the thousands of pounds each range. How do you propose I learn how to use those, seeing as I can't afford them?

P2P downloading.

Kazaa
Limewire
Rip-Torrent

All free.


It also included access to engineers from Ford and Jaguar, whose personal insights were very important. How do you propose I would talk to those people otherwise?

Read their personal insights online or in books.
or
Contact them yourself.

It also allowed me to use engine mapping software and equipment, where would I find that to practice on? Seeing as parts of the equipment were personally begged/borrowed/stolen by a lecturer with personal links to racing teams?

Give me an example.


Universities and colleges have resources. I don't. That's why I needed to go there.


You aren't everyone. Using your own personal need for a university isn't an argument that EVERYONE must go to learn.


Moreover, This is a very specific case among few where you need things that you can't afford to learn what you need to learn. In most cases all you need is a Library card.

[JamesDillon]

P2P downloading.

Kazaa
Limewire
Rip-Torrent

All free.

So now you're promoting software piracy? Really?

[Lurker]

Dustin:

Since any degree area is a rather large field of endeavor, how do you propose testing job applicants on their knowledge of each field? How do you do so economically?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So now you're promoting software piracy? Really?


:rolleyes:

[Lurker]

So now you're promoting software piracy? Really?

The FEA and CAD software I use costs about $75k but my college got it for free. I can't download it from any of the sources Dustin cited. Most engineering softwares are like that - expensive and not downloadable.

[JamesDillon]

:rolleyes:

Is that an answer? Yes or no: are you advocating the piracy of thousand-dollar software?

[Katana]

The cost of college education has been thrown around as one argument for alternatives. While I agree that college is expensive, and, perhaps, too expensive. What is your education worth to you?

To become a surgeon, it takes a hell of a lot more than following someone around and learning the technical skills. You need a strong background in biology, organic and inorganic chemistry, physics, and English (believe it or not) to name a few in order to handle the rigors of medical school which requires that you learn biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, pharmacology, psychology, molecular biology, histology, pathology, embryology and genetics (to name a few). You need a strong, well-rounded educational foundation to become, yes, even a surgeon. Remember, they are physicians not just technicians.

If you think that you can duplicate all of the biological, psychological, and chemistry laboratory experiments that are so essential to illustrating certain basic concepts and processes outside of college, you're wrong. Practically speaking, there is a reason why certain substances are only available to teaching institutions where they have specific certifications for dealing with and disposing of hazardous and radioactive materials. Don't forget the anatomic specimens involved in dissection. There is also a reason why those aren't available to just anyone. Beyond that, there is value in being taught by those who have dedicated their careers to the study of science, have conducted research studies, and have published in peer-reviewed journals. Who better to teach you the fundamentals of science?

College is not the only means through which one's abilities are measured when you apply for medical school. That is why there are things called a standardized test, letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, and personal essays that factor into, say, medical school admissions. This is because there is no one single way to assess an applicant's qualifications. Everything has its limitations, so it is the sum of these factors that reflect an applicant's qualifications.

College is necessary because there is at least some measure of standardization in the classroom work of the basic medical school prerequisites. What this does is assure someone looking at your application is that your standardized test score wasn't a fluke but is consistent with your overall performance as reflected in your grades, letters, etc.

And, Dustin, knowing one factoid (or thinking that you do) that a physician "should" know but didn't can also be a function of having read inaccurate information on the web or in lay journals. I hope that you don't believe everything you read. I do wonder what you do read since you seldom throw out evidence to support your assumptions, declarations, and anecdotes.

I don't know the nature of your conversation with your dermatologist, but there are different classification schemes when it comes to acne. Some separate comedones (blackheads) from acne while some consider it a mild subset. She may have been correct depending on her background. There are things like that in medicine, by the way, in many fields. You don't always have universal agreement, particularly when it comes to categorizing illnesses, and definitions can change over time. So she may actually have known what she was talking about. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[JamesDillon]

The FEA and CAD software I use costs about $75k but my college got it for free. I can't download it from any of the sources Dustin cited. Most engineering softwares are like that - expensive and not downloadable.

That's not surprising, but it doesn't really undermine the point that he seems to think you can get it on Kazaa, and is okay with that.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin:

Since any degree area is a rather large field of endeavor, how do you propose testing job applicants on their knowledge of each field? How do you do so economically?



I don't know about how such a thing would be done. Testing them that is...It's not my job to figure out how. It shouldn't be too hard. If states can form a 2 day test to determine knowledge one should learn from kindergarten to 12th grade(G.E.D) I doubt they would have trouble developing a test to determine their ability for a degree in a specific field.

However it would be paid for by the people taking the test. From a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, Depending on the field being tested.

Some others would be able to get aid from the govt. depending on their financial situation.

[ingoa]

I never said college would be done away with. It looks like I’m not the only who doesn't comprehend the English language, You can't even read my posts.

I said that for those few people who are self taught or have the skills from other means would have the ability to start doing the work without attending a college or getting a degree.

Hmmm...
This I really do not understand. You say college is ********. But at least 99% of scientific achievements are done by college graduates.
It appears that college did not hurt these people.

You say that without college degree you cannot be successful in an academic environment. Yet you gave names of people who did that nevertheless.
It appears that you do not have to graduate from college to be successful (e.g. Buckminster-Fuller).

To make it short.
Most of the successful people graduated from college. Some successful people did not graduate from college.

To make it shorter: Were's your beef?

You do not have to go to college to be successful. You might HAVE to go to college in order to take up a PARTICULAR job. For example lawyer and surgeon (and these are almost always jobs that could screw up the life of your prospective customers; that's why they are regulated).

In almost all other cases no college is really required. You just have to convince your prospective employer that you are up to the job. Some people have diplomas, some people have life experience, others have something else.
Employers define the qualifications that they need for a job done. If they ask for a college degree then better provide one. If they ask for a sky divers license a doctorate will be useless.

Get your own company and you can hire everybody you want. But until then do not prescribe ME whom I should hire. No selftaught bookworm will come near my (our) multi billion accelerator. :eek:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Is that an answer? Yes or no: are you advocating the piracy of thousand-dollar software?


Irrelevant to the discussion.

[JamesDillon]

Irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not irrelevant just because it makes you look like an ass. You were asked how a person who needs thousand-dollar software in order to study engineering is supposed to do that without the resources of an educational institution. Your answer: download it on Kazaa or Limewire. Do you really think it's wise policy for people to commit large-scale software piracy in order to avoid paying tuition fees?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And, Dustin, knowing one factoid (or thinking that you do) that a physician "should" know but didn't can also be a function of having read inaccurate information on the web or in lay journals. I hope that you don't believe everything you read. I do wonder what you do read since you seldom throw out evidence to support your assumptions, declarations, and anecdotes.

No, I was right.

I don't know the nature of your conversation with your dermatologist, but there are different classification schemes when it comes to acne. Some separate comedones (blackheads) from acne while some consider it a mild subset. She may have been correct depending on her background. There are things like that in medicine, by the way, in many fields. You don't always have universal agreement, particularly when it comes to categorizing illnesses, and definitions can change over time. So she may actually have known what she was talking about. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I have had numerous other dermatologists identify what I had as blackheads and I have read in numerous dermatology journals that what I had were indeed blackheads.

The only people who seperate blackheads from 'acne' are the laymen. Every journal i've read and professional I have talked to identify blackheads as a form of acne.

She was wrong. Pure and simple.

[Lurker]

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Not really. If you want to be an engineer specializing in CAD/FEA/CFD, how do you propose getting time on the software when it each package costs many thousands of dollars? You cna't download them so what is your solution? Should colleges charge you a lab fee and allow you in?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

It's not irrelevant just because it makes you look like an ass. You were asked how a person who needs thousand-dollar software in order to study engineering is supposed to do that without the resources of an educational institution. Your answer: download it on Kazaa or Limewire. Do you really think it's wise policy for people to commit large-scale software piracy in order to avoid paying tuition fees?



It's a red herring and I won't get into a debate about software piracy.



I won't respond to another message dealing with it.

[JamesDillon]

It's a red herring and I won't get into a debate about software piracy.



I won't respond to another message dealing with it.

I'm pretty sure that advocating criminal activity is a breach of the forum rules, Dustin. If not, it should be.

[hgc]

I watched this on the News the other night. Over the past 30 years the number of courses given on average in college went down as did the graduation rate and the difficulty of those courses.Did that news story, always a great source of information, give you the basis for comparison of the study? i.e., Did they compare the same institutions then and now, or did they include the entire universe (or a statistically relevant sample thereof) of colleges and universities? Because there has probably been a big increase in students coming into colleges at the lower strata over that time -- community colleges, technical schools and the like, where there would certainly be different standards of difficulty, and considering the amount of students with full-time jobs and families to support, a higher drop-out rate. The opportunity for a college education is available to more people, but then the average level of achievement within the context of higher education can go down while the level of achievement for society in general can go up at the same time.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hmmm...
This I really do not understand. You say college is ********. But at least 99% of scientific achievements are done by college graduates.
It appears that college did not hurt these people.

You say that without college degree you cannot be successful in an academic environment. Yet you gave names of people who did that nevertheless.
It appears that you do not have to graduate from college to be successful (e.g. Buckminster-Fuller).

Those people are 'rare cases' because of the limitations of not having a college degree.



To make it short.
Most of the successful people graduated from college. Some successful people did not graduate from college.

To make it shorter: Were's your beef?

You do not have to go to college to be successful. You might HAVE to go to college in order to take up a PARTICULAR job. For example lawyer and surgeon (and these are almost always jobs that could screw up the life of your prospective customers; that's why they are regulated).

In almost all other cases no college is really required. You just have to convince your prospective employer that you are up to the job. Some people have diplomas, some people have life experience, others have something else.
Employers define the qualifications that they need for a job done. If they ask for a college degree then better provide one. If they ask for a sky divers license a doctorate will be useless.

Get your own company and you can hire everybody you want. But until then do not prescribe ME whom I should hire. No selftaught bookworm will come near my (our) multi billion accelerator. :eek:


In the cases it isn't regulated. The problem is the perception that those without college degrees are somehow 'less knowledgeable' than those with college degrees.

[JamesDillon]

In the cases it isn't regulated. The problem is the perception that those without college degrees are somehow 'less knowledgeable' than those with college degrees.
That's probably because people without college degrees generally are less knowledgable than people with college degrees.

[Johnny Pixels]

P2P downloading.

Kazaa
Limewire
Rip-Torrent

All free.

This isn't the sort of stuff you get on Kazaa. This stuff is thousands of pounds each, and very specialised. The only people who have it are engineering companies and universities. Not teenage kids with Kazaa. Even if they did, that wouldn't teach me how to use it, because the only people that have it are engineering companies and universities. They don't have manuals, they have people to train you. And the front end for one piece of software was written by one of my lecturers.


Read their personal insights online or in books.
or
Contact them yourself.
They work for my university. They are too busy teaching students that they get paid to teach, rather than people who email them.

Give me an example.
Engine mapping occurs at engine manufacturers. Why would they let me in and teach me how to do it. They're busy enough making engines. Why would they let some guy in, who for all they know, is there to sell their ideas to a rival?

You aren't everyone. Using your own personal need for a university isn't an argument that EVERYONE must go to learn.
I didn't say that everyone must go to learn. People that want to learn stuff properly must go there to learn. For example, go to the Loose Change Forum and read the insights of armchair engineers.

Moreover, This is a very specific case among few where you need things that you can't afford to learn what you need to learn. In most cases all you need is a Library card.
And a university library.

Who checks your work when you're wrong? Who puts you back on the right track? There's a reason why there are lecturers at college.

[Skeptic]

You could use these labs and simply pay fees to use them opposed to enrolling in the university and paying tens of thousands of dollars? You could have specific instruction on lab procedure instead of going through the entire 3 or 4 years to get a degree in the field itself?

Of course you could--but, then again, that is hardly enough to be a doctor, is it?

You'd also have to get specific instruction in, say, anatomy in order to know what you are sending to the lab, and pathology in order to know what disease different lab results might indicate, and parasitology to know what germs you might find in the lab report, and internal medicine to know what to ask someone who comes to you with "a tummy ache" before you decide if and what kind of tests he needs to do in the lab, and...

...gee, I think there is an institution that teaches you all of that. It's called "medical school", or something like that. Appears to have something to do with college and higher education.

You could have your own lab.

Of course you could. If you got a spare $10,000,000 or so to set up one. And even if you buy all that equipment, you'd still have to go to medical school to learn how and for what purpose to use it.

This only applies to specific sciences. Not including zoology or archeology where you could learn the skills without a lab.

Well, for starters, zoologists and archeologists use laboratories all the time, but let's leave that aside. Now, let's see: I want to become an archeologist (say). Well, I can go an learn from one person who happens to be an expert in all fields of archeology, from fieldwork to the decipherment of unknown languages, but the problem is such a person doesn't exist. So I would rather learn from a group of people, each experts in their specific field of archeology, so that I would really know what I am doing.

Hmmm, there's a name for such a collection of people, isn't there? It's called "the archeology department" at your local college.

What can they teach you that you can't learn at the Public Library?

Nothing.

Utter nonsense. The relation between the quality of knowledge that a real expert has, and the quality of information in widely-available books in your public library, is like the relation between day and night. Do you really think graduate students, for example, learn from books found in the public library?

Let me give you an example from my own experience. I am currently involved in researching a certain historical subject. This is in the humanities--in history. Yet I assure you that the information I found about the subject in the Public Library--and I checked many more than one library--is virtually *nothing* compared to the information I had to get from experts in the fields through interviews, cooperation in working on an article, etc., etc. And this is in a field that needs no laboratories, expensive equipment, and so on.

In most fields of inquiry, you are lucky if the material you "find in the public library" teaches you 2% or 5% of what you really need to know to master the subject. Being "self-trained" in the public library is, in the vast majority of cases, the equivalent of trying to fly a real 747 after you "trained" by playing Microsoft Flight Simulator on your PC.

Unlikely but still a chance.

So is winning the lottery. But that's hardly a reason to argue that education in college is worthless because you might win the lottery and not have to work after all.

You claim that the day of self-taught scientist or experts is 'over' yet I can name dozens of contemporary examples in science or technology where people exceeded without college educations.

Yes, dozens--out of hundreds of thousands or millions of technicians and scientists who are university-trained. For every technological patent by a non-college-educated person, there must be a thousand by those who are.

Moreover...None of which has anything to do with the fact (as you yourself admit) people can be self taught and are currently being prohibited from perusing careers because they didn't take the 'common means' to getting their education.

The reason for that is public safety. Perhaps you are willing to have a self-taught physician operate on you, or a self-taught engineer build your house, or a self-taught pilot fly a plane you're on, with them basing their knowledge on trips to the public library. Most of us won't take such a risk, thankyouverymuch.

[Dave1001]

I've always wondered about College and what exactly its point is. There are several things that really don't make sense about College and most people’s view of College and it's adequacy.
In my opinion college should be the judge of whether someone gets a job or not. Their SKILL should be the judge of that. College should simply be there to help educate people who can’t educate themselves. That’s it. Period.

Discuss.

What's there to discuss? You're right, of course. Although technically a college degree is required neither for law school or medical school admissions, nor for licensing. Also, in a number of states (maybe a majority) a law degree is not required for licensing. But there are comparable barriers within the alternate routes that render this point moot.

College is a business. Having said that, I'll take my chances with a college degree rather than without one. I don't have a young Bill Gates' or Michael Dell's confidence that a college degree will only hinder my future achievement.

[JamesDillon]

What's there to discuss? You're right, of course. Although technically a college degree is required neither for law school or medical school admissions, nor for licensing. Also, in a number of states (maybe a majority) a law degree is not required for licensing. But there are comparable barriers within the alternate routes that render this point moot.
Not true. Most states require a degree from an accredited law school in order to sit for the bar exam (California is the only exception that comes to mind offhand). To the best of my knowledge, most (probably all) accredited law schools require an undergraduate degree. Feel free to correct me if this is not the case, but I would be quite surprised.

[timhau]

More detailed
Area it's explaining is much more vast than a single study on a single topic in most cases.
Sources are more varied.Just to name a few reasons.


I agree, it does cover a vast area -- which is exactly why I dispute #1 on that list. Sources may be more varied, but if you count hunting down the sources as part of the work (assuming you use only primary sources, which probably isn't always a given), doing the experiment reported in the short paper has to count as well.


But your insulting tone and lack of reading comprehension is making me decide not to respond to your posts anymore.

OK, it's no skin off my back. Maybe we could resume the discussion in Finnish, so I can use my native stylistic sense and reading comprehension. (And sure, I might tell you how this "I won't talk to you, or you, or about that" strategy makes you look from my end of the internet, but why bother?)

[Darth Rotor]

I agree...Except...
You can get an education without college.
True.

You must still convince someone to hire you in your chosen field, or have some connections, or have a project or "thing you did" to demonstrate to a prospective employer your qualifications or skills in a given area. Otherwise, you are one more talking head who claims to be qualified for a job, with no evidence to support the claim.

Or, start your own business. Start small, and grow. If you are any good at what you do, you'll succeed. All it takes is total commitment and hard work by the bushel full.

As to college expense, aye, 'tis high.

One way to overcome that is to get a lot of credits and requirements taken care of on the cheap, at the local community college. If you are as smart as you think you are, you'll ace each course, and the credits will transfer and you can "do college" on the three year plan, or two.

Meanwhile, you can work part or full time to help pay for your room and board, save a bit for later tuition. Live austerely. Downstream your student loan burden won't be as onerous when you graduate.

I suggest you get thee to a community college, and quickly. Enroll and excel. You are wasting your youth, and your time, posting on this board with your whining about how imperfect the world is, according to you. Life isn't fair, deal with it.

There are more ways to a college degree than a four year program at university. That is one path, and there are others. If you have the moxy to try and be hugely successful without college, pick a field and throw yourself into it.

Best of luck.

DR

[69dodge]

I should probably act all responsible-like, and encourage Dustin to go to college. But instead I'm gonna post this link:

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html

[Darth Rotor]

I should probably act all responsible-like, and encourage Dustin to go to college. But instead I'm gonna post this link:

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html
That made me LOL, recalling some of the labs I while an undergrad. Thanks.

DR

[timhau]

I should probably act all responsible-like, and encourage Dustin to go to college. But instead I'm gonna post this link:

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html

:D Thanks! I needed that. This'll get me through the last remnants of that pile of exams I have to grade...

[Lurker]

Those people are 'rare cases' because of the limitations of not having a college degree.

In the cases it isn't regulated. The problem is the perception that those without college degrees are somehow 'less knowledgeable' than those with college degrees.

In my line of work, we have engineers who went to school and engineers who did not and kind of learned it over the years. I have a lot of respect for those engineers who kind of picked up the craft over time. They are good at what they do.

But they are in my office all the time asking me how to perform basic calculations. I can trust them to solve the sorts of problems that they have seen before. Very good at that. But when they see a problem they have not seen before, they are in trouble. Why? Because they cannot fall back on basic theory to work their way through the problem. Again, they come to my office.

College grads can learn form these "engineers" but they also can go much further in their career than these self-taught engineers. I speak from personal experience. Dustin, perhaps you see all these self-taught people performing as well or better than their college contemporaries but in my field, I have not seen it.

[drkitten]

Not true. Most states require a degree from an accredited law school in order to sit for the bar exam (California is the only exception that comes to mind offhand).

From Dustin's own Wikipedia citation:


In California, Virginia, Vermont and Washington, an applicant who has not attended law school may take the bar exam after study under a judge or practicing attorney for an extended period of time. This method is known as "reading law" or "reading the law".

New York requires that applicants who are reading the law must have at least one year of law school study. (See Rule 540.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Admission of Attorneys.)




Which suggests that he didn't even read the article he's been citing so extensively.

[slingblade]

There's NOTHING that you can learn in college that you can't learn out of college. Period. I challenge you to name something.

It isn't so much what you learn, as how you learn it.

Learning does not take place in a vacuum. I worked for 20 years to teach myself how to write, in my spare time, and I was pretty damned good at it before I ever set foot in college at the age of 41. But the one thing I did not and could not get was the benefit of peer review, and the benefit of experience. Sure, I could have found a writer's group, and a couple of times I did sit in on such groups. I found they knew no more, and usually much less, than I did about the art of writing, and I ended up teaching them instead of them helping me. That didn't do me much good, and in fact just reinforced certain bad habits I'd developed, as I had no one to teach me any better.

College taught me many things I had not yet been able to learn on my own in 41 years. (I'm 47 now, JSYK.) College helped me with subjects I'd given up on as a lost cause--like math. I didn't learn algebra until college. I didn't have anyone to make me learn it, which is very important with intimidating subjects. I had to learn it, like it or not, and I certainly didn't like it. But I went from a D to a B in just a year of instruction.

College exposed me to new ideas I had never considered. The exchange of ideas is extremely important to learning, as it's not about simply digesting what's gone before, but learning how to create what will come next.

College taught me discipline. There were places I had to be and things I had to accomplish, at specific times, whether I had the "want to" or not. For many people, this is a difficult skill to learn. It was for me, and college has helped me in this as nothing else in my life--parenthood and employment, for example--ever did.

College got me to read things I had always disdained before. I had never read a word of Hemingway until college, and only then did I realize what I had been missing. Likewise Melville, Frost, HD, Dickinson, and other Western classics I had always ignored as passe', old hat, unimportant. College taught me how to analyze these authors' works; I woudn't have begun to know the right questions to ask, nor how to find the answers, without college. I certainly didn't get it in high school. Discovering all of this, under the expert guidance of my professors, has helped my writing immeasurably.

College exposed me to new subjects I hadn't even known I had an interest in learning. Logic, sociology, anthropology, geology, weather and climate, 3-D art, 2-D art, sculpture, poetry (I'm a 5-time award winning poet, which I would never have been without college to encourage me and give me a place to get published) and much more were all opened up to me.

College helps you sift and organize what you're learning. Learning can be like setting out on a trip for a place you've never been, without a map. Which way do you go? What should you see along the way and what will just waste your time? Some side roads are beneficial, while some just take you further away from your destination. Are you sure, before you set out, that you know exactly which is which? A guide might be handy...someone who has been there before. Now where might I find that? Gee, I wish I knew.....

College is voluntary. No one will force you to go. You have to choose it. This says something about you to the rest of the world. You have to choose to finish it, too. This also speaks volumes. And you have to choose to do well, to complete your assignments, to earn a good grade...all of these things show others that you are serious, that your future means enough to you that you choose to better yourself, not just to sit around whining and waiting for people to hand you things.

College, above all, is not magic. You don't just walk in one door an ignoramus and walk out the other a blooming genius, with no effort or sweat required on your part in between. College is work; you get out of it what you put into it. Do people get graduated without having learned what they ought to have? Yep. I saw it with my own eyes. I've said it before--there are now, at this moment, people teaching English who can't properly use it themselves. This doesn't mean college was a waste of time and money for me, however. I got much more out of my 5 years of college (now edging into six as I change course) than I got out of the previous 41 years taken together. Mostly because I put much more into college than I've ever put into anything before.

You don't think college is worthwhile? Don't go. It's that simple.

But don't even try to disparage me because I did. Having read your posts, I know for a fact that there are things I know which, until and unless you go to college, you never will know.

And to quote Mr. Frost, that has made all the difference.

[drkitten]

]The fact is...There's NOTHING that you can learn in college that you can't learn out of college. Period.

Of course not. SImilarly, there's nothing that you can get to by car that you can't get to by pogo stick.

And yet people prefer to drive. I wonder why.....

[Katana]

No, I was right.
This seems to be your only strategy. Pretty lame.

I have had numerous other dermatologists identify what I had as blackheads and I have read in numerous dermatology journals that what I had were indeed blackheads.

The only people who seperate blackheads from 'acne' are the laymen. Every journal i've read and professional I have talked to identify blackheads as a form of acne.

She was wrong. Pure and simple.
Every journal that you have read? Which ones are those?

If you had read every journal like the Journal of the American Dermatologic Society, you might have come across articles that describe comedones (blackheads) that result from certain cosmetic substances. Some labeled this as acne cosmetica in order to identify a subset of "acne" patients whose problems are due to topical exposure and resolve after they stop using the offending product. Some consider this a subset of acne while others consider it a separate entity labeled in such a manner because it's appearance resembles acne.

If you had read a journal like Dermatologic Clinics, you would have seen references to comedones as a pre-cursor to acne but not acne itself.

I'm sure that you could do a literature search, although I don't expect you to, and find articles to support what you have been told or have read. That only serves to support my point. There is a lack of universal agreement.

Anyway, since you seem to need to hold on to the idea that your dermatologist was wrong and glean some inflated sense self worth from that, I suspect that you will continue to go on thinking as you do regardless of what any of us have to say.

But this isn't what I emphasized, so I'm not sure why you chose to respond to it alone rather than the more substantive issue of why you are wrong to suggest that you can do certain fields, like medicine, without a college degree.

[ingoa]

First of all, a college degree is the proof that you attended college successfully. Not more, not less. By that definition you cannot get a degree without going to college.

As Dustin wants a non-college exam, there comes a need to introduce an additional qualification. This will INCREASE cost. If this additional qualification is only taken by non-college people it would be quite meaningless. It lacks comparability. So college people would have to take it also. Thus the total cost would increase. On the other hand there is no demand from industry and research for such an additional exam.

So Dustin wants an additional qualification that nobody (except him) asked for. Fine. Dustin, set-up a facility that produces the needed tests and diplomas. But please do not spend our tax dollars for that. Let's see how far you come. No diploma alone will get you a job. Otherwise the printers of students would run hot. It is the package that comes with a degree.

Industry and academia hire people because they HAVE been at college and have a degree to prove that they did so successfully. If this system would not work than industry would press for change (hence the many new study topics that came with the rise of computers and new media).

That was the employer view. The student might view it quite differently. If you go to college and study some obscure semi-scientific subject (NO! I do not want to mention one explicitly ;-) )than you are qualified to work in that particular field. It will not help to get you into a lawyers firm or a scientific institution. But college students are (at least here) grown-ups which are free to waste their life on anything they want. If you believe that college is nothing for you: don't go. But do not request access to jobs where the employer demands a college degree.

It is very hard to get a job as truck driver without having a driving license. Now that is something I call unfair! I could learn driving easily by reading books in the public library.

[JamesDillon]

First of all, a college degree is the proof that you attended college successfully. Not more, not less. By that definition you cannot get a degree without going to college.

As Dillon wants a non-college exam, there comes a need to introduce an additional qualification. This will INCREASE cost. If this additional qualification is only taken by non-college people it would be quite meaningless. It lacks comparability. So college people would have to take it also. Thus the total cost would increase. On the other hand there is no demand from industry and research for such an additional exam.

So Dillon wants an additional qualification that nobody (except him) asked for. Fine. Dillon, set-up a facility that produces the needed tests and diplomas. But please do not spend our tax dollars for that. Let's see how far you come. No diploma alone will get you a job. Otherwise the printers of students would run hot. It is the package that comes with a degree.

Industry and academia hire people because they HAVE been at college and have a degree to prove that they did so successfully. If this system would not work than industry would press for change (hence the many new study topics that came with the rise of computers and new media).

That was the employer view. The student might view it quite differently. If you go to college and study some obscure semi-scientific subject (NO! I do not want to mention one explicitly ;-) )than you are qualified to work in that particular field. It will not help to get you into a lawyers firm or a scientific institution. But college students are (at least here) grown-ups which are free to waste their life on anything they want. If you believe that college is nothing for you: don't go. But do not request access to jobs where the employer demands a college degree.

It is very hard to get a job as truck driver without having a driving license. Now that is something I call unfair! I could learn driving easily by reading books in the public library.

I think you mean Dustin. Different person altogether.

[Katana]

First of all, a college degree is the proof that you attended college successfully. Not more, not less. By that definition you cannot get a degree without going to college.

As Dillon wants a non-college exam, there comes a need to introduce an additional qualification. This will INCREASE cost. If this additional qualification is only taken by non-college people it would be quite meaningless. It lacks comparability. So college people would have to take it also. Thus the total cost would increase. On the other hand there is no demand from industry and research for such an additional exam.

So Dillon wants an additional qualification that nobody (except him) asked for. Fine. Dillon, set-up a facility that produces the needed tests and diplomas. But please do not spend our tax dollars for that. Let's see how far you come. No diploma alone will get you a job. Otherwise the printers of students would run hot. It is the package that comes with a degree.
Psst. Did you mean Dustin? I ask because there's a JamesDillon who I didn't think was espousing these views.

ETA: Scooped!

[ingoa]

Ooops.... Another thing I SHOULD have learnt at university. Never trust your memory with data. Me bad. :-(

[JamesDillon]

Ooops.... Another thing I SHOULD have learnt at university. Never trust your memory with data. Me bad. :-(

No problem, though I can think of many other posters I'd rather be confused with :)

[drkitten]

Industry and academia hire people because they HAVE been at college and have a degree to prove that they did so successfully. If this system would not work than industry would press for change (hence the many new study topics that came with the rise of computers and new media).

That was the employer view. The student might view it quite differently. If you go to college and study some obscure semi-scientific subject (NO! I do not want to mention one explicitly ;-) )than you are qualified to work in that particular field. It will not help to get you into a lawyers firm or a scientific institution. But college students are (at least here) grown-ups which are free to waste their life on anything they want. If you believe that college is nothing for you: don't go. But do not request access to jobs where the employer demands a college degree.

Let's not misrepresent his argument here. He's not talking about employer requirements, but more specifically about state licensing requirements. I might want to be a lawyer without going to law school. Wolfram and Hart might want to hire me to work as a lawyer without my having gone to law school. In California, Virginia, Washington, and a few other jurisdictions, they could hire me and train me themselves for a couple of years, after which I can take the Bar exam and start practicing law for them. (Granted, Wolfram and Hart would probably be fools to want to go this way and pay "training wages" instead of hiring a fully-qualified J.D., but there's no law that says senior partners can't be fools.)

It's the state of Florida -- or Pennsylvania, or Alabama, or whatever -- that says that this can't happen. It could be thought of as the state overstepping its boundaries, by telling W&H and I what we can and can't agree to do by ourselves.

Similarly, I can't go to work for my father's medical practice and become a brain surgeon just by helping him out, even if both he and I want it.

The problem, of course, is that I don't see any tremendous demand on the part of employers for these alternative routes; I've never heard of hospitals calling for a relaxation of training standards for doctors (or even for nurses, which are in a critical shortage). The people who do the hiring are, as you point out, the ones who ultimately drive the trainin standards. If more people wanted non-degree-qualified nurses, there would be a recognizable demand. Hospitals and law firms hire from schools because they believe (contra Dustin) that formal education does produce measurable benefits, and that autodidacts can't cut the mustard.

So I'm afraid that my response to Dustin is the same as it is to the other whiny students that start criticising the curriculum. "You're not in a position to have an informed opinion on the validity of the curriculum. The people who are in such a position -- disciplinary experts and subject-matter clients -- want this formal curriculum, and have repeated stated their preference. I'm afraid that I have to go with the experts and clients on this."

[Kevin_Lowe]

You can learn surgery without attending a college. There's nothing you can do in a college that you couldn't do apprenticing with a real surgeon or practicing on kidabers.


That's almost worth adding to my sig.

[Jimbo07]

Apparently, Dustin isn't counting Johnny Pixels's personal experience. Sadly, I also, can only speak from my personal experience with engineering physics:

There are so many expensive pieces of lab equipment that I have used, that it is clear that my tuition alone does not cover the full costs of my education. How can I use Kazaa to download a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance apparatus? :confused: How can I download: a $2k digital oscilloscope, liquid Nitrogen, X-ray sources, photodetectors, lead bricks, vacuum systems, etc.? It is also not true that any one business has all of this kit. I had the pleasure of touring a 'commercial' lab, lately. NMR techniques are just trickling in there, experimentally.

Although books, reading, and doing equations with pencil-and-paper are a significant component of my education, I gain the benefit of working with other students, having a vast body of professors and grad students with a broad knowledge base to learn from and access to college libraries (fees covered in my tuition). There is a lot of self-learning that does go on in our program, btw.

Finally, our provincial professional engineering organizations waive their qualifying technical exams for students who have graduated from accredited institutions. People with international qualifications may apply, but they may need to take a technical exam (from APEGS):


There may be an interview, technical exams or courses assigned depending on the results of the academic assessment. Denial of the application is also a possibility if there are too many deficiencies identified in your academic preparation and it is deemed that you require further education.


I'd like to note that this thread has touched on some of the sentiment I acknowledged in my "I'm too smart" thread.

[LW]

As a person who has read THOUSANDS of scientific papers and edited dozens of wikipedia articles...I'd say it's nearly the same with a few minor differences.

Given that you previously listed John Romero as a guy doing science, I'm a bit sceptical about your definition of "scientific paper".

Look at a comprehensive wiki article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2

It's detail and citation of sources.

Its detail is on a level of a quick introduction to people who know little about WWII. Which is good for an article of that type but hardly what I would call "detailed". (Not to mention that the details currently include "Nazi-controlled Germany led by Adolf HitlerAnd Keith Landers", though this
particular act of vandalism will quite probably be fixed soon)

And what comes to the citation of sources, the references section is not too long (13 entries is hardly impressive) but enough for an overview article like this especially since it includes several general WWII histories. However, the text itself quotes several other sources that are not included in the references, like Krivosheev and Erlikman. The Erlikman reference is particularly beautiful.

Then look at a common short scientific article in some medical journal.

Why not compare a common short Wikipedia article with a common short medical journal article, instead of taking one of the longest Wikipedia articles? Or you could compare the WWII article with some monograph written by a scientist. Apples and oranges (Sandford 1995).


References:

Sandford, S. Apples and oranges: a comparison, Annals of Improbable Research 1995:1(3)

[timhau]

While I continue to defend colleges/universities as institutions, I have to say that some stuff universities (or mine, at least) offer is ************. Example: some time ago, some bureaucrats from high-up decided that in order to improve teaching standards in universities, university teachers should be encouraged to get a mini-diploma in Education. In a shameless attempt at CV padding, I attended the introductory course the Faculty of Education had set up for this purpose -- twice. I went twice only because we had a break of 3 or 4 days between the first and the second session, and in that time I had managed to convince myself that it just couldn't be as bad as I thought it was. And it wasn't, the second time was much worse.

Thankfully, the idea was abandoned fairly quickly, mainly because just about everyone dropped out from these courses.

[Katana]

You can learn surgery without attending a college. There's nothing you can do in a college that you couldn't do apprenticing with a real surgeon or practicing on kidabers.
When you go through the training that it takes to become a surgeon, then you can make this statement. You have no idea what you're talking about.

ETA: Kidabers? I rest my case.

[drkitten]

While I continue to defend colleges/universities as institutions, I have to say that some stuff universities (or mine, at least) offer is ************.

Of course. So is some stuff -- most stuff -- that peer-revieweed journals offer. For that matter, so is some stuff that Wikipedia offers, and most of the music at the top of the charts at any given point. Have you ever heard of Sturgeon's Law?

The "university curriculum" is something of a misnomer. Every university and every department has its own curriculum, and the curricula themselves are constantly changing, both to reflect new development in the fields and to experiment with more effective and efficient teaching methods. New ideas get trotted out to be field-tested all the time. Unfortunately, since most new ideas are bad ones, they get trotted out and then whipped back to their stables.

What you're really seeing, whether you realize it or not, is how good the typical university curriculum actually is, since it's difficult to improve upon. And that's part of why autodidacticism is generally a bad, or at least, inefficient, idea. Law schools have been a running Darwinian experiment in how to give students the most effective understanding of the law for the past two hundred years. If there were an easy and obvious way to improve upon a typical law school curriculum, it would have already been found.

[HeavyAaron]

I don't have any websites or statistics showing the number of college students(in America) who have grants or scholarships however I have seen the statistics before and I can tell you only a small fraction of college students actually get grants or scholarships. Something like 5%.

You're only off by more than a magnitude...

During the academic year 2003-2004, approximately 90% of the student population received some type of student financial aid assistance. Of these, 89% of the students received loans and 55% received some type of scholarship or grant.

http://www.psm.edu/Student_Affairs/Financial_Aid/programs.htm

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

3% seems low if you haven't done the math. Compound that 3% over several years and you've got a good amount of money you owe.

Wow... who hasn't done the math?!?

That 3% is tax deductable... so subtract a third for 2%.... 2% fixed minus inflation IS LESS THAN 0%! It's a PROFITABLE LOAN WITHOUT COLLATERAL!

Aaron

[hgc]

Did he say kidabers?

[Almo]

In my opinion college should be the judge of whether someone gets a job or not. Their SKILL should be the judge of that. College should simply be there to help educate people who can’t educate themselves. That’s it. Period.

Wow. I don't know what to say about this. First, I'm assuming he meant "college should NOT be."

Proving skill is difficult. As an example, I don't want a surgeon taking me apart if he's self taught, unless he's performed a whole load of previous successful surgeries. But who goes under his knife first? The medical schooling is designed to tell us uninformed people who is qualified to do surgery and who isn't.

Say you want to hire me to do some physics work for you. If you don't understand physics yourself, how can you verify that the work I'm doing is correct? If I were to just say "trust me. I've studied this stuff on my own for years, and I rule." How would you verify that what I say is correct? I happen to have a Master's in Physics from the University of Iowa. There, now you can trust that I at least have a verifiable background in physics.

It's not a perfect system. But it's the best we have for now.

[ponderingturtle]

Say you want to hire me to do some physics work for you. If you don't understand physics yourself, how can you verify that the work I'm doing is correct? If I were to just say "trust me. I've studied this stuff on my own for years, and I rule." How would you verify that what I say is correct? I happen to have a Master's in Physics from the University of Iowa. There, now you can trust that I at least have a verifiable background in physics.


what you don't what this guy (http://www.nov55.com/) who claims that energy is really mv not 1/2mv^2, because he looked at some rocket equations and saw that mv was concerved?

You need a review process to correct missunderstandings in technical fields and college is a process used. An other reason why aprenticeships will not work for say medicine is that medical knowledge advances and you want any doctor to have the best basic training they can get. Then they go out and work under other doctors is what could be seen as an aprenticeship program under a different name.

[drkitten]

Proving skill is difficult. As an example, I don't want a surgeon taking me apart if he's self taught, unless he's performed a whole load of previous successful surgeries. But who goes under his knife first? The medical schooling is designed to tell us uninformed people who is qualified to do surgery and who isn't.

Well, that's the point of the apprenticeship system.

You don't need a "college" to certify that you have a particular skill; any sufficiently skilled practitioner of the skill itself can certify it. Of course, we then get into the problem of identifying "sufficiently skilled" practitioners, but one easy way to do it is to establish something like a guild system, where the "master surgeons" train "apprentices," who then become "journeymen" that can work, but can't yet train others.

Of course, it would be really nice if we could get all the "master surgeons" together in one place, both to establish recognition for the group (so that everyone knows the name of the certifying group instead of the individual surgeons), and to allow a more efficient way of sharing expertise and equipment.

I'm sorry -- this is going to be yet another way in which I've re-invented the medical school, isn't it?

[alfaniner]

Did he say kidabers?

Sure, he's just promoting that new movie "Kidabers on a Kayak!"

Besides, everyone knows it's supposed to be "kidabbers".

[Jimbo07]

what you don't what this guy (http://www.nov55.com/) who claims that energy is really mv not 1/2mv^2, because he looked at some rocket equations and saw that mv was concerved?


Just... wow...

:(


I was thinking about Einstein's equation which says that the energy in matter is equal to its mass time the velocity of light squared. It occurred to me that he would have had something if he hadn't squared the velocity of light, because nothing can move at velocity squared.

Stupid Einstein. He was so close to an insight... :p

[Jorghnassen]

Did he say kidabers?

Well, the dictionary can't teach you how to spell. And even google can't help you on that one.

/off to get some cadavers to teach myself surgery
//at least that'll be my excuse...

[Snide]

Well, the dictionary can't teach you how to spell. And even google can't help you on that one.
Yeah, you know you've really butchered it then!

Anyway, Dustin is absolutely right. College is a very flawed way of guaranteeing someone is really cut out for a job and another one is not.

Just like capitalism and democracy are flawed in guaranteeing everyone will get a fair shake in life.

But until he or anyone else presents a better idea...

[JLam]

I'm still chuckling about Dustin insisting that it's illegal across the board to practice law without going to law school when his own wikipedia citation gives examples of several states where it is, in fact, possible to practice law without going to law school.

And I wonder if he even knows why his use of the word "kidaber" is funny. :rolleyes: Self correction, my ass.

Dustin, do us all a favor. Go to college for 4 years, then come back and read this thread over and see if you feel the same way.

[hgc]

Just... wow...
:(
Originally Posted by M.S. in Microbiology
I was thinking about Einstein's equation which says that the energy in matter is equal to its mass time the velocity of light squared. It occurred to me that he would have had something if he hadn't squared the velocity of light, because nothing can move at velocity squared.
Stupid Einstein. He was so close to an insight... :pHow does one square velocity anyway? There must be some trick to vector multiplication I am not aware of.

[CFLarsen]

Did he say kidabers?

That's "kidnappers", when you have a cold?

[ponderingturtle]

How does one square velocity anyway? There must be some trick to vector multiplication I am not aware of.

Actualy you do it all the time, think of how you determine the magnitude and that this is realy the square of the magnitude(more or less). You are either looking at a component velocity or the total magnitude either way squareing them is normal procedure.

[hgc]

Actualy you do it all the time, think of how you determine the magnitude and that this is realy the square of the magnitude(more or less). You are either looking at a component velocity or the total magnitude either way squareing them is normal procedure.Thanks. Squaring magnitude is something I understand, or we can even talk about vector cross products. But then Einstein's famous equation squares the speed of light anyway.

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks. Squaring magnitude is something I understand, or we can even talk about vector cross products. But then Einstein's famous equation squares the speed of light anyway.

The point is that you are not getting a vector as a product. You are sometimes sqauring the X component of velocity to figure out how various velocities add to gether and such, but never really getting a vector result from it.

That is one of the reasons why mv makes no sense as energy, it is a vector, while 1/2mv^2 is a scaler.

I tried to tell him that of course mv is concerved as well as that is momentum which while not the same thing as energy, is also concerved. He was absolutly conviced I was wrong and could not do math, well that showed my that biology does not require much of a math basis.

[Katana]

Hey, ponderingturtle and hgc!

You didn't go to college or anything, did you?

[ponderingturtle]

Hey, ponderingturtle and hgc!

You didn't go to college or anything, did you?

College hell this is something highschoolers should learn. This is basic high school physics something that he should have taken before he decided it was all wrong.

But techinicaly my physics degree is not quite complete.

[Jimbo07]

College hell this is something highschoolers should learn. This is basic high school physics something that he should have taken before he decided it was all wrong.

But techinicaly my physics degree is not quite complete.

pt, I don't recall path integrals from high school. This is necessary to see how to get from F=ma to Kinetic Energy. That is, start with Force (all the way back to Newton) show work, W, as the integral of that force over a given path. Solving gives our old friend (mv2)/2. Discuss the equivalency of work and energy... or summat. :cool:

If not, you have to take all the formulas as a given, n'est-ce-pas?

[ponderingturtle]

pt, I don't recall path integrals from high school. This is necessary to see how to get from F=ma to Kinetic Energy. That is, start with Force (all the way back to Newton) show work, W, as the integral of that force over a given path. Solving gives our old friend (mv2)/2. Discuss the equivalency of work and energy... or summat. :cool:

If not, you have to take all the formulas as a given, n'est-ce-pas?

No, I was thinking about constant acceleration and falling as being a easly way to get from F=ma to ke=1/2 mv^2.

You just say that Potential energy is Weight*Hieght and you accelerate at G, and use the simple constant acceleration equations to solve the problem.

There are lots of ways to get kinetic energy, and some of them can be worked out easily in high school.

[HeavyAaron]

If this person accepts height*mass as a accurate formula for gravametric potential energy, it would be easy to demonstrate that one has to launch a mass with four times the velocity to obtain twice the height instead of with only twice the velocity.

Aaron

[ponderingturtle]

If this person accepts height*mass as a accurate formula for gravametric potential energy, it would be easy to demonstrate that one has to launch a mass with four times the velocity to obtain twice the height instead of with only twice the velocity.

Aaron

Yes but you have to break through the thick walls surrounding him being a total crank. Of course he is wrong in easy and proveable ways, but you are not going to get him to listen

[ZirconBlue]

Wolfram and Hart might want to hire me to work as a lawyer without my having gone to law school. In California, Virginia, Washington, and a few other jurisdictions, they could hire me and train me themselves for a couple of years, after which I can take the Bar exam and start practicing law for them. (Granted, Wolfram and Hart would probably be fools to want to go this way and pay "training wages" instead of hiring a fully-qualified J.D., but there's no law that says senior partners can't be fools.)

W&H's senior partners may be evil, but they're not stupid. They've been in the business for a long time.

[Darth Rotor]

That's "kidnappers", when you have a cold?

Or "kid diapers" if you have a speech impediment. (Yes, a redundant term.)

Perhaps our friend Dustin is really named Desitin (http://www.desitin.com/en/?dsp=20&psp=1).

DR

[Snide]

Or "kid diapers" if you have a speech impediiment. You are clearly a hypocrite because you can't even spell "impediment." And don't give me any cr@p about it being a typo!! ;)

[Darth Rotor]

You are clearly a hypocrite because you can't even spell "impediment." And don't give me any cr@p about it being a typo!! ;)
Fixed, Mister Hippocr@p. :D Who let Norm Crosby into the room, anyway? *belch*

DR

[EBU]

A fairly useless addition to the discussion about whether it is possible to practice law without having gone to law school.


http://www.lawschoolbible.com/

[Jimbo07]

No, I was thinking about constant acceleration and falling as being a easly way to get from F=ma to ke=1/2 mv^2.

You just say that Potential energy is Weight*Hieght and you accelerate at G, and use the simple constant acceleration equations to solve the problem.

There are lots of ways to get kinetic energy, and some of them can be worked out easily in high school.

I've never tried, but I think it would be hard to teach Kinetic Energy, starting from force, not using derivatives and integrals, and not assuming a definition for either Kinetic or Potential energy.

This was this bungle-head's problem. He seems to have randomly assumed that you can define momentum to be energy just by stating so.

Newton 1 is inertia.

Newton 2 is F=ma.

Force = time derivative of momentum, d(mv/dt) = m(dv/dt) and work/energy = integral of force along a path or int(m(dv/dt)ds). That is, F=ma is the relationship through which a change in momentum impacts (requires) a change in energy. Potential energy is actually a special case. F=ma holds, and m1v1=m2v2 hold, regardless of your source of potential.

You can certainly state in high school that KE2 - KE1 = PE2 - PE1, but you have said nothing really about why KE and PE are the way they are. High school may deal with the 'whats' of mechanics, but not the 'hows' of physics... unless I'm completely wrong about highschool, or not thinking about mechanics properly.

(Jimbo waits for correction... :o )

[JamesDillon]

A fairly useless addition to the discussion about whether it is possible to practice law without having gone to law school.


http://www.lawschoolbible.com/

California's bar exam is notoriously difficult, even for a bar exam; the usual explanation for this is that they want to make it extra hard for people who haven't gone to law school to be admitted to practice law. I wouldn't be surprised if the other states that allow the "reading the law" method take similar precautions. Having taken the New York bar, I think that any reasonably intelligent person who took a standard bar review course and studied very diligently could probably pass it, if not on the first try then certainly on the second or third. But passing the bar exam is not in itself a guarantee that one is fit to practice law; it's more like a final quality-control mechanism that works best if the person already has a substantial legal education. I imagine that the few states that still have the reading the law option do so as a holdover from the days of 19th-century apprenticeships, but I can't conceive of how working as a legal assistant could reasonably prepare anyone to practice law without further training.

[ponderingturtle]

I've never tried, but I think it would be hard to teach Kinetic Energy, starting from force, not using derivatives and integrals, and not assuming a definition for either Kinetic or Potential energy.


Starting from force, but I was ignoreing force and starting from potential energy. Yes you do need to decide that potential energy is Weight*Height, but that is pretty easy to show that it is a linear relationship.

You have to assume something, and that is a pretty easy thing to test(and oddly something the person cited accepts).


This was this bungle-head's problem. He seems to have randomly assumed that you can define momentum to be energy just by stating so.

Newton 1 is inertia.

Newton 2 is F=ma.

Force = time derivative of momentum, d(mv/dt) = m(dv/dt) and work/energy = integral of force along a path or int(m(dv/dt)ds). That is, F=ma is the relationship through which a change in momentum impacts (requires) a change in energy. Potential energy is actually a special case. F=ma holds, and m1v1=m2v2 hold, regardless of your source of potential.


You should note that is it the sum of all m1v1=sum of all m2v2, any individual can change. Just like the sum of all the energy has to be the same at the begining and the end, regardless of it being mechanical, chemical, potential nor what have you.


You can certainly state in high school that KE2 - KE1 = PE2 - PE1, but you have said nothing really about why KE and PE are the way they are. High school may deal with the 'whats' of mechanics, but not the 'hows' of physics... unless I'm completely wrong about highschool, or not thinking about mechanics properly.

(Jimbo waits for correction... :o )

College does not nessacarily make it more fundamental than high school at least for intro classes. Looking at it all as differential equations was not 100 level physics in my college but 300.

The point still stands that all you need is high school physics to show the inconsistencies and errrors in the web page in question.

[Jimbo07]

You should note that is it the sum of all m1v1=sum of all m2v2, any individual can change.

I suppose you're also going to say that I should be bolding where appropriate for vectors and subscripting my indices. :p


College does not nessacarily make it more fundamental than high school at least for intro classes. Looking at it all as differential equations was not 100 level physics in my college but 300.

I'm hoping this year to get a job marking (or as a lab assistant) for some of the general 100 level courses. This will help remind me what and how it is taught. We also have 100 level classes for non-physics majors, 100 level classes for physics majors and the spread of mechanics/electrical/modern classes for eng. phys majors. :D


The point still stands that all you need is high school physics to show the inconsistencies and errrors in the web page in question.

Inconsistencies yes. I'm not sure that you could demonstrate a mathematical meaning for these things taking the form that they have. I put to you that they wouldn't typically introduce even velocities and accelerations as being time derivatives of position. You just have to accept:

x(t) = x0 + v0t + (1/2)at2

[drkitten]

I put to you that they wouldn't typically introduce even velocities and accelerations as being time derivatives of position. You just have to accept:

x(t) = x0 + v0t + (1/2)at2

Actually, even introducting the idea of "time-derivatives of positions" isn't that demanding, as long as you don't insist that students be able to manipulate the derivatives themselves. Calculus is easy conceptually if you don't need to work the damn sums yourself.

Define the concepts of "velocity" and "acceleration" in terms of "rates of change" -- you don't even need the term "derivative." The experiment you define above can be demonstrated empirically to justify using it. From there, you've got everything you need.

[Jimbo07]

Okay. Pretending for a moment that this guy had a genuine interest in learning, but lacked freshman-level calculus, how would you teach him that the definitions of momentum and energy are not arbitrary?

I once had the pleasure of seeing a prof. teaching a general freshman physics class (which had nothing to do with my current engineering education, btw), pounding his fist on the workbench and screaming, '(1/2)kx2! (1/2)kx2!' His assertion was that a bunch of 'artsy' students shouldn't be trying to reason this stuff out, but be memorizing basic formulas. The 'memorize forumlas' approach is highly favoured in engineering where many of the freshman students won't be going on to more advanced mechanics.

[drkitten]

Okay. Pretending for a moment that this guy had a genuine interest in learning, but lacked freshman-level calculus, how would you teach him that the definitions of momentum and energy are not arbitrary?

I'm a firm believer in demonstrations. Showing him that momentum is conserved in collisions when kinetic energy isn't (e.g. inelastic ones) should help him realize that the topics are different.

Showing him how potential energy converts to kinetic energy -- I've seen really neat setups with springs that do this -- and the conservation laws should help him realize that energy is energy.

Then get a video camera or a radar gun and show him the (1/2)kx2 in action on a moving particle. Get a moving particle of twice as much energy, and show him that it's not, in fact, moving twice as fast.

I

[Jimbo07]

I'm a firm believer in demonstrations. Showing him that momentum is conserved in collisions when kinetic energy isn't (e.g. inelastic ones) should help him realize that the topics are different.

Which is part of why laboratory sessions are conducted, I suppose (that, and according to my peers who have already been markers, to start sorting out some of the crap that passes for high-school lab reports).


Showing him how potential energy converts to kinetic energy -- I've seen really neat setups with springs that do this -- and the conservation laws should help him realize that energy is energy.

At a guest lecture last year we saw a really cool apparatus for demoing some basics of GR. The guy had put together what was essentially a round black small portable trampoline. He could then put a large ball in the middle to deform 'space' and toss marbles around it at varying speeds to examine what happened. No doubt, demos are appealing.


Then get a video camera or a radar gun and show him the (1/2)kx2 in action on a moving particle. Get a moving particle of twice as much energy, and show him that it's not, in fact, moving twice as fast.


I think a spring apparatus is probably well suited, because the system will oscillate while the discussion takes place.

However, I'd imagine (thinking back for myself, anyway) that some people have to make a conceptual leap to link the equations to the cool moving stuff. This guy hasn't seemed to make that leap. He doesn't stand a chance of knowing how the heat equation can lead to predictions of inversions at certain depths (I barely do :boggled: ), even though these are observable physical phenomena.

[drkitten]

I think a spring apparatus is probably well suited, because the system will oscillate while the discussion takes place.

However, I'd imagine (thinking back for myself, anyway) that some people have to make a conceptual leap to link the equations to the cool moving stuff.

Well, I'm not sure he needs to be able to link the equations to the cool moving stuff to understand that his ideas are gibberish. All you need to do -- but it's a mandatory first step -- is to shatter his misconceptions that energy and momentum are interchangeable. Show him that they aren't. Then you can start trying to make links.

But the most important thing here isn't what he doesn't know. It's what he thinks he knows....

[wolfgirl]

MY english skill is adequate for most positions.
It was a fallacy to point out my spelling errors.
He made just as many errors.
He did not make just as many errors as you did. You made many more errors. And his were obviously typos as opposed to actual spelling errors like using "it's" when you meant "its" or "who's" when it should have been "whose" or "kidabers" instead of "cadavers."

These things do matter to a lot of people. As they should.

[Questioninggeller]

However wouldn't you agree that college being used as the sole gauge to determine skill or intelligence in many specialized trades is absurd?

I don't think anyone will make the claim that it is the sole gauge. Many different elements are taken into consideration for "trades;" personality, experience, ability, etc.

Penn & Teller actually did a show making all of the points I made and more in their series "********".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7427067542845351261&q=penn+and+teller+********


Most people here are Bullsh!t fans, and have seen that episode. One thing I didn't like was they put public approval of entertainers as a measurement of success. Being intelligent, school or not, has intrinsic value, and they failed to present people of academic intelligence outside of academia. In fact, I laughed at their examples (if I remember correctly rapper Eminem was one). People like James Randi, while not formally college educated, have had a lot of help (expertise, editing, proof reading, and such) in his work and learning. His relationships with academic allies have encouraged a broad understanding of different fields beyond what the average self taught person has available.

The libertarian stance of the show got in the way of premise. Aristotle believed intelligence was having compassion because intelligence is in understanding someone else's perspective. College has a tendency to teach that more often than someone who is an avid self-learner. That is, someone self taught (an autodidactic) will likely read things they are interested in and will have a narrowed field of knowledge. College forces people to read outside their perspective introducing a much more liberal view of the world.

[wolfgirl]

Grants and Loans? Ha! Have you ever tried getting a college scholarship or grant in America? I have. And trust me...It's near impossible unless you're black or have had perfect grades in highschool.I'm not black, and I attended a fairly expensive private college, paid for exclusively through a combination of loans, grants, scholarships and work-study. Granted, this was over 20 years ago, but still...Loans are a bad choice unless you KNOW you will be making alot of money right out of college. Which generally is NOT the case. The federal loan interest rate in America is over 3%.It took me several years to pay off my student loans, and I've NEVER made "alot of money" (or even "a lot of money"). But I was making more than I would've without the degree, so it still worked out better. Then once they were paid off, the rest was gravy!

[Almo]

Eminem is a really sharp dude. Yeah, his rap can be rather vulgar. But he is very skilled in his field. And at times he makes quite insightful statements.

This is also true of Ice-T, who also appears to me to be a rather intelligent fellow.

[wolfgirl]

Aristotle believed intelligence was having compassion because intelligence is in understanding someone else's perspective. College has a tendenecy to teach that more often than someone who is an avid self-learner. That is a someone self taught (an autodidactic) will likely read things they are interested in. College forces people to read outside their perspective introducing a much more liberal view of the world.I remember telling my kids that the "universal" part of "university" meant that they would come away with a more well-rounded view of the world. Not ony do you learn a specific field or trade, but you also have to take courses in things like art and literature, science and math, philosophy, history, etc. I enjoy being able to talk intelligently with other people about Homer's Iliad or the differences between Monet and Manet. And yes, I could've learned those things without going to college, but would I have?

[tkingdoll]

Have I got this right? Dustin disagrees with something his dermatologist said, therefore college education is useless?

Or is it Dustin disagrees with something his dermatologist said, therefore college education is no better than reading Wikipedia?

[Jimbo07]

Well, I'm not sure he needs to be able to link the equations to the cool moving stuff to understand that his ideas are gibberish. All you need to do -- but it's a mandatory first step -- is to shatter his misconceptions that energy and momentum are interchangeable. Show him that they aren't. Then you can start trying to make links.


See, getting into his motivations will probably get me into trouble, because I don't know him.

I thought his problems stemmed from pencil-and-paper work (or lack thereof), and not observations. His part 1 makes no sense. Apparently, he did the work to find out that for inverse values for mass and height, you can get similar potential energies, but If he had simply written:

mg(h2 - h1) = (1/2)m(v2 - v1)2

couldn't he have seen that v has to change with changing h? Couldn't he see that kinetic energy has to be (1/2)mv2 for the units to work out?! Couldn't he see that to balance, mgh does not = mv? Unless, of course, "physicists get around that problem by referring to force as potential energy." :boggled:

...

Anyway, I assumed that experiment and demonstration weren't even in the picture here.

[slingblade]

Colleges cost TOO MUCH money and their methods of teaching are becoming more and more degenerated and ineffective. (Atleast in America)

You think $1600/semester is too much to pay? Wow.

Secondly...Grants and Loans? Ha! Have you ever tried getting a college scholarship or grant in America? I have. And trust me...It's near impossible unless you're black or have had perfect grades in highschool.

I'm whiter than you, probably, and I'm still getting plenty of grants. In fact, this semester my student funds are made up primarily of grants.

PELL AWARD
$600.00

(STATE) STUDENT GRANT L2
$750.00

SUBSIDIZED STAFFORD LOAN
$294.00

SOF TUITION VOUCHER
$1,032.00



No, I didn't have perfect grades in high school; far from it. Besides, high school was 1977 for me. I seriously doubt they took one look at my transcripts.

You are so wrong. So very, very wrong. And your English skills could use a serious amount of work. Stay off Wikipedia; you don't have the skills for it, and I don't feel like reading your mistakes.

Kidabers? KIDABERS?

[brodski]

Have I got this right? Dustin disagrees with something his dermatologist said, therefore college education is useless?

Or is it Dustin disagrees with something his dermatologist said, therefore college education is no better than reading Wikipedia?
Kind of, his point seems to be that regulations which prescribe specific educational paths don't guarantee perfect quality control, or infallible knowledge from professionals, therefore micro-Fascist's forcing doctors and lawyers to have degrees is evil, and (I guessing here) in libertopia everything will be fro the best, in the best of all possible worlds.

[Iamme]

This is very interesting... and I see ol Dustin is getting raked over the coals in a similar way *I* would if I had brought up such a novel idea.

That said...don't any of you see a similarity here between this and home schooling? Isn't home schooling known to be very successful in the cases where the student actually WANTS to learn and can do so at their pace?

The reason authority wants people licensed is so that there can be a level of competency assured where the inspector does not have to inspect every aspect of the person's work. But I think what Dustin is hoping for is a system where the books aspect of learning trades or professions such as medical can be gotten on one's own, at their own pace, and then the person is tested, in the way college students are tested, and if you pass, you then are allowed to move on to hands on apprenticeships and internships.

It does indeed seem that such a strategy could be possible, and less costly individually and for the taxpayers.

[EBU]

Here is a program that allows you to get credit for what you learned (maybe, as Dustin says, by going to the library) without going to college.

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/about.html

Of course, this does involve actually going to college at some point, if you want an actual college degree. But it does seem to be at least a close approximation of what Dustin says he wants.

[fuelair]

I've always wondered about College and what exactly its point is. There are several things that really don't make sense about College and most people’s view of College and it's adequacy.

For instance, Why in our society is it impossible to become a doctor or lawyer without a college education? Discuss.

No matter what you can demonstrate, if you "educated yourself" no one with expertise has been evaluating at every level of your assumed training how well you assimilated that training and how well you applied it - or, what you skipped because you didn't realize- or believe- it was important to being a doctor. The amount of time needed to evaluate your real knowledge and capabilities would be some similar to the time required for you to go to med school where that would have been continuously occuring. If, by demonstrating your ability you actually think a written test or two combined with a little demo of your cutting skills would be enough to allow any competant physician to say "Hey, I'm impressed, let's give him the old sheepskin and turn him loose on patients right now!!!" you are seriously deluded (or planning to practice medicine in the back hills of a third world country).:jaw-dropp
(I am not usually a college teacher, but I have had surgery. So.........)

[Rob Lister]

After reading every other page of this thread, I beg you all to leave Dustin alone.

I know it is unlikely but he may well take some of your well-put advice to heart and go to college...

and become a doctor...

THEN we have REAL problems.

[Bob Klase]

Wow... who hasn't done the math?!?

That 3% is tax deductable... so subtract a third for 2%.... 2% fixed minus inflation IS LESS THAN 0%! It's a PROFITABLE LOAN WITHOUT COLLATERAL!

If Dustin really thinks 3% too much I'll gladly pay him 3% interest if he'll loan me the balance on my mortgage.

[Tricky]

Dustin, I highly recommend you do what I did for college: Enter the Co-operative Education program. You work every other semester in the "real world" in a field related to the subject you are studying. You can pay for each semester (or most of it) with the money from your work. It takes a little while longer (It took me 6 years to get a 4-year degree) but it is well worth it in experience and also in not having a lot of loans to repay.

But I promise you that in the "real world" your college education is not a waste of time.

[hgc]

No matter what you can demonstrate, if you "educated yourself" no one with expertise has been evaluating at every level of your assumed training how well you assimilated that training and how well you applied it - or, what you skipped because you didn't realize- or believe- it was important to being a doctor. The amount of time needed to evaluate your real knowledge and capabilities would be some similar to the time required for you to go to med school where that would have been continuously occuring. If, by demonstrating your ability you actually think a written test or two combined with a little demo of your cutting skills would be enough to allow any competant physician to say "Hey, I'm impressed, let's give him the old sheepskin and turn him loose on patients right now!!!" you are seriously deluded (or planning to practice medicine in the back hills of a third world country).:jaw-dropp
(I am not usually a college teacher, but I have had surgery. So.........)To be fair, and I've heard this from doctors, the practice of Dermatology is as easy as it gets. And since Dustin is well on his way to being fully self-educated in the field, I'll at least send my worst enemy to him for mole check.

[Katana]

After reading every other page of this thread, I beg you all to leave Dustin alone.

I know it is unlikely but he may well take some of your well-put advice to heart and go to college...

and become a doctor...

THEN we have REAL problems.
Dammit, Rob. There were so many things that I wanted to say, but, then, you whip this out.

Feels like a lost cause, and do I really want to persuade him otherwise? Hmm.

Then again, is that really possible? :confused:

[Katana]

To be fair, and I've heard this from doctors, the practice of Dermatology is as easy as it gets. And since Dustin is well on his way to being fully self-educated in the field, I'll at least send my worst enemy to him for mole check.
For once, what you have heard is correct. The sad thing is is that dermatology is attracting the best and the brightest in medicine. There was an article not long ago entitled "The Brain Drain". I think that it was in Time or Newsweek-not exactly quality journalism, but I liked the title. What it described was true, for once. It discussed the fact that the most competitive specialties in medicine were the ones with the best lifestyle, the highest reimbursement rates, and the lowest malpractice costs-not the fields that require the most intelligence or the most impressive dexterity.

Translation? Dermatology is the most competitive field in medicine to get into today (at least in America). You cannot even get an interview for a dermatology residency in most places without being a straight A honors student. I find that sad because, as you pointed out, it really doesn't take brains to do it. But it does take brains to get into it when you're looking to have a life.

Do not mistake me. I don't blame those folks, though. They are only human. Sure, I have some romantic notion of pursuing the most intellectually stimulating and "honorable" (whatever my interpretation of that may be) field, but whatever intrinsic gains are made by doing so are quickly off-set by the extrinsic losses.

I blame our stupid healthcare system and, frankly some of society's priorities. I don't understand why 15 min with a dermatologist or a plastic surgeon costs 3-4 times what 45 to 60min would cost with your internist. Freezing a wart versus making sure that all of your preventive health screenings are taken care of, answering all of your questions about any new meds that you might be on, fielding any new issues that may have arisen since your last visit, and dealing with questions that you might have because of the g*dd&mn direct-to-consumer advertising there is on TV and in the lay press seems like a pretty pathetic comparison. I find it sad that we don't appreciate our primary care docs more. They are the backbone of the healthcare system (and no, I'm not one, if that's what you're thinking).

Ask yourself. Is your dermatologist or your PCP worth more? I can say that, facing older age (OK not that soon but I think about it), who the hell is going to take care of me? Why would they? Being a PCP is thankless, draining, and financially insane. Anyone who does go into primary care should either be celebrated as incredibly generous or delusional.

Do I sound cynical or what?

Ahem, do I digress? :o

[Tailgater]

Kat,

Everyone is going to die, but not everyone is going to look good doing it.:D

[JamesDillon]

He did not make just as many errors as you did. You made many more errors. And his were obviously typos as opposed to actual spelling errors like using "it's" when you meant "its" or "who's" when it should have been "whose" or "kidabers" instead of "cadavers."

It was soup-- soup, I tell you! Butternut squash, too, so the sticky (now mostly clean) keyboard is less of a tragedy than the fact that I didn't get to enjoy it.

This is very interesting... and I see ol Dustin is getting raked over the coals in a similar way *I* would if I had brought up such a novel idea.
At least we're consistent.

That said...don't any of you see a similarity here between this and home schooling? Isn't home schooling known to be very successful in the cases where the student actually WANTS to learn and can do so at their pace?
There's no such thing as "home college." The closest comparison might be to correspondence courses; as I said earlier in the thread, I suspect (but have no firm evidence) that students who complete correspondence degrees tend to have a less expert grasp of the subject matter than students who attend traditional colleges. As for home schooling at the elementary and high school level, the material presented there isn't so sophisticated as to require Ph.D.-level instruction, nor does it generally require access to expensive equipment. Finally, home schooling still involves instruction and discussion with a teacher.

The reason authority wants people licensed is so that there can be a level of competency assured where the inspector does not have to inspect every aspect of the person's work. But I think what Dustin is hoping for is a system where the books aspect of learning trades or professions such as medical can be gotten on one's own, at their own pace, and then the person is tested, in the way college students are tested, and if you pass, you then are allowed to move on to hands on apprenticeships and internships.
That may be, but what he doesn't seem to understand, and what many people have been trying to explain to him, is that simply reading a book does not impart the same level of comprehension as does attending classes and submitting one's work for correction and feedback by a recognized expert in the field.

It does indeed seem that such a strategy could be possible, and less costly individually and for the taxpayers.
Not if we wish to consistently maintain the level of expertise typically imparted to university students in and undergraduate- or graduate-level education.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

When you go through the training that it takes to become a surgeon, then you can make this statement. You have no idea what you're talking about.

ETA: Kidabers? I rest my case.



Ad hom:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Have I got this right? Dustin disagrees with something his dermatologist said, therefore college education is useless?

Or is it Dustin disagrees with something his dermatologist said, therefore college education is no better than reading Wikipedia?

And, you don't need a college education to write scientific papers, because all you need to do is edit Wikipedia! That is equivalent to writing scientific papers!

And Dustin can write any scientific paper, if he only had enough information! (Which he probably thinks he can find in the Wikipedia he has edited)

I think that covers most of it...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You're only off by more than a magnitude...



http://www.psm.edu/Student_Affairs/Financial_Aid/programs.htm

Aaron


1.That's in Puerto Rico
2.Those stats are for that specific school. Not the United States in general.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The point is that you are not getting a vector as a product. You are sometimes sqauring the X component of velocity to figure out how various velocities add to gether and such, but never really getting a vector result from it.

That is one of the reasons why mv makes no sense as energy, it is a vector, while 1/2mv^2 is a scaler.

I tried to tell him that of course mv is concerved as well as that is momentum which while not the same thing as energy, is also concerved. He was absolutly conviced I was wrong and could not do math, well that showed my that biology does not require much of a math basis.



Stop derailing my thread.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

He did not make just as many errors as you did. You made many more errors. And his were obviously typos as opposed to actual spelling errors like using "it's" when you meant "its" or "who's" when it should have been "whose" or "kidabers" instead of "cadavers."

These things do matter to a lot of people. As they should.


1.No. He made many more before he suddenly started using a spell checker....Oh wait..I mean new keyboard.:rolleyes:


2.Attacking my spelling is a logical fallacy.


3.From reading your past posts....You're probably the last person to be criticizing my spelling.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The libertarian stance of the show got in the way of premise. Aristotle believed intelligence was having compassion because intelligence is in understanding someone else's perspective. College has a tendency to teach that more often than someone who is an avid self-learner. That is, someone self taught (an autodidactic) will likely read things they are interested in and will have a narrowed field of knowledge. College forces people to read outside their perspective introducing a much more liberal view of the world.

You can't force someone to learn. Forcing people to try to learn something that doesn't interest them is ultimately a failure.

That's why the dropout rate in college is so high.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Have I got this right? Dustin disagrees with something his dermatologist said, therefore college education is useless?

No.

Or is it Dustin disagrees with something his dermatologist said, therefore college education is no better than reading Wikipedia?


No.



Try actually reading what I typed before making uneducated assumptions.



Didn't college teach you that?:rolleyes:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You think $1600/semester is too much to pay? Wow.



I'm whiter than you, probably, and I'm still getting plenty of grants. In fact, this semester my student funds are made up primarily of grants.

PELL AWARD
$600.00

(STATE) STUDENT GRANT L2
$750.00

SUBSIDIZED STAFFORD LOAN
$294.00

SOF TUITION VOUCHER
$1,032.00



No, I didn't have perfect grades in high school; far from it. Besides, high school was 1977 for me. I seriously doubt they took one look at my transcripts.

You are so wrong. So very, very wrong. And your English skills could use a serious amount of work. Stay off Wikipedia; you don't have the skills for it, and I don't feel like reading your mistakes.

Kidabers? KIDABERS?


Oh ...Amazing. You got a whopping $2676 for your college education. You're just flying through now aren't you? :rolleyes:


You're desperate. You continue to attack my rare spelling mistakes because you aren't intellectually honest enough to formulate a real discussion. You make me laugh.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

After reading every other page of this thread, I beg you all to leave Dustin alone.

I know it is unlikely but he may well take some of your well-put advice to heart and go to college...

and become a doctor...

THEN we have REAL problems.



Still mad I refuted your Israeli nonsense in the other threads I see...Insults and no content.:rolleyes:

[slingblade]

Oh ...Amazing. You got a whopping $2676 for your college education. You're just flying through now aren't you? :rolleyes:

No, I'm proving to you that college is affordable, and that using myself as one example, I've been given enough money, free and clear, to pay for it, and still have some left over. Free. Gratis. Didn't even have to ask for it. Here ya go; learn it up.

In other words, college is affordable, and one doesn't need to be black to have money for it handed to her. Fancy that.

If you're going to waste all that time rolling your eyes, better get some training wheels on those babies.


You're desperate.

Ad hom. :p

You continue to attack my rare spelling mistakes because you aren't intellectually honest enough to formulate a real discussion.

I point out the mistakes you make as clear evidence that you are undereducated, in spite of all your typing. You present the evidence against your own argument. Congratulations.

You make me laugh.

You make me shake my head in sheer pity, but that's neither here nor there.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, I'm proving to you that college is affordable, and that using myself as one example, I've been given enough money, free and clear, to pay for it, and still have some left over. Free. Gratis. Didn't even have to ask for it. Here ya go; learn it up.

In other words, college is affordable, and one doesn't need to be black to have money for it handed to her. Fancy that.

If you're going to waste all that time rolling your eyes, better get some training wheels on those babies..

No college costs $2,000:rolleyes:




Ad hom. :p

That isn't an Ad hom. An Ad hom is a form of argument in which the arguer makes a personal claim about the one he is arguing against and uses that personal attribute against the argument itself.

One more thing college never taught you.


I point out the mistakes you make as clear evidence that you are undereducated, in spite of all your typing. You present the evidence against your own argument. Congratulations.


Attacking my spelling and concluding I’m 'undereducated' based on a few spelling errors is not only absolutely absurd and desperate, It's as I’ve pointed out numerous times. A text book logical fallacy.


But I guess college never taught you anything about logic.

[JamesDillon]

1.No. He made many more before he suddenly started using a spell checker....Oh wait..I mean new keyboard.:rolleyes:
Name one.

2.Attacking my spelling is a logical fallacy.
Pointing out the correlation between your lack of higher education and your linguistic ineptitude is hardly a fallacy.

[CFLarsen]

No college costs $2,000:rolleyes:

Close: $2,682 (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Cutcollegecosts/P125902.asp)

Does this in any way make you reconsider your view, Dustin?

[JLam]

Dustin,

Here are some unabashed Ad Homs for ya.

You're a self-important twit who thinks a dead body is referred to as a "kidaber".

It's obvious to anyone with a room-temperature IQ that you have lost this debate, but you're too dense to see it.

You still haven't admitted your error when you stated that it's illegal to practice law without having attended law school. That's because you're an idiot. A knuckle dragging, mouth breathing idiot.

I think I'll stop at 3 Ad Homs, because if I kept going I'd be typing for a very long time.

Oh, and I'll save you a mouseclick by clicking on the rolleyes smiley for you.

:rolleyes:

Dolt.

[timhau]

What is the cost of college education in America today anyway? I'm sure you can pay through the nose by going to the most prestigious private institutions, but what about elsewhere? The UC system is a state-run one and at least has some good research campuses, is that cheaper?

Sincerely,
The guy who's paying for it all through taxes

[Megalodon]

Dustin,

Here are some unabashed Ad Homs for ya.

You're a self-important twit who thinks a dead body is referred to as a "kidaber".

It's obvious to anyone with a room-temperature IQ that you have lost this debate, but you're too dense to see it.

You still haven't admitted your error when you stated that it's illegal to practice law without having attended law school. That's because you're an idiot. A knuckle dragging, mouth breathing idiot.

I think I'll stop at 3 Ad Homs, because if I kept going I'd be typing for a very long time.

Oh, and I'll save you a mouseclick by clicking on the rolleyes smiley for you.

:rolleyes:

Dolt.

The first one seems more like an insult than an ad-hom... An ad hom would be "Your idea is silly because you're a self-important twit who thinks a dead body is referred to as a "kidaber"."

The second is more begging the question, but the third... That one is a really unabashed ad hom (or stating the obvious, one of the two).

Education in a number of fields requires access to expensive, complex and (more times than not) dangerous equipment and materials. Self-schooling would mean that the state would need to relax their standards of verification for purchases of such materials. Afterall, you can't deny someone the chance of self-improvement, can you?

On the other hand, I've heard it all before... It's always the guys that don't cut it that complain about how elitist and silly it is. I heard it in college, I heard it in my dojo, I heard it in my gym... Something difficult to achieve is always silly and unimportant to those who fail.

And to finish a vacuous post with some free strawmen:

"That guy never went to college, but he taught himself lots. I'll let him make the calculations for the structure of my new skyrise"

"Yes, let's allow those self-taught individuals to purchase big amounts of uranium and big lines of centrifuges for their particular nuclear physics studies. It's only fair, afterall... Why should colleges have all the fun?"

"Of course I can remove those cataracts! I read all that was written about it! Now hold my beer and watch this..."

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin,

Here are some unabashed Ad Homs for ya.

You're a self-important twit who thinks a dead body is referred to as a "kidaber".

It's obvious to anyone with a room-temperature IQ that you have lost this debate, but you're too dense to see it.

You still haven't admitted your error when you stated that it's illegal to practice law without having attended law school. That's because you're an idiot. A knuckle dragging, mouth breathing idiot.

I think I'll stop at 3 Ad Homs, because if I kept going I'd be typing for a very long time.

Oh, and I'll save you a mouseclick by clicking on the rolleyes smiley for you.

:rolleyes:

Dolt.



I could refute all of the nonsense in this post...But i'd rather report you to the moderators for violation of the rules.


Which is what I did.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

On the other hand, I've heard it all before... It's always the guys that don't cut it that complain about how elitist and silly it is. I heard it in college, I heard it in my dojo, I heard it in my gym... Something difficult to achieve is always silly and unimportant to those who fail.



All of the people who I quoted were extremely successful individuals who mostly didn't even ATTEMPT to 'cut it' in college and still criticize it.

This is simply an ad hom. Attacking the fact that they didn't go to college as an argument against their claims about college.

It's like saying "all of those atheists who deny religion are the ones who couldn't understand the bible."


BTW your 'dojo'? Haha!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What is the cost of college education in America today anyway? I'm sure you can pay through the nose by going to the most prestigious private institutions, but what about elsewhere? The UC system is a state-run one and at least has some good research campuses, is that cheaper?

Sincerely,
The guy who's paying for it all through taxes



The average price of a 4 year college in America is about $40,000.

[CFLarsen]

The average price of a 4 year college in America is about $40,000.

And yet, you can get it for $2,682.

Does this in any way make you reconsider your view, Dustin?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

BTW...Concerning the claim that you must have a degree in law inorder to become a lawyer in the U.S. has been refuted.

Here is the site that supposedly refuted that claim.


What Are The Cold Hard Facts About How to Become a Lawyer?
Becoming a lawyer in the United States normally requires following a rigid path with many barriers that are placed in your way.
Fact : You must first obtain a college degree
Fact : You need a high Grade Point Average (GPA)
Fact : You need high scores on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT)
Fact : You must make it past the law school's admissions' committee
Fact : Pay huge tuition fees
Fact : Attend an American Bar Association (ABA) approved law school
Fact : Pass the bar examination


http://www.lawschoolbible.com/



Ehem....Who's the 'knuckle dragging, mouth breathing idiot' again?


I rest my case about the claim that graduation from college doesn't equal ability to reason or intelligence.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

And yet, you can get it for $2,682.

Does this in any way make you reconsider your view, Dustin?


Good grief Larsen...You need to learn to read your own sources.


Listed below are the most expensive colleges -- as well as those that will make the smallest impact on your pocketbook. All of the figures are based on tuition and required fees charged to first-time, full-time undergraduates at four-year colleges and universities, based on a nine-month academic year of 30 semester hours or 45 quarter hours.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Cutcollegecosts/P125902.asp

[timhau]

The average price of a 4 year college in America is about $40,000.

OK, thanks. Could you (or someone else) give a couple of examples of schools that charge that much?

BTW, that 40 grand just tuition, right? What should you expect to pay for room and board in a college dorm?

[Megalodon]

All of the people who I quoted were extremely successful individuals who mostly didn't even ATTEMPT to 'cut it' in college and still criticize it.

This is simply an ad hom. Attacking the fact that they didn't go to college as an argument against their claims about college.

It's like saying "all of those atheists who deny religion are the ones who couldn't understand the bible."


BTW your 'dojo'? Haha!

No, this is using humour to point to the fact that you are oblivious to what you are talking about.

About the succesfull individuals you mentioned (in some of the cases wrongly): Let's start talking about percentages here... What is the percentage of succesfull individuals in, for instance, physics, that were not college educated. I leave it to you to define what is success, I will accept it.

BTW, do you have a problem with the word dojo? Or is it one more place that you never managed to cut it?
I remember! You're the guy who punches with his pecs :D

JLam had it right: Dolt!

[Dustin Kesselberg]

OK, thanks. Could you (or someone else) give a couple of examples of schools that charge that much?

BTW, that 40 grand just tuition, right? What should you expect to pay for room and board in a college dorm?


I could give examples of colleges that charge hundreds of thousands of dollars but the 'average' tuition is $11,354(From CNN) Meaning about 45,000 for 4 years.


I have no idea how much room and board would cost.