Give autodidacts and independent learners a chance

[lightfire22000]

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.

Not if people actually want to learn. Then they would get students.

 

[drkitten]

Not if people actually want to learn.

I see. So now the problem is that "people" don't want to learn, and somehow this is the accreditation agencies' fault.

You're right that the average college student is not typically interested in learning. I think that may be the first correct thing you've said on this thread. But that's a cultural issue, related to a long, LONG history of American anti-intellectualism, combined with a mass-market culture. The Federal government made college education affordable to everyone with the establishment of the GI Bill and low-cost student loans in the 1940s, without particulary worrying about whether or not everyone wanted a college education.

But this has nothing to do with "monopoly" or with accreditation; in fact, it's precisely the loosening of the de-facto oligopoly that pre-WWII universities had over higher education that has created this mess. After 1945, it was never easier to establish a university, and there was a huge pool of students you could attract on the government's tab if you didn't bother to offer any of that pesky "education" stuff. And, oddly enough, the accreditation agencies were in the front line against this precisely because they wanted college students to want to learn.

And the "race to the bottom" is well-documented, at all levels, precisely because making education available for everyone implicitly includes making it available to people who aren't interested in the education per se, but are interested in the social and cultural aspects of higher education, be they good gym facilities or beer keg parties with the Sigma Deltas.

So, once again, you're wrong in (almost) every meaningful way.

 

[MattC]

I forget exactly what you want me to write on the article, but essentially the altered nature of warfare spurred by increased productivity and decentralization led to the inexorable evolution of the helmet.

I'm pretty busy during this part of the week so I'll give a more thorough answer later. I'll also go back and check the thread to see what exactly you want.

What I want? I believe it was you who claimed to be able to provide, well, this:

That's not hard to do once you find the context of the article and quote. Give me any historical article on US History and most on Medieval Europe. Let's see what I can do with it. I bet I can top your "historian" by providing a more disinterested contextual view.

I have thus far granted you a week and a few hours' worth of time to formulate a more involved conclusion to this really very mundane article, I am not sure exactly how much time you will need but I will wait. I must further say that I can find no references within the text of the article to either "decentralization" or "increased productivity," though admittedly the generalized terms you used will naturally be elaborated upon further in the final conclusion.

~ Matt

 

[Rasmus]

Not if people actually want to learn. Then they would get students.

********.

No student will be learning 24/7, whatever free time you have needs to be filled up somehow.

A university that was just about learning would only attract the handful of students that want nothing but to learn and excel in their fields. And for that, a university would have to be among the very top in the field, also.

With just a hand ful of universities it would be impossible for each of them to be *the* place to be in all of their subjects, so they will have to throw in soime other benefits for the majority of students.

 

[realpaladin]

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?

I happen to notice his tendency to disagree with himself as well...

 

[drkitten]

I happen to notice his tendency to disagree with himself as well...

The irony, of course, is that if he were really as effective an autodidact as he believes and wishes himself to be, this thread (and this forum) would have been a marvelous resource for learning all sorts of things about his previously-deeply held beliefs.

But, alas, he's not here to learn from us. He's here to teach. Which says shedloads about his autodidactic abilities, none of it complimentary.

 

[lightfire22000]

What I want? I believe it was you who claimed to be able to provide, well, this:



I have thus far granted you a week and a few hours' worth of time to formulate a more involved conclusion to this really very mundane article, I am not sure exactly how much time you will need but I will wait. I must further say that I can find no references within the text of the article to either "decentralization" or "increased productivity," though admittedly the generalized terms you used will naturally be elaborated upon further in the final conclusion.

~ Matt

Yeah, I've been busy.

 

[lightfire22000]

********.

No student will be learning 24/7, whatever free time you have needs to be filled up somehow.

A university that was just about learning would only attract the handful of students that want nothing but to learn and excel in their fields. And for that, a university would have to be among the very top in the field, also.

With just a hand ful of universities it would be impossible for each of them to be *the* place to be in all of their subjects, so they will have to throw in soime other benefits for the majority of students.

Your first line is incredibly irrelevant as "free time" doesn't need to be filled up by the university.

Another meaningless statement. Pure b.s. The students that want to learn would be allowed to learn. Also, they could start their own universities for no money down without any interference. The present system forces some to give up their rights for the benefit of a "majority." Also, the current licensing systems psychologically manipulates people into thinking they need a certain type of university for education. A huge portion of the population is without a university education and the current academic bureaucracy is at fault.

You still cannot justify barring a qualified professional for no reason which is exactly what current laws that require "accredited" degrees do. Open testing would definitely work just as well or better, considering all of the cheating in the present system.

 

[drkitten]

Your first line is incredibly irrelevant as "free time" doesn't need to be filled up by the university.

No, but it adds value if it does.

Similarly, there's no reason that McDonald's needs to supply drinks and fries with their burgers; there is no physical reason preventing me from buying a burger and then walking across the street to a convenience store and buying a (cheaper) soft drink. But for some reason every McDonalds -- and more generally, every fast food joint in the world -- offers drinks as well as food, because the customers demand it.

Even though it adds expense to the business. If they didn't have a soda fountain, they could have a smaller footprint, fewer equipment expenses, a simpler and cheaper supply chain, and so forth. The soda fountain adds to costs across the board (hamburgers alone would probably be cheaper because rent and equipment costs are factored into the prices of all food items).

So why does McDonalds insist on providing a soda fountain? It doesn't. McDonald's customers do.

The students that want to learn would be allowed to learn.

All six of them.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you have no idea what "students" in general want, and you're deeply offended that the world isn't run exclusively for your personal convenience irrespective of the wishes of the other 6+ billion people on the planet.

It's also increasingly clear that your "wishes" are themselves contradictory and ill-thought out. Perhaps "whims" would be a better word.

Also, they could start their own universities for no money down without any interference.

They certainly could. In fact, they can now. If you want to found a university for your own personal benefit, go ahead. I gave you an estimate of the costs earlier.

The present system forces some to give up their rights for the benefit of a "majority."

If by "the present system" you mean "the market," then you're right. But "the market" is also the reason you'll never make money with a hamburger joint that doesn't also sell fries and drinks, regardless of your personal preference.

Don't you get tired of being wrong about everything?

 

[ingoa]

lightfire22000
Formal education is quite useful to learn coherent thinking, proper use of sources and the reasons for the need of procedures. You should try it.

In all academic environments (AFAIK) degrees are not really required. To become a professor in Germany you need a PhD or equivalent proven experience and a habilitation or equivalent proven experience.

Take Joschka_Fischer

Because Fischer lacks a school-leaving certificate, he never attended a university or a college.

From September 2006 until 2007, Joschka Fischer was a senior fellow at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination and a visiting professor at Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, both at Princeton University.

These snobby Ivy League universities....

You can make it, if you iare good. The question is are you good?
Yes? Then you will make it. Otherwise probably not.

 

[lightfire22000]

lightfire22000
Formal education is quite useful to learn coherent thinking, proper use of sources and the reasons for the need of procedures. You should try it.

I am trying it. I think I can do a better job in general.

You can make it, if you iare good. The question is are you good?
Yes? Then you will make it. Otherwise probably not.

That's not the only question though. A more important question is, will you be able to become good? If the number of universities in the world is capped and limited by agencies, than it becomes more difficult. Organizations are attempting to create zero sum games. They want to limit the number of ways one can become educated.

 

[MattC]

I am trying it. I think I can do a better job in general.

There's a saying in my part of academia that goes something like this: "Nobody cares what you think, it's what you can prove that makes the difference." One of my professors took this a step further by telling my class "You all have about twenty years to go before anyone will care what you think."

That's not the only question though. A more important question is, will you be able to become good? If the number of universities in the world is capped and limited by agencies, than it becomes more difficult. Organizations are attempting to create zero sum games. They want to limit the number of ways one can become educated.

It is actually supremely hard for any university to 'stop' someone from becoming educated in some form or another if they really desire to do so. Nothing, for example, stops me from going and buying a radiology textbook if I decide I want to learn more about it. If I may make a small recommendation, you seem not to be so angry about "education" per se but rather the official recognition of that education someone has obtained. I would suggest focusing more upon this rather than trying to debate overall education levels or invoking the "free market" in some odd way.

~ Matt

 

[Wildy]

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

So do you think a degree from a diploma mill is just as good as a degree from a proper university?

 

[MattC]

So do you think a degree from a diploma mill is just as good as a degree from a proper university?

Well technically it's the exact same - a B.A. in political science from a "proper" university is the functional equivalent of the same B.A. from a diploma mill. However, someone with a degree from an accredited university has demonstrably met a set of readily-accessible basic standards, whereas someone from a diploma mill has (odds are) got nothing more than the piece of paper.

Phrasing the matter more simply, the degrees themselves are the same - but one does not hire a degree. The person holding the degree will most probably vary greatly.

~ Matt

 

[lightfire22000]

There's a saying in my part of academia that goes something like this: "Nobody cares what you think, it's what you can prove that makes the difference." One of my professors took this a step further by telling my class "You all have about twenty years to go before anyone will care what you think."

I agree with that 100%...well okay, I'd agree with it 90%. People in their thirties often attain considerable prominence.

It is actually supremely hard for any university to 'stop' someone from becoming educated in some form or another if they really desire to do so. Nothing, for example, stops me from going and buying a radiology textbook if I decide I want to learn more about it. If I may make a small recommendation, you seem not to be so angry about "education" per se but rather the official recognition of that education someone has obtained. I would suggest focusing more upon this rather than trying to debate overall education levels or invoking the "free market" in some odd way.

~ Matt

The more the thread continues, the more correct you are. However, there is a mounting threat against establishing new schools.

 

[MattC]

I agree with that 100%...well okay, I'd agree with it 90%. People in their thirties often attain considerable prominence.

I will admit that proving him wrong has been one of my goals since he said that.

The more the thread continues, the more correct you are. However, there is a mounting threat against establishing new schools.

I beg pardon if I am misconstruing more than my share, but you seem to vacillating about quite wildly within the confines of this thread. What began as a discussion of the avenues open to autodidacts turned into a minor quibble over accreditation, which seems to have dovetailed into something about establishing new schools. I, and probably several others, are completely lost as to what direction the thread has taken.

I am also not at all clear upon what role any of these things play in preventing you from establishing a university should you choose to do so.

~ Matt

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Lightfire22000,

Since you won't respond to requests for evidence, I'm gonna jump in and, instead of criticizing you, offer some plausible support for self-directed learning.

First, there are good academic philosophical bases for the idea. Merriam and Caffarella provide an excellent overview in Learning in Adulthood, Jossey-Bass, 1991. One of their particularly pertinent points is that "...the existence of self-directed learning as a form of study has been established." (p.209). One might also look to well-known educators such as Knowles, Brookfield, and Brockett. There has been study of this practice for professionals and non-professionals.

There does not seem to be any groundswell of ideas for using self-directed learning for the professional qualifying degree. Rather, the purpose generally tends to be for continuing education, skill acquisition, personal growth, and community development. At the far end of this spectrum, one might look to the work of Helen Lewis who, in many eyes, invented Appalachian Studies as a way of effecting social change.

The divide between professional qualifying education and "everything else" is not only a matter of what some might call guild control, but more important to educators, a matter of teaching and learning styles. Professional education, and some other education, works best when it is authoritarian and is presented with at least a significant behavioralist bent. Consider the somewhat mundane task of teaching firearm safety. There is no room for discovery, for group activities, or for discussion. It is demonstrated, stated as an absolute, and shortcomings are met with an immediate negative response including, if circumstances permit, humiliation and physical pain.

But, much of education, one hopes, is not about employment qualifications or titles but rather about the enjoyment and utility found in learning. And, perhaps, therein lies the rub for many. I might recommend a visit to the website of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture to see alternative views of the uses of education. One of their number, Matthew Crawford just released a book, Shop Craft as Soulcraft, that I recommend for a fresh view.

When considering entry into professions by means of qualifying exams, I suggest that a more temperate step might be the implementation of an American form of the Bologna Process. This idea is gaining headway in the European Union and Americans must prepare to deal with engineers and lawyers etc. who have gone through this process, and it is in some sense an incremental approach that allows us to more carefully judge how far to go.

Cheers.

 

[drkitten]

But, much of education, one hopes, is not about employment qualifications or titles but rather about the enjoyment and utility found in learning.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what lightfire appears not to be interested in. His complaint, for example, is that he can't get the title "PE" (Professional Engineer) without an accredited engineering degree (this complaint, btw, is factually wrong, but what the hell). There is, of course, no knowledge conveyed by the degree itself, as MattC has pointed out, and as you can imagine for yourself by thinking about a person who quits MIT three foreign language credits short of a degree, and therefore has no formal credentials despite having completed all the engineering coursework.

But this raises the question about what MIT does offer -- and whether it's worth the $50,000/year or so. And the answer is fairly obvious; aside from the prestige of the degree (which probably does inflate the price), it's also a superb engineering facility. The equipment to which a typical student has access -- requires access to complete their work -- would cost tens of thousands of dollars a year to rent and hundreds of thousands to purchase. MIT can afford it because it buys equipment for hundreds or thousands of students and therefore can amortize $100,000 across 1000 students to about $100/each.

Library access, of course, is a nice university perk. Most of the high-end scientific journals cost hundreds or even thousands to access if you do it on the free market. My university -- which has such a pitifully inadequate library that our accreditation board has remarked on it -- spends hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, on journal access each year. Even Google spends millions on this kind of access -- and, by contract, is not allowed to re-deliver this content via Google Scholar. (Yes, I've spoken to the backroom boys at Google about this....) I can only assume that lightfire the autodidact will somehow conjure up access that Larry and Sergei can't?

Similarly, faculty access can be valued at -- is valued at -- millions per year; MIT has taken tremendous trouble to recruit some of the top experts in the various fields and compels them not only to offer lectures, but also individual one-on-one instruction at no cost above tuition. (Yes, that's what office hours are for.) Lightfire suggested that a university education is worth only about $10,000. Phone a lawyer for advice sometime, and you'll see that it typically costs $250 or more to have a single question answered. If he's asked forty questions over the course of his undergraduate degree -- that's basically dropping by one professor's office per month -- then he's gotten more than $10,000 worth of education in personal tuition alone. And if he's not dropped by office hours at least once a month, then he's obviously not taking advantage of the educational opportunities his university is affording him.

So while it's possible to self-educate, the idea that the universities are doing education particularly inefficiently (as he's claimed) or that they're somehow extorting money from students greater than services rendered (as he's claimed) is patently absurd. Universities exist -- and have since the 13th century -- precisely because they offer economies of scale, something that has been recognized by other organizations like Bell Telephone Labs ("What good is an expert if he isn't just down the hall").

They offer an extremely valuable service, and justly charge for it. Unlike almost all other comparably situated "guilds," however, opening a competing service is not only not blocked, but valued. You simply have to offer service of comparable value and quality. But to do this, you need to have comparable quality, which means you have to demonstrate either proven credentials in a form acceptable to the academy, or have a proven record of quality that few if any 20 year olds will be able to demonstrate.

 

[drkitten]

When considering entry into professions by means of qualifying exams, I suggest that a more temperate step might be the implementation of an American form of the Bologna Process. This idea is gaining headway in the European Union and Americans must prepare to deal with engineers and lawyers etc. who have gone through this process, and it is in some sense an incremental approach that allows us to more carefully judge how far to go.

I'm not understanding how you think the Bologna process is an example of what lightfire wants. I would think it would be an example of exactly what he doesn't want; heavy-handed administrative oversight in the interests of producing a single set of uniform credentials.....

 

[Holler Hoojer]

I'm not understanding how you think the Bologna process is an example of what lightfire wants. I would think it would be an example of exactly what he doesn't want; heavy-handed administrative oversight in the interests of producing a single set of uniform credentials.....

If you are going to implement a qualification by exam process, then one possible incremental path is a standardization of existing programs. I don't mean to recommend the Bologna Process (though I do sort of like what the Finns are doing with it - particularly the part in the final exams where you get to whip naked people with birch branches ), but it's a path one could use. We are never going to just suddenly overturn centuries of practice, so there must be some gradual process, or perhaps a demo project.

Is it the PE Lightfire22000 wants? I thought it might be something in Medicine.