Give autodidacts and independent learners a chance

[drkitten]

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.

Was that supposed to be grammatical?

The way you don't find non-homogenous differential equations is by not looking for them; for example, if your area of interest is not springs, but population dynamics, then Hooke's law is irrelevant.

Which means a typical autodidact will not explore solution techniques for such equations....

They pass if they get the job done well.

Which means, in this case, that they solve the population dynamics problems well, and they lack the application breadth of a typical Diff Eq veteran.

Ergo, they "pass" only in their own mind; not in any sense that would pass academic rigor.

Which is the fundamental problem in the first place.

You can assume someone knows what they're doing if they're doing their job well.

And if they do their job badly, will they reimburse their employer for the wasted time and trouble?

Most employers prefer to evaluate whether or not someone can knows what they're doing before offering them a job to do well -- or not.



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.

Congratulations. You've just proven my point in spades.

 

[lightfire22000]

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?

Fair enough, you shouldn't have to if you. However, others shouldn't be legally blocked just because you don't want to hire them. If you only want to hire graduates from certain schools go ahead, but don't attempt to restrain competition which is exactly what goes on today.

 

[drkitten]

Fair enough, you shouldn't have to if you. However, others shouldn't be legally blocked just because you don't want to hire them.

And, fortunately, no one is legally blocked from being hired.

Every single example you've given -- or more accurately, attempted to give -- has been shown to be factually inaccurate.

If you only want to hire graduates from certain schools go ahead, but don't attempt to restrain competition which is ....

... a fevered product of your own indomitable ignorance.

 

[lightfire22000]

Was that supposed to be grammatical?

The way you don't find non-homogenous differential equations is by not looking for them; for example, if your area of interest is not springs, but population dynamics, then Hooke's law is irrelevant.

Which means a typical autodidact will not explore solution techniques for such equations....

It is grammatical for the purposes of web forums and...

Bull! They'll explore what they need to learn. They explore what they're told to explore. If they want to study population dynamics, they'll study population dynamics. If a job concerns springs and not population dynamics, there's no reason to require knowledge of population dynamics. In fact, to attempt to do so legally is pure discrimination and market interference. It is a threat to freedom.

In fact, you also neglect to mention that autodidacts would be well versed in hundreds of applications of Diff Eq with which conventional students are unfamiliar.

Oh...and finally, I've found countless instances where population models in Diff Eq books were oversimplified or misused. I've seen six in Edwards and Penney.

 

[drkitten]

It is grammatical for the purposes of web forums and...

Bull! They'll explore what they need to learn. They explore what they're told to explore.

Which is exactly my point. Autodidacts will not explore "what they're told to explore," by definition, because there's no one to tell them what to explore.

If they want to study population dynamics, they'll study population dynamics.

Which is not the same as studying differential equations.

If a job concerns springs and not population dynamics, there's no reason to require knowledge of population dynamics.

But what job requirements will typically be expressed as is as "a knowledge of differential equations."

Which an autodidact has. A weak, gappy, altogether inadequate knowledge of differential equations that is completely incompetent to the expectations any employer will have.

In fact, to attempt to do so legally is pure discrimination and market interference. It is a threat to freedom.

You know,... just because you have no more credibility left to lose doesn't mean you should TRY to make yourself look like an idiot.

In fact, you also neglect to mention that autodidacts would be well versed in hundreds of applications of Diff Eq with which conventional students are unfamiliar.

Yes. I make a point of neglecting to mention things that are almost never true.

 

[paximperium]

We have plenty of simulators and tests to see whether your qualified or not.

Hence we're back to accreditation, bravo.

If someone wants to hire you they can, but they don't have to.

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

Exactly hence to get the job people want to make themselves more marketable...surprise accreditation again!!!

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

It is statements like this that leads to the conclusion that Ancaps are idiots.

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.

Who is this "we"? Would you like to name the best Joe Blow AnCap College out there?
Would you like to present the top universities ranked according to the H-Index? Most of the rankings available uses a myriad of differing factors including papers produced, academic output and even patents produced.

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

Such as passing tests, doing actual research and a multitude of other things you decided not to learn.

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.

Oh the irony!!!
Didn't you say that it is the employer's responsibility to train you? So who's the welfare queen?

If someone has training in engine repairs, they can repair an engine. There is no reason to legally block them.

Except I'd prefer to hire someone who actually has documented training, instead of relying of some AnCap who believes he already has the skills even when he is completely oblivious to the holes in his knowledge.

There are superior methods to accreditation.

Definately. Some people actually go out and start businesses or are so talented, they get hired without going to school...why haven't you done that yet?

 

[theprestige]

Fair enough, you shouldn't have to if you. However, others shouldn't be legally blocked just because you don't want to hire them.

I've been getting good jobs in my profession for over a decade, with no college degree and no certification. Clearly there's no legal blockage here.

If you only want to hire graduates from certain schools go ahead, but don't attempt to restrain competition which is exactly what goes on today.

Except that it isn't what goes on today at all--see above.

Unless you can show me how employers are legally restrained from considering unaccredited job candidates.

 

[paximperium]

Unless you can show me how employers are legally restrained from considering unaccredited job candidates.

There are a few specialty positions that do legally require accreditation(State dependent) of some sort. Lawyers, doctors, nurses, chemical technicians, biohazard researchers, nuclear engineers, airline pilots etc.

Notice a theme?

 

[drkitten]

There are a few specialty positions that do legally require accreditation(State dependent) of some sort. Lawyers, doctors, nurses, chemical technicians, biohazard researchers, nuclear engineers, airline pilots etc.

Except that even these professions do not typically require formal education in order to sit the accreditation boards if you can establish to the satisfaction of the relevant professional organization that you have the equivalent in knowledge and experience.

I already gave several examples of "reading the law," upthread; I could find other instances of legally-acceptable hands-on learning of medicine via apprenticeship and such. Similarly, FAA requirements for commercial pilots explicitly allow for approved home-study courses for the knowledge, plus about 250 hours of flight time.

You never have to set foot in a classroom to become a lawyer, a doctor, an airline pilot, a professional engineer, et cetera. Of course, you also don't need to set foot in a plane to fly between two cities, if you're willing to go to the trouble of strapping several weather balloons filled with helium to your lawn chair and trust to luck. It's a lot easier, cheaper, safer, and more reliable simply to hand Delta your credit card. Similarly, it's easier, cheaper, safer, and more reliable to go to law school if you want to become a lawyer.

But -- contrary to everything lightfire has said in this thread -- formal education and accreditation has never been a requirement.

 

[lightfire22000]

Except that even these professions do not typically require formal education in order to sit the accreditation boards if you can establish to the satisfaction of the relevant professional organization that you have the equivalent in knowledge and experience.

I already gave several examples of "reading the law," upthread; I could find other instances of legally-acceptable hands-on learning of medicine via apprenticeship and such. Similarly, FAA requirements for commercial pilots explicitly allow for approved home-study courses for the knowledge, plus about 250 hours of flight time.

You never have to set foot in a classroom to become a lawyer, a doctor, an airline pilot, a professional engineer, et cetera. Of course, you also don't need to set foot in a plane to fly between two cities, if you're willing to go to the trouble of strapping several weather balloons filled with helium to your lawn chair and trust to luck. It's a lot easier, cheaper, safer, and more reliable simply to hand Delta your credit card. Similarly, it's easier, cheaper, safer, and more reliable to go to law school if you want to become a lawyer.

But -- contrary to everything lightfire has said in this thread -- formal education and accreditation has never been a requirement.

Lol kitten. This is a good post. I tip my cap here, but formal education and laws surrounding it have outlived any purpose they might have once had and people are attempting to establish a strong monopoly on education.

 

[drkitten]

formal education and laws surrounding it have outlived any purpose they might have once had and people are attempting to establish a strong monopoly on education.

That's right. Because where once we might have had unqualified quacks trying to pass themselves off as medical practitioners without actually knowing anything about the field, today that problem has been solved.

That's why there are no more chiropractic or "alternative medicine" gurus out there and haven't been for fifty years. Because the problem of unqualified fools no longer exists, and so laws restricting the practice of medicine to those who know some are outdated.

Unfortunately, for the rest of us, who live in the reality-influenced world, the problem of quackery is a very real one.

 

[lightfire22000]

That's right. Because where once we might have had unqualified quacks trying to pass themselves off as medical practitioners without actually knowing anything about the field, today that problem has been solved.

That's why there are no more chiropractic or "alternative medicine" gurus out there and haven't been for fifty years. Because the problem of unqualified fools no longer exists, and so laws restricting the practice of medicine to those who know some are outdated.

Unfortunately, for the rest of us, who live in the reality-influenced world, the problem of quackery is a very real one.

This post, uh, not so much. Quackery appears to have accelerated. Those gurus are growing in number and many hold medical licenses. It's as big as ever. The problem of quackery is a very real one and it's huge. Your description of laws restricting the practice of medicine does not appear to be accurate either.

 

[Vermonter]

Quackery exists in many forms. Some quacks even hold real, legitimate degrees. Some quacks are productive to society in one form while practicing quackery in another. Just because a quack holds a degree doesn't make him or her less quackish.

 

[lightfire22000]

Quackery exists in many forms. Some quacks even hold real, legitimate degrees. Some quacks are productive to society in one form while practicing quackery in another. Just because a quack holds a degree doesn't make him or her less quackish.

Exactly.

 

[drkitten]

This post, uh, not so much. Quackery appears to have accelerated. Those gurus are growing in number and many hold medical licenses.

Relatively few, compared to the huge number that do NOT hold medical licenses (like almost the entire acupuncture community, and the vast majority of the nutritional supplements community).

It's as big as ever.

Larger, if you look at the dollar volume. But most of the quacks are very good at NOT running afoul of the medical licensure laws. And it's precisely because the laws exist and have teeth (and the FDA has teeth as well) that the problem is largely confined to the medical penumbra.

And it's exactly these laws and policies that you want to weaken and/or eliminate. Notice, for example, that although these people have typically NOT been able to pass state-licensed medical board, it's easy enough to get third-party credentials from groups such as the American Academy of Medical Acupuncture or the American Association of Oriental Medicine, both groups that "certify" the qualifications of acupuncturists despite having no actual recognition except among acupuncture quacks.

But to a layman, a certification from the AAMA or AAOA looks like a certificate from any other professional organization; it's not like the quacks spend less on fancy printing. And if for some reason I couldn't get qualifications from those organizations, for less than $100 I could establish the International Acupuncture Institute (IAI) and print fancy credentials for myself any anyone else whose check cleared, regardless of their training.

And that's the situation you want to enforce on all professions.

Put bluntly, you're pro-quack.

 

[lightfire22000]

Relatively few, compared to the huge number that do NOT hold medical licenses (like almost the entire acupuncture community, and the vast majority of the nutritional supplements community).



Larger, if you look at the dollar volume. But most of the quacks are very good at NOT running afoul of the medical licensure laws. And it's precisely because the laws exist and have teeth (and the FDA has teeth as well) that the problem is largely confined to the medical penumbra.

And it's exactly these laws and policies that you want to weaken and/or eliminate. Notice, for example, that although these people have typically NOT been able to pass state-licensed medical board, it's easy enough to get third-party credentials from groups such as the American Academy of Medical Acupuncture or the American Association of Oriental Medicine, both groups that "certify" the qualifications of acupuncturists despite having no actual recognition except among acupuncture quacks.

But to a layman, a certification from the AAMA or AAOA looks like a certificate from any other professional organization; it's not like the quacks spend less on fancy printing. And if for some reason I couldn't get qualifications from those organizations, for less than $100 I could establish the International Acupuncture Institute (IAI) and print fancy credentials for myself any anyone else whose check cleared, regardless of their training.

And that's the situation you want to enforce on all professions.

Put bluntly, you're pro-quack.

No, I'm anti-quack. They use licensing to protect their quackery. That's why it's becoming an issue. If fancy letters and pieces of paper had no legal ramifications, quackery would be reduced.

Of course, they could also post test scores(both written and practice), degrees, and any other credentials.

Secondly, I'm not even against licensing for professions. I'm just against accreditation involvement in licensing.

 

[drkitten]

No, I'm anti-quack.

No, you're pro-quack.

They use licensing to protect their quackery.

Really? Explain how "licensing" protects acupunturists.

If fancy letters and pieces of paper had no legal ramifications, quackery would be reduced.

Really? What are the "legal ramifications" of a certificate from the AAOA (or the IAI, for that matter)?

None whatsover. However, it's great as an advertisement, to make people think that there's something behind acupuncture.

So once again, you're exactly backwards to reality. I'm starting to think that you try to bake cookies in your freezer and make ice cream in your oven.....

 

[Toke]

I think I get it.
If there were no real accreditation in existance, your homemade IAI certificate would have no undeserved weight.

So to avoid fake accreditations we abolish the whole system and its advantages.
I do not agree.

 

[marting]

Aflack!

 

[drkitten]

I think I get it.
If there were no real accreditation in existance, your homemade IAI certificate would have no undeserved weight.

So to avoid fake accreditations we abolish the whole system and its advantages.

... except that under his system everyone uses homemade credentials. So it would actually increase the weight of my IAI certificate because there's no validating agency to say that my IAI cert is worthless.

Or if there is, then the validating agency is also homemade -- and I can just as easily create a International Credentials Commission to print a certificate "validating" the IAI.

I should hope you don't agree with his line of reasoning. I can't see any rational person agreeing....