Give autodidacts and independent learners a chance

[lightfire22000]

Yeah, but the autodidact will have earned that LHC, unlike the posers at CERN. They only got one because they faxed a copy of their diploma to the head of the lab. Who knows if they're really physicists!

You can tell pretty quickly if you know a lot of Physics. There are probably a few autodidacts involved in the LHC. There is no shortage of successful Physicists who are self taught.

Here's a minor example:

http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2002-08-16/handsOnPhys/handsOnPhys.html


Also, there are tons and tons of formally credentialed people in Physics with autodidact(ic?) tendencies like Garrett Lisi. I must confess that I don't know much about advanced Physics though.

 

[MattC]

You can tell pretty quickly if you know a lot of Physics. There are probably a few autodidacts involved in the LHC. There is no shortage of successful Physicists who are self taught.

Here's a minor example:

http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2002-08-16/handsOnPhys/handsOnPhys.html


Also, there are tons and tons of formally credentialed people in Physics with autodidact(ic?) tendencies like Garrett Lisi. I must confess that I don't know much about advanced Physics though.

I must point out an odd dichotomy at work here, lightfire.

The man you claim to be "self-taught" is apparently a professor at a university capable of acquiring the resources needed to perform advanced experiments in particle physics; there seems to have been no legal barrier at work to stop him from doing these things. In fact he seems to have succeeded quite well upon his own merits.

~ Matt

 

[lightfire22000]

I must point out an odd dichotomy at work here, lightfire.

The man you claim to be "self-taught" is apparently a professor at a university capable of acquiring the resources needed to perform advanced experiments in particle physics; there seems to have been no legal barrier at work to stop him from doing these things. In fact he seems to have succeeded quite well upon his own merits.

~ Matt

Correct on all counts Matt! He is both "self-taught" and conventionally taught. He is writing for people who are often self-taught to a large degree.

There aren't always legal barriers. I'm simply against them when there are.
I started the thread largely to praise autodidactism as an effective learning method. By my own fault, it became more about legal barriers. That was not my intention.

 

[realpaladin]

Correct on all counts Matt! He is both "self-taught" and conventionally taught. He is writing for people who are often self-taught to a large degree.

There aren't always legal barriers. I'm simply against them when there are.
I started the thread largely to praise autodidactism as an effective learning method. By my own fault, it became more about legal barriers. That was not my intention.

If you remember my post waaaay back, then you will find this man a good example of that.

Saying 'the system is not fair!' and then trying to get lots 'corroborating facts' does not help one iota.

Again, I say to you: If there is a system and you really 'are' smart, play the system like a Parcours runner plays the concrete of a city.

What you are talking about is changing the cities so that everyone can have a free run.

That is not going to happen in reality. No matter what arguments.

 

[drkitten]

You can tell pretty quickly if you know a lot of Physics.

Yes. When the equipment catches fire, for example, that's a pretty good indication that you don't know what you're doing.

Unfortunately, it still cost me a lot of money to get that equipment and will cost me more to replace it, which is why I want to know before you start the job that you can do it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. When the equipment catches fire, for example, that's a pretty good indication that you don't know what you're doing.

Unfortunately, it still cost me a lot of money to get that equipment and will cost me more to replace it, which is why I want to know before you start the job that you can do it.

There is also "he has killed 5 patients from gross incompetence, we think he might not be the genius surgeon he put on his application"

 

[Mark6]

For hundreds of years autodidacts HAD their chance.

BY overwhelming majority, they blew it. And the tiny minority which did not, was (or today would have been) perfectly capable of succeeding in a formal learning environment. Experiment failed, case closed.

Oh, and judging by the attitude displayed in his posts, lightfire22000 is NOT in that tiny minority. But other posters said that already.

 

[lightfire22000]

For hundreds of years autodidacts HAD their chance.

BY overwhelming majority, they blew it. And the tiny minority which did not, was (or today would have been) perfectly capable of succeeding in a formal learning environment. Experiment failed, case closed.

Oh, and judging by the attitude displayed in his posts, lightfire22000 is NOT in that tiny minority. But other posters said that already.

Blew it? How? They only built the modern world. Just because they can succeed in a formal learning environment doesn't make it good. I can succeed in formal learning environments. I just don't like them and they're overpriced.

I'm not even an extreme autodidact. I have neither blown nor made it. I'm still going.

 

[lightfire22000]

There is also "he has killed 5 patients from gross incompetence, we think he might not be the genius surgeon he put on his application"

You can tell before it comes to that and if you can't, just don't hire him.

 

[lightfire22000]

Yes. When the equipment catches fire, for example, that's a pretty good indication that you don't know what you're doing.

Unfortunately, it still cost me a lot of money to get that equipment and will cost me more to replace it, which is why I want to know before you start the job that you can do it.

You can tell before that and if you can't, don't hire him. They have simulators galore and practicals.
There are many ways to prove one's knowledge.

 

[paximperium]

You can tell before it comes to that and if you can't, just don't hire him.

So no one hires them. Wasn't that what you were complaining about?

 

[lightfire22000]

So no one hires them. Wasn't that what you were complaining about?

In the numerous low risk situations, no one hires them. They also can prove their competence if allowed.

 

[drkitten]

You can tell before it comes to that and if you can't, just don't hire him.

You're contradicting yourself again. The whole purpose of credentials is because without them, you can't tell if an autodidact has the skills he claims and believes he has.

 

[paximperium]

In the numerous low risk situations, no one hires them. They also can prove their competence if allowed.

And no one has said they can't prove competance.

Lets take an autodicdate astronomer. He/she does not need any fancy equipment to do science. All he/she needs to do is to buy a decent home telescope and computer and start looking. They may start out small with partaking in volunteer research but they may get a chance to write some papers for small journals and work from there.

Hey, it may take you 20years to be recognized if you work on it but then that's how long PhDs have to work. There is no short cuts.

PS: I may have missed this but I'm just curious lightfire, what do you want to do that is being hampered by the "system" now?

 

[drkitten]

In the numerous low risk situations, no one hires them.

Why should I have to take any risk because you're too lazy to come to your 8am calculus class?

They also can prove their competence if allowed.

Okay, prove it. At your own risk and expense.

No one's stopping them.

As you yourself pointed out, "Also, there are tons and tons of formally credentialed people [...]autodidact(ic?) tendencies." No one's stopping them from proving themselves qualified and taking any job they like.

 

[lightfire22000]

And no one has said they can't prove competance.

Lets take an autodicdate astronomer. He/she does not need any fancy equipment to do science. All he/she needs to do is to buy a decent home telescope and computer and start looking. They may start out small with partaking in volunteer research but they may get a chance to write some papers for small journals and work from there.

Hey, it may take you 20years to be recognized if you work on it but then that's how long PhDs have to work. There is no short cuts.

PS: I may have missed this but I'm just curious lightfire, what do you want to do that is being hampered by the "system" now?

I was denied a permit to run a small salvage operation. I don't know what I want to do, but I'd like to keep it open.

 

[lightfire22000]

Why should I have to take any risk because you're too lazy to come to your 8am calculus class?



Okay, prove it. At your own risk and expense.

No one's stopping them.

As you yourself pointed out, "Also, there are tons and tons of formally credentialed people [...]autodidact(ic?) tendencies." No one's stopping them from proving themselves qualified and taking any job they like.

That's not focusing on legal blocks. That's about their success.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You can tell before it comes to that and if you can't, just don't hire him.

But then you are never giving him a chance.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was denied a permit to run a small salvage operation. I don't know what I want to do, but I'd like to keep it open.

I can't see that you would need a degree for that, but I can see you needing a variety of certifications and certificates. Think of this as proving that you know what you are doing.

 

[ingoa]

As senior scientist in an international lab, former lecturer and attendant of scientific conferences I have encountered my share of autodidacts. Almost every week I get an e-mail by persons that have discovered the secret of the universe. Einstein is always wrong, physics has overlooked some important principle... Yada, yada, yada...

It is impossible to deal with these people on a rational basis. They have never learned to admit mistakes and errors. Part of studying is to recognize the fact that almost nobody is as smart as him/herself believes. And admitting a mistake is a virtue and not a disgrace. If you are contradicting mainstream science the likelihood is high that you are mistaken. I have never met a single "autodidact" in real life that was as good as a decent (not even good) MSc in my area of expertise. Never.

Nevertheless for me degrees are quite unimportant. If a young MSc applies for a job, I take the diploma and look for the supervisor. Then I take the phone and get the supervisors opinion. This is how you get a job in particle physics. (Chances are about 50% that I already know the supervisor.) But most of the time the supervisor calls first. "Dear ingoa, I have a bright young physicist looking for a job..."

In fundamental research a degree is more or less a milestone. A sign that tells you to get another job (elsewhere). Which job it will be depends strongly on the backing of your supervisor. In this respect the situation here is similar to what lightfire22000 wants. Knowledge about the quality of a candidate spreads mouth to mouth. But particle physics is a small town. I guess there are less than 20000 particle physicists on earth.

During the last 15 years I have not hired somebody from the street (except secretary and admin people) without recommendations.