Give autodidacts and independent learners a chance

[drkitten]

However, after that, they have to update their certification with senseless classes that exist purely to serve bureaucratic rule.

Yes, damn those senseless continuing education classes to make sure that teachers stay current in both their understanding of the subject material and of classroom technique.

Why should a high school physics teacher be expected to learn more physics? It's not like anything has changed in the field since he got his certification in 1972....

 

[drkitten]

drkitten, first of all, I doubt you thought I was influenced by reality. That would have been a compliment and you’ve written nothing positive about me.

I originally thought that you were ignorant but educatable. I didn't realize that you were actively delusional.

I was wrong.

 

[drkitten]

In my experience, it isn't the autodidacts who are complaining about the education system. Autodidacts are usually the students who go above and beyond the lessons presented through self-initiative and an internal drive to learn. They are a segment of the very top mark getters in university. Those who are bitter and don't strive for excellence because they claim to be autodidacts usually aren't. Or they have some other issue blocking them.

In my experience, this is only partially true.

I have met a number of genuine autodidacts -- as I said earlier, autodidacts are something of a professional specialty of mine within my department -- who are bitter and frustrated because they don't see the connection between what they are being asked to do in class and what they want to be learning.

Some of them are simply in the wrong program; what they want isn't what we teach, and vice versa. Some of them have unrealistic expectations -- even good guitarists generally don't win Grammys. But most don't recognize the need for foundational skills and a broad background in order to do the high level work that they think they're equipped for.

Basically, the successful autodidacts are the ones who try to follow the conventional learning path -- which has, after all, been hammered out for centuries, and we have a fairly good idea of what works and what doesn't after all this time -- quickly. if you can't do algebra, you can't do calculus. If you can't write an expository essay, you can't write a newspaper editorial. If you only have a 300 word vocabulary, you can't read Homer. If you can't play a simple scale, you can't play a Bach sonata. The unsuccessful ones are the ones who try to take short cuts. And they generally fail, almost by definition.

 

[D'rok]

In my experience, this is only partially true.

I have met a number of genuine autodidacts -- as I said earlier, autodidacts are something of a professional specialty of mine within my department -- who are bitter and frustrated because they don't see the connection between what they are being asked to do in class and what they want to be learning.

Some of them are simply in the wrong program; what they want isn't what we teach, and vice versa. Some of them have unrealistic expectations -- even good guitarists generally don't win Grammys. But most don't recognize the need for foundational skills and a broad background in order to do the high level work that they think they're equipped for.

Basically, the successful autodidacts are the ones who try to follow the conventional learning path -- which has, after all, been hammered out for centuries, and we have a fairly good idea of what works and what doesn't after all this time -- quickly. if you can't do algebra, you can't do calculus. If you can't write an expository essay, you can't write a newspaper editorial. If you only have a 300 word vocabulary, you can't read Homer. If you can't play a simple scale, you can't play a Bach sonata. The unsuccessful ones are the ones who try to take short cuts. And they generally fail, almost by definition.

Point taken.

 

[lightfire22000]

Yes, but that's different. They usually aren't doctors, lawyers or nasa engineers, are they?

Doctors and lawyers are legally protected and only graduates of medical and law schools respectively are allowed to practice generally. drkitten pointed out an alternative route to law in some states, but the state in which I reside blocks lawyers who were licensed under that. This I know for a fact.

Many NASA engineers have been self taught if you admittedly apply a liberal definition of that term to include NASA employees who have engaged in engineering for NASA. Take for instance, Walter Pitts. Oliver Heaviside was one of the greatest scientists of all time that made NASA and the 20th century possible. Maxwell's Equations were terribly ugly before Heaviside's simplification. Adam Gettings should be considered a self taught military engineer for the Army.

I apologize for not being able to keep up with all of the replies here, but there's one common misconception that I'd like to clear up. The purpose of autodidacticism is not to slack off, but rather to save time and money. Furthermore, it can make certain education accessible that is currently unavailable to many people due to their schedules.

 

[theprestige]

lightfire22000, unless you're one of those truly elite polymaths for whom everything in life comes easy, the accreditation process is going to require some effort.

Even "heterodidacts"(?) or "sociodidacts"(?) or whatever you want to call the majority of people for whom the system is optimized have to put substantial amounts of effort to achieve accreditation.

My recommendation is that if you truly want to be accredited, your best option is to stop complaining that the system doesn't make things easy for you, and start doing the hard work necessary to get what you want. Just like the rest of us.

 

[drkitten]

The purpose of autodidacticism is not to slack off, but rather to save time and money.

Then you'll need a much better case for why it will save time and money without resulting in an unacceptable loss of quality.

Furthermore, it can make certain education accessible that is currently unavailable to many people due to their schedules.

This, I will accept. If you work a full-time job, it can be very difficult to attend medical school at the same time. But there's a reason for that. The amount of material necessary to master to become a doctor is huge. It's similarly difficult to attend law-school part time, but the alternative is to license half-trained lawyers.

I fail to see why I should make half-trained lawyers available.

 

[lightfire22000]

A hopefully more pellucid defense

Then you'll need a much better case for why it will save time and money without resulting in an unacceptable loss of quality.

Who said anything about loss of quality? I'm not even necessarily advocating abolishing licensing tests! If licensing was based on a system of tests that were effectively monitored for cheating, how could there be a loss of quality. The tests wouldn't have to be written tests exclusively either. More flexible institutions could be established that could find innovative and more effective ways to educate people in changing professions if they tested strictly performance. If tests show that someone can perform well, their credentials shouldn't legally block them.

lightfire22000, unless you're one of those truly elite polymaths for whom everything in life comes easy, the accreditation process is going to require some effort.

Even "heterodidacts"(?) or "sociodidacts"(?) or whatever you want to call the majority of people for whom the system is optimized have to put substantial amounts of effort to achieve accreditation.

My recommendation is that if you truly want to be accredited, your best option is to stop complaining that the system doesn't make things easy for you, and start doing the hard work necessary to get what you want. Just like the rest of us.

I’m not asking for an easy system. I’m asking for a simple system. To paraphrase an old saying, don’t make me drink, just show me the water. I am doing the hard work to get what I want; right now I’m taking a summer semester writing class while working as a software engineering intern for market research(okay, you could say that I make legal SPAM. I don’t know if I could argue until you bought a product that used my software.) On top of that, I’m preparing to take the PCAT. I’m just trying to make it easier. Seizures and an odd type of migraine, which hurts A LOT more than it sounds, have hampered me this year so I’ve taken more to trying to use labor more efficiently. My ancient history is a little rusty, but I bet Egyptians thought that the Mesopotamians were lazy for using the wheel for travel until the Hyksos arrived. Trying to save labor is not lazy in a pejorative sense.

 

[drkitten]

Who said anything about loss of quality? I'm not even necessarily advocating abolishing licensing tests!

Because tests are generally easier to game than courses and courses are generally easier to game than full curricula.

I actually had a student do that several years back. My university requires foreign language proficiency for graduation, which can be fulfilled by taking/passing a class at the second year level, or taking a standardized test on a computer. He knew not a word of Spanish, but simply took the test a few dozen times, until he was able to get a passing score by chance.

The next semester they changed the rules, limiting students to only three attempts at each test or so.

He couldn't have pulled that off in a Spanish class; a competent teacher would have known he was faking it. He certainly couldn't have pulled that off in multiple classes; while one teacher may not be competent, they're not all incompetent. And if they were all incompetent, the accreditation board would have noticed and complained.

If licensing was based on a system of tests that were effectively monitored for cheating, how could there be a loss of quality.

You've answered your own question. It's harder to monitor tests for cheating.

And that's what the accreditation system exists in the first place. Programs exist to contextualize and to validate individual courses and teachers. Universities exist to validate programs. Accreditation boards exist to validate universities -- and the good accreditation boards, ultimately, are validated by the Department of Education.

You're asking instead to skip all that pesky quality control stuff and do an unvalidated course of study, to be confirmed by an inspection at the end. That doesn't work in industry -- we're well aware of that, which is why high quality products are validated early and often, and the process by which the products are produced are validated independently. If you wanted to make a drug, but refused to allow the FDA to see the process by which you made it and only allowed them to test samples at the end of the manufacturing process, they'd throw you in jail.

But, on the other hand, apparently if you just want to prescribe drugs, there's no need to validate the quality?

 

[NewtonTrino]

In the timeline of a career for a brilliant person university is a very small period of time. My advice isn't to skip it but to play to it's strengths. Network with people in your peer group and with the professors, find out what the cool projects are and participate etc. etc. One of the best parts of going to school is building your network of connections.

It's also my opinion that the best programmers know the theory well so don't skimp on that stuff if you want to be a programmer. I'm guessing the same thing applies in other disciplines.

Keep in mind this is coming from someone without a degree. I'm completely self taught other than high school. I'm in the position to both manage and hire programming staff BTW (as well as doing the work myself although that happens less often these days).

It's also been my experience that you will need to know a LOT more than what you will learn in a university comp-sci course to be good at programming. You can't ever stop learning.

Bottom line: skipping university isn't much of a shortcut IMHO.

 

[arthwollipot]

I occasionally wonder what I'd be doing now if I had gone to university after leaving school instead of getting a job straight away.

 

[drkitten]

I occasionally wonder what I'd be doing now if I had gone to university after leaving school instead of getting a job straight away.

Probably paying off student loans.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Lightfire22000,

You have an interesting point that you might develop a bit. There is a divide between pedagogy, where you can basically terrorize the little %%#$s into memorizing anything, and andragogy, where the learner is often in control. In the latter, some sort of equivalency testing might be appropriate. For example, let's say we have a 48 year old line worker laid off from GM who now needs new skills and credentials. If it were the case that he had been welding up industrial art mobiles in the garage the past decade, it might make sense to fast track him into a welding certification.

This sort of thing exists, for example, in parametric modeling. There are standard college curricula available for this, and almost all of them stink on ice. The really good folks come out of user groups and third-party support, where they have substituted thousands of hours of mentored practice for hundreds of hours of seat time in classes.

But, I think you probably don't want to venture into the professions too much. There are just a lot of reasons why the professions prefer to control their memberships - quality, continuing ed, salary support, etc.

I'd like to see you come back with a more detailed proposal for what you have in mind.

 

[Vic Vega]

Question for drkitten

I was surprised to see you write that you thought it was rude for lightfire22000 to ask you what subject you taught.

Is that generally thought of as a rude question by teachers?

That never would have occurred to me. I don't find it rude when people ask me about what I do.

 

[drkitten]

I was surprised to see you write that you thought it was rude for lightfire22000 to ask you what subject you taught.

Is that generally thought of as a rude question by teachers?

Depends on the context.

I usually find that, in the context of an internet discussion, it usually heralds a credential fight. And that's a game I don't particularly feel like playing. I'm also something of an internet privacy fanatic, and I see no reason to broadcast personally identifying information all over the JREF.

I'm sure that if you were to go through my 15,000 posts with a fine-toothed comb, you'd be able to piece together my department, as well as my school, educational background, age, and so forth. Armed with that, you'd have no problem figuring out who exactly I was. But I'd prefer that you didn't do that, and I see no reason to make it easy for you.

I have enough lunatics and nutcases to deal with professionally; I don't need any more email from people who think they can divide by zero, build perpetual motion machines, or demonstrate that the ancient Egyptians had time travel. So I prefer not to answer personal questions at all.

So I generally avoid answering that question. What makes it rude is asking it three times after I've pointedly dodged it.

 

[Vic Vega]

I'm sure that if you were to go through my 15,000 posts with a fine-toothed comb, you'd be able to piece together my department, as well as my school, educational background, age, and so forth. Armed with that, you'd have no problem figuring out who exactly I was. But I'd prefer that you didn't do that, and I see no reason to make it easy for you.

I'm a bit busy for that, but lightfire22000 might be able to. He seems to want to drop out of school, so he may have a lot of time on his hands.




I understand. I don't give out personal details either. I would tell someone what I do, but wouldn't discuss the company I work for or anything like that.

 

[lightfire22000]

You're asking instead to skip all that pesky quality control stuff and do an unvalidated course of study, to be confirmed by an inspection at the end. That doesn't work in industry -- we're well aware of that, which is why high quality products are validated early and often, and the process by which the products are produced are validated independently. If you wanted to make a drug, but refused to allow the FDA to see the process by which you made it and only allowed them to test samples at the end of the manufacturing process, they'd throw you in jail.

How do you know that wouldn't work? I bet it works effectively in general. The only reason that drug manufacturing processes would ever effect regulation if a finished product were available is because of the presence of dangerous impurities. However, who's the FDA to regulate? There have been several instances of FDA officials taking bribes and there are lots of connections between the FDA and the drug companies. Private industry does a much better job of regulating drugs than government laws.

I'm a bit busy for that, but lightfire22000 might be able to. He seems to want to drop out of school, so he may have a lot of time on his hands.

No, I don't have much time on my hands right now. I spend my days working and studying.

Because tests are generally easier to game than courses and courses are generally easier to game than full curricula.

I actually had a student do that several years back. My university requires foreign language proficiency for graduation, which can be fulfilled by taking/passing a class at the second year level, or taking a standardized test on a computer. He knew not a word of Spanish, but simply took the test a few dozen times, until he was able to get a passing score by chance.

The fault then rests on those particular tests. Were they multiple choice? A system without accreditation laws would never allow for such quackery in a legitimate university. The market would dictate that employers shouldn't hire people from those universities.

 

[Toke]

The fault then rests on those particular tests. Were they multiple choice? A system without accreditation laws would never allow for such quackery in a legitimate university. The market would dictate that employers shouldn't hire people from those universities.

I recommend you go through some treads on an-cap.

You might see why I find this ridiculus.

 

[drkitten]

How do you know that wouldn't work?

Because we've done that experiment.

I bet it works effectively in general.

You might bet that way, but you'd be wrong.

The only reason that drug manufacturing processes would ever effect regulation if a finished product were available is because of the presence of dangerous impurities.

.. and hence they audit the process to make sure that there are process controls in place to prevent impurities from having a chance to get it.

 

[lightfire22000]

Because we've done that experiment.

To what are you referring?

.. and hence they audit the process to make sure that there are process controls in place to prevent impurities from having a chance to get it.

The FDA has crucially missed regulation in the past. There are numerous instances where the FDA has used inferior isomer identification methods to cause miscarriages in women. The market is a better regulator than government once government becomes a bureaucracy of absent minded yes-men/women and concerns itself more with rules than with the original thinking behind the rules.