Give autodidacts and independent learners a chance

[lightfire22000]

There's nothing wrong with being able to do a job without a peice of paper. The problem is that its difficult to tell the people who can do the job well from those who will do it poorly.
That paper is one standard upon which to make that judgement.
And I should point out, it's not just the people hiring for the job that face this challenge, its also those who want to do it as well. How do you measure yourself? How do you know how deep your understanding of a particular subject is?
Completing that course is one way to do so. Of course its not perfect, but its useful.

That doesn't mean there aren't any other ways, but this is probably the best standardized method.

A good point. However, I think tests serve as good indicators of qualifications. It saves time and money, both precious commodities.

 

[drkitten]

A good point. However, I think tests serve as good indicators of qualifications.

Yes, you mentioned that before in this thread.

You were wrong then, and you are still wrong. Tests are a terrible way to judge qualifications; their only saving grace is that they're cost-effective to administer.

They're far too easy to game, far too difficult to validate, and far too subject to errors. There's a reason, for example, that almost no employers, in any field, will hire a person solely on the basis of test scores alone. Test scores are at best one indicator among others.

 

[MattC]

What's wrong with that? If someone can do a job without a piece of paper, why should someone stop him/her? Who's to say whether a degree is "formal".

How am I, a prospective employer, supposed to know that you can actually do the job in the first place? Essentially this boils down to "because I say I can", which is at least a sign of self-confidence but is really a very poor thing to depend upon.

You're wrong, very wrong. First off, note the "independent learner" part of the thread. One wouldn't necessarily learn all by themselves if their education weren't declared traditional. Secondly, I don't think you can stereotype autodidacts. I would learn a subject for practical purposes however. DiffEq would be no different. I would learn DiffEq as well as I could to get the results that I wanted. This would entail a thorough examination of topics and an examination of all the book chapters. Standardized course material is only relevant regarding the purpose of which it's standardized. Only the applications of the material are relevant.

In absence of any sort of standard to judge what precisely a "thorough examination" of material specifically entails, drkitten is correct in stating that the measurement becomes a personal one and therefore without practical purpose or utility for someone else. To provide a small example, if I tell you that this table I have is five warbles long, I'm quite confident you will acquire no information about the dimension of the table because you have no idea what a "warble" is nor how it relates to a meter, the unit of measure you do know.

Do you know how insanely bureaucratic those processes can be? It's hard enough to change your major. It can take weeks of phone calls and forms just to prepare to challenge a class. Plus, you don't receive a grade for the class that is successfully challenged.

All I need to do to change mine is to fill out a form, I've not yet had the necessity to challenge a class.

~ Matt

 

[drkitten]

You're wrong, very wrong. First off, note the "independent learner" part of the thread. One wouldn't necessarily learn all by themselves if their education weren't declared traditional.

I have no idea what this even means. But if you're suggesting that having a fanged instructor insisting on comprehensive coverage of the course material is NOT a motivating factor for to increase students' motivation to comprehensively cover material they would otherwise skip over, you're simply crazy.

The whole point of the question "will this be on the final" -- a classic, almost cliched question, is because without the traditional assessment structure as enforced by class policy, the student asking would not learn the material.

Secondly, I don't think you can stereotype autodidacts.

I don't need to stereotype them. I merely need note that the type described above exists and is a significant fraction of the population.

I would learn a subject for practical purposes however.

Once again, you are confusing yourself with everyone in the world.

DiffEq would be no different. I would learn DiffEq as well as I could to get the results that I wanted.

And that's exactly what's wrong with autodidacticism. Because, for example, if the result you WANT is the ability to solve first-order homogenous differential equations (whatever the hell those are, but somehow you found one that you needed to solve), then you would read the first three chapters of the book, which cover that material. You would not want the material covered in chapter 4 (inhomogenous first-order equations) or later (higher-order equations) and therefore would be under no obligation to read them.

As an instructor, I can place you under an obligation to read them -- at least, if you want to pass. But an autodidact can't "pass" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Standardized course material is only relevant regarding the purpose of which it's standardized. Only the applications of the material are relevant.

Exactly -- so you admit that if your applications are only first-order equations, you won't learn higher-order. Which means that I as a potential employer do not have any confidence that when you say "I know differential equations" you really mean "I know first order and higher order differential equations" even though that's what a person who's taken differential equations in college means by it.

This makes it harder, not easier, to evaluate your credentials, since I would need to devise more detailed tests to distinguish between different levels of training; I can't assume that if you know A, you also know B because they are nearly always taught together. Standardized classes eliminate, or at least reduce, the ability to pick and choose -- and therefore graduates can't surprise me with holes. ("What do you mean you've taken four years of French and never learned the future tense?" "What do you mean you studied the history of Rome for five years and have never heard of Caligula?")

 

[drkitten]

All I need to do to change mine is to fill out a form, I've not yet had the necessity to challenge a class.

A lot of universities do have rather arcane procedures for challenging classes; I suspect this is at least partly deliberate as a form of deterrence. Given the number of students who think they know material and don't, I think this deterrence is justified.

After all, it's much easier to game a test than a course, especially if you're well-connected. One of the standard ways to challenge a course, for example, is to sit last year's final exam and have the professor grade it. It's standard because it's simple (the materials are ready to hand), it maintains control with the faculty expert where it belongs, and it requires little work on the part of the faculty.

It's also heinously subject to cheating. Simply get a friend or fraternity brother who took the course last year to keep a copy of his final, and have him go in to "discuss" the test results with the instructor some time over the summer. Behold, an instant answer key to memorize!

So, of course, one can establish counter-measures. Write a new test for each challenge, for example. But at this point, it starts to no longer be simple and easy to evaluate a student's claim to knowledge.

... but this just points out the problem with autodidacticism. If it's difficult for me, as a faculty instructor, to evaluate the knowledge level of a single person in my area of expertise, how much harder will it be for a non-expert to evaluate and compare the knowledge level of a hundred candidates for ranking?

And if someone else -- a third party -- volunteers to do the comparison,... what does that add? Now we've added a third party's worth of complexity and cost, while at the same time adding another point of potential dishonesty, incompetence, or simple failure. We've gone from a simple system that works pretty well to a more complicated system that works more poorly

... and all because some whiny little undergraduate brat can't be bothered to get out of bed for his 9am section?

 

[MattC]

A lot of universities do have rather arcane procedures for challenging classes; I suspect this is at least partly deliberate as a form of deterrence. Given the number of students who think they know material and don't, I think this deterrence is justified.

After all, it's much easier to game a test than a course, especially if you're well-connected. One of the standard ways to challenge a course, for example, is to sit last year's final exam and have the professor grade it. It's standard because it's simple (the materials are ready to hand), it maintains control with the faculty expert where it belongs, and it requires little work on the part of the faculty.

It's also heinously subject to cheating. Simply get a friend or fraternity brother who took the course last year to keep a copy of his final, and have him go in to "discuss" the test results with the instructor some time over the summer. Behold, an instant answer key to memorize!

So, of course, one can establish counter-measures. Write a new test for each challenge, for example. But at this point, it starts to no longer be simple and easy to evaluate a student's claim to knowledge.

... but this just points out the problem with autodidacticism. If it's difficult for me, as a faculty instructor, to evaluate the knowledge level of a single person in my area of expertise, how much harder will it be for a non-expert to evaluate and compare the knowledge level of a hundred candidates for ranking?

And if someone else -- a third party -- volunteers to do the comparison,... what does that add? Now we've added a third party's worth of complexity and cost, while at the same time adding another point of potential dishonesty, incompetence, or simple failure. We've gone from a simple system that works pretty well to a more complicated system that works more poorly

... and all because some whiny little undergraduate brat can't be bothered to get out of bed for his 9am section?

I do not think lightfire resembles this "whiny little undergraduate brat" you speak of, however I am sure we both have many stories about them.

~ Matt

 

[esquel]

And that's exactly what's wrong with autodidacticism. Because, for example, if the result you WANT is the ability to solve first-order homogenous differential equations (whatever the hell those are, but somehow you found one that you needed to solve), then you would read the first three chapters of the book, which cover that material. You would not want the material covered in chapter 4 (inhomogenous first-order equations) or later (higher-order equations) and therefore would be under no obligation to read them.

As an instructor, I can place you under an obligation to read them -- at least, if you want to pass. But an autodidact can't "pass" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Exactly -- so you admit that if your applications are only first-order equations, you won't learn higher-order. Which means that I as a potential employer do not have any confidence that when you say "I know differential equations" you really mean "I know first order and higher order differential equations" even though that's what a person who's taken differential equations in college means by it.

This makes it harder, not easier, to evaluate your credentials, since I would need to devise more detailed tests to distinguish between different levels of training; I can't assume that if you know A, you also know B because they are nearly always taught together. Standardized classes eliminate, or at least reduce, the ability to pick and choose -- and therefore graduates can't surprise me with holes. ("What do you mean you've taken four years of French and never learned the future tense?" "What do you mean you studied the history of Rome for five years and have never heard of Caligula?")

I bumped into a related problem when transferring credits between one school in Michigan and another in Ohio. I had taken calculus before and passed, although with B- grades rather than A. Advisors put me in an entry level differential equation class; I had also done some work with DiffyQ (translation: passed, but with closer to a C than a B), but thought the review would be good. Lo and behold, when I started the class, it turned out that my previous school had taken an entirely different approach and I couldn't understand any of the work they were doing. Getting up to speed would have required at least 2 semesters of 'remedial' calculus. This was part of the reason I decided not to become an engineer.

 

[lightfire22000]

I have no idea what this even means. But if you're suggesting that having a fanged instructor insisting on comprehensive coverage of the course material is NOT a motivating factor for to increase students' motivation to comprehensively cover material they would otherwise skip over, you're simply crazy.


The whole point of the question "will this be on the final" -- a classic, almost cliched question, is because without the traditional assessment structure as enforced by class policy, the student asking would not learn the material.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Also, even if they'd learn some fine points for the final, they'd forget them pretty quickly and wouldn't be able to use the information. They'd just learn for the final and then forget information.

And that's exactly what's wrong with autodidacticism. Because, for example, if the result you WANT is the ability to solve first-order homogenous differential equations (whatever the hell those are, but somehow you found one that you needed to solve), then you would read the first three chapters of the book, which cover that material. You would not want the material covered in chapter 4 (inhomogenous first-order equations) or later (higher-order equations) and therefore would be under no obligation to read them.

How would you not find non-homogeneous differential equations in real life? Springs! Hooke's law dictates that springs will usually vibrate by non-homogeneous second order differential equations.

As an instructor, I can place you under an obligation to read them -- at least, if you want to pass. But an autodidact can't "pass" in any meaningful sense of the word.

They pass if they get the job done well.

This makes it harder, not easier, to evaluate your credentials, since I would need to devise more detailed tests to distinguish between different levels of training; I can't assume that if you know A, you also know B because they are nearly always taught together. Standardized classes eliminate, or at least reduce, the ability to pick and choose -- and therefore graduates can't surprise me with holes. ("What do you mean you've taken four years of French and never learned the future tense?" "What do you mean you studied the history of Rome for five years and have never heard of Caligula?")

Then don't higher autodidacts if you don't want to. However, don't legally block them. You can assume someone knows what they're doing if they're doing their job well. If they can do their job well and they don't have all the coursework then that coursework wasn't important.

When I learned English, I never formally learned a future tense! However, I learned how to express ideas grammatically. I just never thought of it as a "future tense". Roman history is roughly a thousand years long and then some(approximately 500 BCE to 500 CE)!!! Caligula wasn't a major historical figure in many relevant aspects of Roman history. In fact, several Roman historians only gave cursory information and opinions of his reign, among them Pliny the Elder.

 

[MattC]

How am I supposed to know to give you the opportunity to do the job?

~ Matt

 

[lightfire22000]

How am I supposed to know to give you the opportunity to do the job?

~ Matt

If they've performed well in the past, I'd give them that opportunity. If they have endorsements from others who have performed well and have established reputations, you should at least consider them.

 

[theprestige]

If they've performed well in the past, I'd give them that opportunity. If they have endorsements from others who have performed well and have established reputations, you should at least consider them.

So then your problem is that you have this history of good performance and endorsements from reputable people who have seen your work and are competent to judge it... but without the precious "accreditation", you're still not getting the job?

Or do you not have any of these things--no work history, no references, and no accreditation--but you still want the job anyway, just because?

Also, it occurs to me that a degree is in fact a sort of work history. And accreditation is in fact a sort of reference. After all, what is the accrediting agency, if not "others who have performed well and have established reputations"?

 

[paximperium]

So then your problem is that you have this history of good performance and endorsements from reputable people who have seen your work and are competent to judge it... but without the precious "accreditation", you're still not getting the job?

Or do you not have any of these things--no work history, no references, and no accreditation--but you still want the job anyway, just because?

Also, it occurs to me that a degree is in fact a sort of work history. And accreditation is in fact a sort of reference. After all, what is the accrediting agency, if not "others who have performed well and have established reputations"?

That's a great summary of his entire argument.

No one cares if someone without any accreditation actually accomplishes something and is exceedingly smart. However these are the exceptions, not the norm.

 

[lightfire22000]

So then your problem is that you have this history of good performance and endorsements from reputable people who have seen your work and are competent to judge it... but without the precious "accreditation", you're still not getting the job?

Or do you not have any of these things--no work history, no references, and no accreditation--but you still want the job anyway, just because?

Also, it occurs to me that a degree is in fact a sort of work history. And accreditation is in fact a sort of reference. After all, what is the accrediting agency, if not "others who have performed well and have established reputations"?

No, it's just the former. That's not quite it. A degree is not an accurate work history. That's the thing. A degree does not reflect competence often. Furthermore, why should it be a legally distinguished type of work history? Why should accreditation be a legally distinguished reference?

Another HUGE part of the argument is that accreditation reduces available educational options and makes them unnecessarily time consuming and expensive.

 

[paximperium]

No, it's just the former. That's not quite it. A degree is not an accurate work history. That's the thing. A degree does not reflect competence often.

A degree reflects education and training.

Furthermore, why should it be a legally distinguished type of work history?

Who said it was? It is just the easiest to verify.

Why should accreditation be a legally distinguished reference?

You mean why you can't use a mail order degree to inflate your "self education"? You mean why can't you claim an education and training that you don't have without any oversight? I wonder why?

Another HUGE part of the argument is that accreditation reduces available educational options and makes them unnecessarily time consuming and expensive.

What do you mean by unnecessary? Hmmmm?

 

[Toke]

What do you mean by unnecessary? Hmmmm?

It could be compared to a diploma mill.

 

[lightfire22000]

A degree reflects education and training.
Who said it was? It is just the easiest to verify.
You mean why you can't use a mail order degree to inflate your "self education"? You mean why can't you claim an education and training that you don't have without any oversight? I wonder why?
What do you mean by unnecessary? Hmmmm?

Bull, at best. If someone has education, they can claim it. A mail order degree has nothing to do with it at all. In fact, accreditation is responsible for diploma mills and contributes to them in the first place. If education mattered instead of bureaucratic approval and paper, those diploma mills would be shut down. They wouldn't be profitable. Accreditation fuels the demand for them. What constitutes oversight? Why are these accreditation agencies legitimate without any oversight, but other, private agencies are not legitimate? What gives them authority?

What do you mean by unnecessary?

Discussions and tests about the professor's research, busy work, pages of text that provides nothing practical, teaching equations and theorems without explaining to derive them, and an absurd emphasis on short term memorization. They neglect to teach the bulk of what's relevant for examination and their examinations neglect the bulk of what's relevant.

Their neglect of reductionism makes courses often irrelevant. I know from experience.

 

[paximperium]

Bull, at best. If someone has education, they can claim it. A mail order degree has nothing to do with it at all.

Sure. I have PhD. in Chemistry and Physics with a specialty in Nuclear Reactors. Oh yeah, I'm also a Brain Surgeon and a Veterinarian.

Tell me how you're going to verify that? After I blow up a few nuclear reactors or kill a few patients?

Thanks, you've just passed the cost onto the employers from attempting to verify their new employess to training them and from the massive fraud that will occur.

In fact, accreditation is responsible for diploma mills and contributes to them in the first place. If education mattered instead of bureaucratic approval and paper, those diploma mills would be shut down. They wouldn't be profitable. Accreditation fuels the demand for them.

In fact, police are responsible for crime and contributes to them in the first place. If the law and justice mattered instead of enforcement, those criminals would be shut down. They wouldn't be profitable.

What constitutes oversight? Why are these accreditation agencies legitimate without any oversight, but other, private agencies are not legitimate? What gives them authority?

Reputation.
Hence Stanford and Harvard gets such great response while Joe Blow AnCap College don't.

Discussions and tests about the professor's research, busy work, pages of text that provides nothing practical, teaching equations and theorems without explaining to derive them, and an absurd emphasis on short term memorization.

Oh,I agree there are lot of problems with how things are taught in colleges, but I had great teachers who actually did a great job.

They neglect to teach the bulk of what's relevant for examination and their examinations neglect the bulk of what's relevant.

So how do you know what is relevant? So says someone who does not have the education and general overview of the relevance of what their teachers demand that they learn before claiming an "education".

Sorry bucko but both schools and employers have things called "standards" which you don't seem to get. When an employer sees someone claiming an training in engine repairs, they would want to hope that that person actually has training in things that they demand and want and not on whatever you feels like studying.

Their neglect of reductionism makes courses often irrelevant. I know from experience.

Hahahah...to an AnCap, everything that involves any authority and ignores their delusion is automatically bad. What nonsense.

 

[lightfire22000]

Sure. I have PhD. in Chemistry and Physics with a specialty in Nuclear Reactors. Oh yeah, I'm also a Brain Surgeon and a Veterinarian.

Tell me how you're going to verify that? After I blow up a few nuclear reactors or kill a few patients?

We have plenty of simulators and tests to see whether your qualified or not. If someone wants to hire you they can, but they don't have to.

Thanks, you've just passed the cost onto the employers from attempting to verify their new employess to training them and from the massive fraud that will occur.

It's their responsibility. They deserve to pay the cost.

In fact, police are responsible for crime and contributes to them in the first place. If the law and justice mattered instead of enforcement, those criminals would be shut down. They wouldn't be profitable.

When police have to compete with other police, moral law emerges. When they have a monopoly, society dies.

Reputation.
Hence Stanford and Harvard gets such great response while Joe Blow AnCap College don't.

Reputation? On what do you base reputation except for what people achieve? Joe Blow AnCap College has even produced much more than Harvard and Stanford. We have a much higher Hirsch index on average.
[/QUOTE]

Oh,I agree there are lot of problems with how things are taught in colleges, but I had great teachers who actually did a great job.
So how do you know what is relevant? So says someone who does not have the education and general overview of the relevance of what their teachers demand that they learn before claiming an "education".

You learn what is relevant by working and attempting to achieve. Learning is based on tangible achievement only!

Sorry bucko but both schools and employers have things called "standards" which you don't seem to get. When an employer sees someone claiming an training in engine repairs, they would want to hope that that person actually has training in things that they demand and want and not on whatever you feels like studying.

Hahahah...to an AnCap, everything that involves any authority and ignores their delusion is automatically bad. What nonsense.

If you don't think someone is qualified don't higher them, but don't be a welfare queen and except people to do your thinking for you and pay thousands of dollars for your benefit. If someone has training in engine repairs, they can repair an engine. There is no reason to legally block them.

There are superior methods to accreditation.

 

[theprestige]

It's their responsibility. They deserve to pay the cost.

I've got a better idea: the employee deserves to pay the cost. If he's not willing to invest the capital necessary to make himself marketable, I'll find someone else who is.

Why should your employer be responsible for investing in you, instead of you being responsible?

 

[Toke]

It reminds me of a danish refrigeration technicial in Lagos Nigeria. All local job applicants had fine papers and assured him they knew all there was to know about repair of reefers.
He made up his own written test with some diagrams of refrigerant flow and electrical wirering.
The passable ones were far between.

When the company hired danish electricians they barely looked at ones journeyman letter, and gave you a week of handover onboard.
(We do not have refrigeration at trade school, but most errors are electrical, and the reefer manuals explain the refrigeration cycle.)

Do you notice the savings for the company in checking accreditation and on claims on reefers?