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

[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...

1. MY english skill is adequate for most positions.
2. It was a fallacy to point out my spelling errors.
3. 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)

[Claus]Evidence?[/Claus]

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?

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]

[Claus]Evidence?[/Claus]

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?

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?

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?

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.

1. 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?
2. 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
3. You could have your own lab.
4. 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.

1. 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.

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?

1. Darwin attened a few 'lectures' on taxonomy but never recived a degree in natural history or even went to college specifically for it.

1. 
   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?

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?