• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Dustin said:
Colleges cost TOO MUCH money and their methods of teaching are becoming more and more degenerated and ineffective. (Atleast in America)
Click to expand...
Really? How are they becoming degerated and ineffective? Over what period of time?
 
The Atheist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

The Atheist said:
There is a world of difference between a carpenter cutting the wrong piece of wood and a surgeon cutting the wrong piece of human.
Click to expand...

You wont be saying that when a roof falls on your head...I hope you are not the eletist snot this line makes you out to be
 
Dustin said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're all on notice. Those with a college education are disqualified from this discussion (except if you had a full scholarship).
 
Millions of people pay a king’s ransom for college tuition to learn what is free for the taking when motivated by a compelling desire to learn. In the movie Good Will Hunting, Will (played by Matt Damon) chides an arrogant Ivy League student for paying a fortune for an education that would be free but for the price of a library card. Although this is absolutely valid, very few people believe it. Instead they are convinced the knowledge they could acquire on their own is secondary to paying a lot of money to an institution which will attest that they have, even if they cheated their way through the process.


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


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


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

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



You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library.-Will from Goodwill Hunting.
 
Your persuasive use of 16-point font has shown me the logic of your position. You're right; I'll go shred my diplomas right now.
 
timhau said:
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.
Click to expand...


Stop putting words into my mouth.


I never said it was 'more difficult because it was longer'. :rolleyes:
 
Well, that was definitely taking a cheese grater to the ole privates.

Won't be reading anything with your name on it again.
 
hgc said:
Really? How are they becoming degerated and ineffective? Over what period of time?
Click to expand...

I watched this on the News the other night. Over the past 30 years the number of courses given on average in college went down as did the graduation rate and the difficulty of those courses.
 
timhau said:
OK, so tell me: why is it more difficult?
Click to expand...


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


But your insulting tone and lack of reading comprehension is making me decide not to respond to your posts anymore.
 
Dustin said:
Why doesn't it? Nothing i'm talking about in this thread requires alot of knowledge of science.
Click to expand...

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



You aren't making any sense.


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


:confused:




HAHA, You're actually refering to my mispelling of "a lot"? Bahaha!
 
Last edited:
Dustin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

You know what? You're absolutely right.
 
Dustin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow, I somehow missed this one.

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

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


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

:confused:

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

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

But on the main point, I actually agree with you that people can learn much outside the university system. I just question how comprehensively they can learn specific fields through visits to the public library. There is no room for feedback of ideas. When you write your critique on "The Mayor of Casterbridge" and slam it as melodrama, who will be there to critique your opinions? Who will point out errors in assumptions you made or leaps of logic? You? How would you know if you wrote the paper in the first place?
 
Just my two cents...sure, for some professions a degree is bull but you usually need it to get your foot in the door of a company. With some jobs you'll learn more information that's applicable to your job in the first month than you did in 4 years of college. But without that degree you're not getting the interview.

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway...I know my experiences don't reflect everyone else's so take them as the anecdotes they are.
 
Lurker said:
Yep, the whole idea of someone correcting your work is they have a better understanding of the topic on which you are writing. They can see your errors more easily. I used your continual misspelling of a lot not to denigrate you, but to demonstrate how the concept of self-correction fails. You have had 20+ years to self-correct that error yet have not done so despite your claims to be a master of the English language.

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


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

2.Nothing you listed can't be done outside of college....Again.
 
HarryKeogh said:
Just my two cents...sure, for some professions a degree is bull but you usually need it to get your foot in the door of a company. With some jobs you'll learn more information that's applicable to your job in the first month than you did in 4 years of college. But without that degree you're not getting the interview.

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

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

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

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


All true. Which is obviously a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom