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

[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?


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.

1. I never made that claim

1. 
   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.

But I see your spelling has suddenly became perfect.


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

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.

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..

1. Are self taught
2. Have no need to attend college

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

1. It's too expensive.
2. It doesn't cover nearly the amount of information it should.
3. 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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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..

1. Are self taught
2. 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.

1. It's too expensive.

1. 
   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.