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

[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.

1. I never made that claim.
2. 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?

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?

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 from a law school approved by that state (often, but not always, this means accredited by the American Bar Association); or, where permitted, participate in an approved Law Clerk program ("reading the law").
• Pass a state-administered bar examination. Usually this consists of several parts administered over two or three days, typically including:
  • The Multistate Bar Examination (MBE), in all states except Louisiana and Washington;
  • A professional responsibility ("ethics") exam, usually the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE);
  • State-specific examinations, such as essays in Washington and Massachusetts.
• Be certified (usually by the 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.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.