Give autodidacts and independent learners a chance

[lightfire22000]

The Englishmen Faraday would have been barred from advancement because accredited schools would likely have requirements that conflicted with his Glasite, or Sandemanian religious beliefs that frowned upon certain interactions generally required by accredited institutions. Also, English law regarding religion would most likely be interpreted to outlaw the 19th century Sandemanians.

Heavisides was also an Englishman. On this point you might have me because I was thinking of American IP laws and I'm not incredibly familiar with him, but Heavisides' simplification of Maxwell's Equations(if you ever see Maxwell's form, you'll appreciate Heavisides) possibly would be accused of infringing on absurdly stringent copyrights and patents today. Furthermore, he wouldn't have been able to gain the knowledge and experience necessary for his discoveries under present day educational systems that emphasize memorizing formulae and algorithms more than logical procedures and experience.

In power plant design, most managers have PE licenses. All of the ones I know have them. This would have hurt Tesla. The reason is that the "industrial exemption" does not apply in situations where the state may grant a monopoly, as it can in electricity(the towns anyway) and in academics.

And Edison....boy, he would have had legal problems galore with all of the patents he would have infringed upon by today's standards. Of course, it doesn't matter that he improved the patents. He also would have had difficulty receiving business permits and improving lab design without several certifications that tend to require accredited degrees.

I'm sorry to be blunt. Your statements have a bit of truth in them but go too far.

Fair enough, but they go too far perhaps because I see government moving in a more controlling direction.

 

[drkitten]

The Englishmen Faraday would have been barred from advancement because accredited schools would likely have requirements that conflicted with his Glasite, or Sandemanian religious beliefs that frowned upon certain interactions generally required by accredited institutions. Also, English law regarding religion would most likely be interpreted to outlaw the 19th century Sandemanians.

Specifics? I'd like to point out that, in the US at least, accreditation requirements must be religiously neutral for the government to use them. So, no, there's nothing that would have prevented Faraday from attending MIT if he wanted to.

Heavisides was also an Englishman. On this point you might have me because I was thinking of American IP laws and I'm not incredibly familiar with him, but Heavisides' simplification of Maxwell's Equations(if you ever see Maxwell's form, you'll appreciate Heavisides) possibly would be accused of infringing on absurdly stringent copyrights and patents today.

Not at all. You can't copyright or patent equations.

Furthermore, he wouldn't have been able to gain the knowledge and experience necessary for his discoveries under present day educational systems that emphasize memorizing formulae and algorithms more than logical procedures and experience.

Sure he would have. The same we he did; work as an unlicensed "operator "in an engineering firm.

In power plant design, most managers have PE licenses. All of the ones I know have them. This would have hurt Tesla.

This is simply wrong. Westinghouse -- oddly enough, Tesla's company -- still has many managers without PE licenses.

And Edison....boy, he would have had legal problems galore with all of the patents he would have infringed upon by today's standards.

And this has exactly what to do with accreditation or formal education?

I'm sorry, you've made five invalidating mistakes in the course of giving only four examples.

 

[lightfire22000]

Specifics? I'd like to point out that, in the US at least, accreditation requirements must be religiously neutral for the government to use them. So, no, there's nothing that would have prevented Faraday from attending MIT if he wanted to.

Sandemanians' faith would forbid attending those institutions.

Not at all. You can't copyright or patent equations.

Yes, you can.

You have yet to answer how there is not price fixing among colleges.

 

[realpaladin]

Yes, you can.

Don't try to Obama me, kid....

"A mathematical equation is considered a "work of nature" and belongs in the public domain".

http://www.lbl.gov/LBL-Work/patent/ch5.html

 

[drkitten]

Sandemanians' faith would forbid attending those institutions.

Nothing about Sandemanianism prohibits attending non-religious public schools.

 

[drkitten]

You have yet to answer how there is not price fixing among colleges.

Nor have I yet answered how there are not unicorns tended by leprechauns on the White House lawn. If you think there's price fixing, you need to provide evidence for it first.

Since every sensible person who's actually studied the industry knows that it's highly price-competitive (See also here and here), a more appropriate observation is that you have yet to answer how there is any way in which your postings can be distinguished from paranoiac uniformed rantings.

 

[lightfire22000]

They aren't selling education. Those articles really don't seem to be about education at all though I haven't read all of it. They aren't competing for teaching knowledge and skills. They're competing for parties and networking options. Nothing to do with education. However, accreditation lumps them in a trust. So if all of those schools want to fund concerts, expensive dining halls, and so forth, students have no choice but to purchase those things.

 

[lightfire22000]

Nothing about Sandemanianism prohibits attending non-religious public schools.

Their faith forbade condoning activities promoted by accredited universities.

 

[lightfire22000]

Nor have I yet answered how there are not unicorns tended by leprechauns on the White House lawn. If you think there's price fixing, you need to provide evidence for it first.

The previous article is ample evidence. It asserts that colleges try to outdo each other by buying frills. This makes the costs rise. Well, since they have a monopoly or oligopoly, they're price fixing. They're agreeing to raise education prices for goods that have nothing to do with education. They're forcing customers to buy frills.

 

[drkitten]

The previous article is ample evidence. It asserts that colleges try to outdo each other by buying frills. This makes the costs rise. Well, since they have a monopoly or oligopoly, they're price fixing.

Yes, and since (in the real world) they don't have a monopoly or an oligopoly, as can be shown both by the sheer number of universities as well as the tremendous degree of price competition, then they're not price-fixing.

They're agreeing to raise education prices for goods that have nothing to do with education. They're forcing customers to buy frills.

Not at all. Customers are demanding frills via the marketplace, and they're supplying it. It's no more a case of "price fixing" than it is "price fixing" when the supermarket won't sell me milk by the teaspoon because there's no demand and no profit in it.

I think we can add "monopoly" and "oligopoly" to the list of words you use without understanding them.

 

[drkitten]

Their faith forbade condoning activities promoted by accredited universities.

Repeating a wrong statement will not make it right.

You still haven't provided specifics. What activities? What "condoning"? Which universities?

 

[drkitten]

They aren't selling education. Those articles really don't seem to be about education at all though I haven't read all of it. They aren't competing for teaching knowledge and skills. They're competing for parties and networking options.

That's the free market at work. You supply what the customer wants. If all of the students want parties, wireless internet, dining halls, and concerts, you supply them or lose market share.

 

[lightfire22000]

That's the free market at work. You supply what the customer wants. If all of the students want parties, wireless internet, dining halls, and concerts, you supply them or lose market share.

False premise. Not all of the students want parties, wireless internet, ....

You're simply lying and full of bs here. The university doesn't have to supply parties; they just have to allow them. You can't make one concrete point.

You also completely ignore the point. Accreditation laws hamper new schools that focus on actual learning from starting.

 

[lightfire22000]

Repeating a wrong statement will not make it right.

You still haven't provided specifics. What activities? What "condoning"? Which universities?

They wouldn't usually socialize with unbelievers. Particularly, they wouldn't dine with them. Also, they would face intense persecution for anti-homosexual and anti-internationalist attitudes. "Christian" universities would blacklist them because they didn't proselytize.

 

[lightfire22000]

Yes, and since (in the real world) they don't have a monopoly or an oligopoly, as can be shown both by the sheer number of universities as well as the tremendous degree of price competition, then they're not price-fixing.



Not at all. Customers are demanding frills via the marketplace, and they're supplying it. It's no more a case of "price fixing" than it is "price fixing" when the supermarket won't sell me milk by the teaspoon because there's no demand and no profit in it.

I think we can add "monopoly" and "oligopoly" to the list of words you use without understanding them.

To block any competition is to sanction a monopoly or oligopoly.
When one needs a license to do something, it's the same thing as joining a guild. Guilds are monopolies and/or oligopolies plain and simple. My lexical use is fine. You just can't understand English.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

The Englishmen Faraday would have been barred from advancement because accredited schools would likely have requirements that conflicted with his Glasite, or Sandemanian religious beliefs that frowned upon certain interactions generally required by accredited institutions. Also, English law regarding religion would most likely be interpreted to outlaw the 19th century Sandemanians.

Heavisides was also an Englishman. On this point you might have me because I was thinking of American IP laws and I'm not incredibly familiar with him, but Heavisides' simplification of Maxwell's Equations(if you ever see Maxwell's form, you'll appreciate Heavisides) possibly would be accused of infringing on absurdly stringent copyrights and patents today. Furthermore, he wouldn't have been able to gain the knowledge and experience necessary for his discoveries under present day educational systems that emphasize memorizing formulae and algorithms more than logical procedures and experience.

In power plant design, most managers have PE licenses. All of the ones I know have them. This would have hurt Tesla. The reason is that the "industrial exemption" does not apply in situations where the state may grant a monopoly, as it can in electricity(the towns anyway) and in academics.

And Edison....boy, he would have had legal problems galore with all of the patents he would have infringed upon by today's standards. Of course, it doesn't matter that he improved the patents. He also would have had difficulty receiving business permits and improving lab design without several certifications that tend to require accredited degrees.



Fair enough, but they go too far perhaps because I see government moving in a more controlling direction.

You challenged me to show where you made any claims about accreditation and/or licensing that you could not make up by showing the laws. I have done my part and you have not met your burden. I will try again to give examples and ask you to provide specific laws that do what you say.

Tesla worked as an engineer for Westinghouse Electric. I have never seen his job title, but he did the same work as senior engineers. He did not design power plants. He was not a manager. There is a very good history of the East Pittsburgh works available if you're interested. If he worked for the remains of that company today, he would be able to do the same work with the same title. Pennsylvania, where Tesla worked, requires only that Westinghouse have licensed PE's in responsible charge of such activities. In addition, Tesla, were he alive today, could use eight years of experience to qualify for the PE.

As for Faraday, your claim was that present-day law would prevent his work. His religious beliefs, if they were a hindrance in days past, would not be so today. Faraday could, at the least, obtain a degree from Open University.

Edison may have infringed on patents, or not. So what? That's a fact of life in modern industries. Patents have a purpose today similar to the one they had in Edison's time. What sort of business permit would have been denied him? Does this mean Microsoft has never done business?

I know little of Heaviside, so won't comment. I would urge you to check some of the natural history museums where you will find lots of paleontologists without PhD's.

Please post answers to my challenges.

 

[drkitten]

To block any competition is to sanction a monopoly or oligopoly.

Not at all. Monopoly/oligopoly means that competition is stifled to the point where price competition is no longer an issue. When the police arrest one restauranteur for health code violations and shut it down, this blocks the "competition" from that restaurant for the other restaurants in the city; this hardly means that health codes are a form of monopoly or oligopoly.

For that matter, the requirement to have a driver's licence blocks some potential competition for pizza delivery drivers. Again, this hardly makes pizza delivery a monopoly.

 

[drkitten]

They wouldn't usually socialize with unbelievers. Particularly, they wouldn't dine with them.

No university requires that you dine with other members of teh university.

Also, they would face intense persecution for anti-homosexual and anti-internationalist attitudes.

Not at a state university that was subject to the First Amendement.

"Christian" universities would blacklist them because they didn't proselytize.

Some Christian universities, yes. Others are non-proselytizing. In fact, the vast majority of Christian-affiliated universities are non-proselytizing.

So, out of three objections you raise, none are actually valid.

 

[drkitten]

False premise. Not all of the students want parties, wireless internet, ....

No, but the vast majority of them do, enough to make it economically impossible not to supply parties.

Your own source says it:

"It's the idea that 'They've got a new dorm, so we have to have a new one, too,' " said Bennett at the Center for College Affordability.

"Our students don't want to come and just sit in a classroom and leave. They want to be involved in clubs and go to athletic events and go to concerts and plays," said John Beaghan, vice president of finance at Oakland University. "All that is part of a university experience."

You're simply lying and full of bs here.

Oh, marvelous. I cite direct quotations from your own sources describing the reason for cost inflation as demand-driven market economics created by the student wanting "a university experience" that includes a lot more than "just sit[ting] in a classroom" (also direct quotes) and I'm the one lying and full of bs?

The university doesn't have to supply parties; they just have to allow them.

Yes, it does. Because the universities that don't "supply" parties can't compete for students. Your own source tells you this.

You can't make one concrete point.

I don't need to make any points; your own sources do it for me.

Accreditation laws hamper new schools that focus on actual learning from starting.

Wrong. The market hampers new schools that focus on actual learning from starting, as your own sources tell you. They can't get students. The accreditation process neither knows nor cares about the party and concert potential.

Do you really think an accreditation board would withhold accreditation for a school that met all the academic requirements, but failed to provide parties? (Hint: accreditation requirements are a matter of public record; withholding accreditation unreasonably would be illegal.)

How do accreditation boards prevent new academically-oriented schools from starting? What's the process? Tell me exactly where the board would step in and prevent a new school from starting up.....

You can't tell me where the board would step in, for the simple reason that it wouldn't. All you can do is wave your hand meaninglessly and say "it would happen" and use big words you don't understand like "oligopoly."

You're the one lying and full of bs here, I'm afraid.

 

[lightfire22000]

No, but the vast majority of them do, enough to make it economically impossible not to supply parties.

Ridiculous. The only reason they have to uniform their standards for a majority is because of accreditation.