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

[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.

1. 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.
2. 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!

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. 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.

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.

1. Darwin attened a few 'lectures' on taxonomy but never recived a degree in natural history or even went to college specifically for it.
2. Einstein's discoveries weren't limited to 'physics'
3. 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.