I've always wondered about College and what exactly its point is. There are several things that really don't make sense about College and most people’s view of College and it's adequacy.
You have had many other posters in this thread address this nicely for you. The basic classical idea behind a college education is not only to expose one to a broader and deeper set of knowledge than one usually gains in primary and secondary schooling, but also to challenge the student to develop a more rigorous method of thought about scholarly subjects -- to think more critically and analytically. A classical liberal arts education also places a high value on ensuring the student develops strong communication skills. Put critical thinking skills together with good verbal and writing fluency, and you have someone who can not only think rigorously, but who can also put his or her thoughts down on paper (or present them orally) clearly and succinctly, and in an organized, logical manner.
I agree with the poster who remarked that today perhaps too many colleges and universities place too much emphasis on specialization at the undergraduate level. Personally, I think a broad base of knowledge derived from a required core curriculum, such as that required by many liberal arts schools, in addition to many elective courses and a specific discipline in which one specializes, gives the undergraduate the best of all possible worlds in that regard.
Those desiring highly specialized knowledge and training in a particular field can and often do go further in their education and seek post-graduate degrees. That's what graduate school is for.
****************
Can one educate one's self and gain the same knowledge as a graduate of a fine, competitive college or university? Sure. To do so requires better than average self-discipline and years of rigorous study, however. I think there are some valuable aspects of classroom study that one would miss altogether. In smaller classes, at least, there can be a substantial amount of exchange of thoughts and ideas between students and professors. Student participation in class is highly valued by some professors, and many students get a lot out of that above and beyond merely reading the coursework. Also, I think proper feedback and guidance from an instructor must be difficult to gain without a formal setting like a classroom. Furthermore, there are so many extra-curricular activities available on college campuses which contribute to the whole of the educational experience that one simply cannot get readily outside of a campus setting. I'm not referring to parties and mixers and drinking games. I'm talking about engagements with brilliant and fascinating visiting speakers, theater productions, concerts, celebrations, sporting events, and others. Residents of large cities likely have access to many of the same kinds of activities, but they are not likely to be part of an overall experience that is shared with one's peers in a controlled setting and designed specifically to broaden one's horizons, nor are they likely to be free or cheap, like they tend to be for students on a college campus.
Finally, a self-taught person has no degree which is earned according to some at least partly objective criteria (earning X hours credit in a certain area of study with a passing grade, for instance). It's difficult to measure and/or compare one person's level of education with another's without objective standards with which to compare. A college degree from an accredited college or university at least provides a miminum baseline standard as a reference for assessing one's knowledge base.
For instance, Why in our society is it impossible to become a doctor or lawyer without a college education? What if you are self-taught and can demonstrate your ability and knowledge to anyone? Why do you still have to go through 4-6 years of school to learn what you already know? In the United States it’s illegal to practice law without a law degree. Why? Even if you have the knowledge you still have to go to law school? Isn’t this basically a logical fallacy?
Doctors and lawyers are members of professions. Professions are to be distinguished from occupations or other careers in that they share certain characteristics that Western society has recognized for hundreds of years.
Here are two quick links I found which discuss some of those characteristics. We could debate which characteristics best apply, but that would be another topic. The basic idea is that they meet some basic set of characteristics identical or substantially similar to some of these set forth in the links:
http://www-cse.uta.edu/~carroll/cse4317/profession/sld005.htm
http://www.ship.edu/~library/info/faqs/professions.htm
In my opinion there should be some government ran organization that oversees the skills of everyone applying for a license for a specific profession.
Professions
are regulated by the state. That's one of the defining and shared characteristics of any profession, at least according to the classical definition of "profession." Typically, among other things, state laws provide for the establishment of a governing body composed of members of a given profession to promulgate rules and regulations governing that profession. Therefore, it is proper to refer to professions as self-regulating and policing, because that is what their accrediting and disciplining organizations do. Only fellow physicians are qualified to determine if a physician has failed to meet the standards required under the codes of conduct and ethical standards for physicians, for instance. Laypersons simply cannot make that judgment, as they lack the necessary medical training and expertise.
The regulation part with respect to individual members of a profession begins with licensure. Persons cannot practice a profession without first meeting the minimum requirements established by the self-governing body for that profession, and then being granted a license to practice that profession by the state. In addition to the initial licensing process, members of a profession must maintain competency and keep up with changes in their fields by earning X number of hours of continuing education each year. Failing to do so in a timely fashion can result in the suspension of a professional's license to practice.
Of course we all know that even with a college degree that doesn’t guarantee skill or knowledge in the area the person got their degree. There are so many people out there who have degrees in various areas yet know less about those areas than most laymen. Lawyers, Doctors, Businessmen..etc.
I'm not sure you recognize that for some professionals, such as doctors and lawyers in particular, a professional degree beyond an undergraduate degree (college degree) is required in most states as a prerequisite for eligibility for licensure in that profession.
Doctors require not only a four year college degree, but they also must attend four years of medical school. The first two years of medical school are spent in the classroom and in labs, and the second two years are spent doing clinical work with patients and under the supervision of doctors, rotating from one medical specialty to another until a minimum number are met. After graduation from medical school, newly minted physicians in the US are "matched" to residency programs in a particular specialty in a particular location. The length of the residency varies from one specialty to another, but is longest for surgeons, especially surgeons who go on to become board certified in orthopedic surgery or neurosurgery. Those doctors often first enter private practice, having gone straight from college and through all those steps I've listed (and I can't remember where in the picture an internship fits, but I suspect some doctor or student will correct me) well into their 30s.
If you have ever taken a good, hard look at the CV (Curriculum Vitae, which is roughly the equivalent of a resume) of a busy orthopedic surgeon with about 15-20 years of practice under his belt, you are likely to be taken aback upon discovering how much very difficult and very tedious work goes into getting there, often including publishing scholarly scientific papers like university professors must do. I've deposed several orthopedic surgeons and delved into their professional backgrounds, and in my opinion they deserve a lot more credit than you seem to be capable of imagining at the moment.
Lawyers typically earn an undergraduate degree (and it can be in just about anything, including non-law related disciplines; mine is in math, for instance, and my sister's is in music), and then attend law school for three years, earning a doctorate level degree in law if they successfully pass their coursework and earn the required number of credit hours. After that, they sit for a rigorous two or three day bar exam (the length varies from state to state, and my recollection is that Wisconsin is the only state in the US that does not require sitting for a bar exam as a pre-requisite to licensure). Many states also require the passing of a separate ethics exam, usually taken at another time. Then, and only then, is one eligible in most states for entry into the bar, which is of course licensure to practice law. Some lawyers go on to earn additional law degrees beyond the modern
juris doctor, or JD degree. This post-JD degree is usually called an LLM and is technically a masters degree, although it is earned after the doctoral level degree. Common disciplines in which it is earned are taxation and international relations, for instance. I suspect there are others. Also, there is a separate, additional bar to which practicing lawyers in another discipline must be admitted: patent law. Besides being admitted to some state's bar, a practicing patent lawyer must also be eligible to sit for and pass a patent law bar exam, and be admitted to practice before the USP&TO. I believe Brown is one such lawyer on this forum.
The reason it is unlawful to practice law or medicine (and some other professions, like engineering for example) without a license is to protect the public, not to create insular good ole boy clubs for members of the profession or to create barriers to entry for persons of modest means. The state has an interest in protecting the public from having persons without the requisite skill and knowledge and expertise attempt to practice medicine or law. It is in the state's interest not to have hapless patients or clients become the victims of incompetence or outright fraud by non-licensed practitioners posing as bona fide professionals. I would hope you can appreciate why criminalizing the unlicensed practice of these professions is an important role for government to perform. Placed in another context, allowing non-licensed "engineers" (in my state you cannot lawfully refer to yourself publically as an engineer without being licensed) to design and oversee the construction of highway bridges could lead to tragic accidents and deaths. My examples are not meant to be a comprehensive list of what disciplines consitute the whole of professions regulated by states, so please do not take my omission of others as an insult to those I have not listed.
AS
)
