Everyone has a degree. Good or bad?

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yeah, but Welders and "Actuaries" are hardly physicians and lawyers, now are they? It's not one size fits all.

Moving the goal posts. To pass four actuarial exams requires education equivalent to a rigorous 4-year degree (Economics, Math, Demography). To pass all seven requires Econ. Ph.D-level intellect.

Did you read what DrKitten said above? Apparently that method of educating lawyers is in fact, an inferior method by many percentage points.

It does not work (first time) for some. So? Every lawyer who passes the bar through this process saves taxpayers money.
(MK): "Government-subsidized "school" as an institution apart, is a relatively recent idea, except for indoctrination into the State priesthood (Harvard Divinity school). Not much has changed, it seems, except that we now accept 'Sociology', 'Political Science', 'History', and 'Climate Science' as substitutes for 'Divinity'."

Ah, so you're more ideologically motivated rather than expressing concern for a practical solution. That explains a few things..

"Ideological" is an uncomplimentary way to say "systematic" or "principled". Antonyms include "scatter-brained" and "unscrupulous".

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Moving the goal posts.

No, I'm pointing out that they are not the same thing on any fundamental level, so that system can't simply be carbon copied to other professions.

(MK): "Government-subsidized "school" as an institution apart, is a relatively recent idea, except for indoctrination into the State priesthood (Harvard Divinity school). Not much has changed, it seems, except that we now accept 'Sociology', 'Political Science', 'History', and 'Climate Science' as substitutes for 'Divinity'."

Am I supposed to take you seriously after calling "Climate Change" a substitute for "divinity"?

"Ideological" is an uncomplimentary way to say "systematic" or "principled".

I can think of worse...

 

[drkitten]

It does not work (first time) for some. So?

Well, that's evidence that self-study delivers an inferior product.

Every lawyer who passes the bar through this process saves taxpayers money.

Well, by the same token, why don't we arm our soldiers with squirt guns instead of rifles? That will save taxpayers money, too.

The answer, in both cases, is that "saving taxpayers money" by providing an inferior and ineffective product, is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The purpose of public education is to produce an educated public, not to produce a half-educated public for half the cost.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(MK): "Moving the goal posts.To pass four actuarial exams requires education equivalent to a rigorous 4-year degree (Economics, Math, Demography). To pass all seven requires Econ. Ph.D-level intellect."

No,...

Yes. Apprenticeship and examination work for many skilled trades and even for intellectually challenging professions like actuary, diplomat (the Foreign Service) and lawyer.

...I'm pointing out that they are not the same thing on any fundamental level, so that system can't simply be carbon copied to other professions.

You're asserting a fundamental difference.

Am I supposed to take you seriously after calling "Climate Change" a substitute for "divinity"?

Oh, for Gaia's sake!

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Apprenticeship and examination work for many skilled trades and even for intellectually challenging professions like actuary, diplomat (the Foreign Service) and lawyer.

Which is apparently an exceedingly inferior method.

You're asserting a fundamental difference.

Because there is one. An physician and an welder are two very different things.

Oh, for Gaia's sake!

Yeah?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Well, that's evidence that self-study delivers an inferior product.

Weak evidence.

Well, by the same token, why don't we arm our soldiers with squirt guns instead of rifles? That will save taxpayers money, too.

Squirt guns are not as lethal as the M-4. The end product taxpayers seek to purchase is enemy dead.

The answer, in both cases, is that "saving taxpayers money" by providing an inferior and ineffective product, is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The purpose of public education is to produce an educated public, not to produce a half-educated public for half the cost.

You don't know that lawyers who trained through apprenticeship are inferior. What you have established is that applicants who apprenticed did not pass at the same rate as applicants who sat through three years of classes.
The purpose of the tax-supported US K-PhD school system is:
a) To provide employment for dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel
b) To provide padded construction and supply contracts to politically-connected insiders
c) To provide a venue for State-worshipful indoctrination.

This is my basic text:
Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999; 11: 115 - 138.

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

 

[Varanid]

I've had an independent observer mention he had noticed the difference in the work output of a degreed engineer and one who had risen to the job level through experience, no degree.
He said the degreed output was more impressive.
I worked with the people he was talking about, and yes, the experienced guys were good nuts and bolts people, very capable, but the degreed guys would be better in making the decisions as to which nuts and bolts needed attention.

Anecdotal, as is my response below.

I finally quit caring about obtaining a degree after I spoke with a dozen or so recent graduates of a master's program in my field. My real world experience, self initiated education, and gumption easily seemed to trump their years of hand holding.

Now that I am doing the hiring, I certainly don't hold a degree against an applicant, but I am always more interested in people that were able to achieve their education without being spoon fed.

Obviously, the skill / knowledge set is the important criteria, but how they achieve this speaks to the individual.

 

[Varanid]

I think gaining a 4-year degree at the very least shows the person can set a goal in the future, and achieve that.
Which is superior to the will-o-the-wisps McDonalds workers.

Viewed another way, taking the initiative to educate yourself over X amount of years also demonstrates the capacity to set and achieve goals.

In fact, I would argue that the non-traditional route demonstrates a higher capacity to set and achieve goals. Assuming of course, that the person in question has achieved a quality education sans a 4 year degree.

 

[drkitten]

Viewed another way, taking the initiative to educate yourself over X amount of years also demonstrates the capacity to set and achieve goals.

No, and that's one of the problems. Autodidacts have a validation problem; many of them merely demonstrate that they have the capacity to fool themselves into thinking they have achieved goals.

E.g., the vast majority of "law readers" in Virginia, who feel they have mastered the principles of the law, but demonstrably haven't. Very few people sit the bar exam who don't think they can pass -- that's a very expensive and unpleasant way to spend an otherwise unoccupied day.

The question becomes -- if the bar exam and licensure were not in place, how many of those "law readers" would be trying to practice law right now and be incompetent at it?

Assuming of course, that the person in question has achieved a quality education sans a 4 year degree.

... but that's exactly the point; that's not an assumption that most people are willing to make for any given person. If you want to explain that through self-study and personal initiative, you have achieved an understanding of physics that transcends what most physics Ph.D.'s have, I'm not going to take your unsupported word for it. Show me validation. Show me your journal articles. Show me your prizes. Show me the practice of physics.

Hell, look at this forum alone. We've got too many "cranks" as it is, telling us that every academic discipline from physics to chemistry to economics to medicine is wrong, and that they're the subject of a conspiracy to preserve the lies as taught in school.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Autodidacts have a validation problem; many of them merely demonstrate that they have the capacity to fool themselves into thinking they have achieved goals.

E.g., the vast majority of "law readers" in Virginia, who feel they have mastered the principles of the law, but demonstrably haven't. Very few people sit the bar exam who don't think they can pass -- that's a very expensive and unpleasant way to spend an otherwise unoccupied day.

The question becomes -- if the bar exam and licensure were not in place, how many of those "law readers" would be trying to practice law right now and be incompetent at it?

No one is here (yet) arguing against the bar exam, the LA City Welders' test, the actuary exam sequence. What critics of employment degree requirements and tax subsidization of brick and mortar schools disapprove is any certification process which makes class attendance a necessary condition for a certificate or credential.
(FSM76): "...the non-traditional route demonstrates a higher capacity to set and achieve goals. Assuming of course, that the person in question has achieved a quality education sans a 4 year degree."

... but that's exactly the point; that's not an assumption that most people are willing to make for any given person. If you want to explain that through self-study and personal initiative, you have achieved an understanding of physics that transcends what most physics Ph.D.'s have, I'm not going to take your unsupported word for it.

Please do not do this. You moved the goal post past the strawman. FSM said "4 year degree", not PhD, and no one is asking anyone to take anyone else's unsupported word for anything.

Show me validation. Show me your journal articles. Show me your prizes. Show me the practice of physics.

Darwin had a degree in Theology, not Biology. The Wright brothers were high school dropouts. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Ben Franklin attended school for two years.

 

[Cainkane1]

Everybody having a degree is a pipe dream. I've known people in my life who went to school and when they dropped out they couldn't even read. Everyone having a degree isn't really even necessary anyway. There are many interesting careers and jobs in society which require no degree. I'm sure they exist but I doubt seriously if your average plumber has a Phd.

 

[drkitten]

Darwin had a degree in Theology, not Biology.

And he also had several dozen monographs on biology even before Origin was published.

Need I point out that you're not Darwin? That no one except Darwin is Darwin?

The Wright brothers were high school dropouts.

And also had a functional airplane.

Need I point out that your're not the Wright Brothers, either?

If your argument is that one person in a thousand can achieve notable success without formal schooling, then you're right but not relevant.

If your argument is that to benefit that one person, we should screw over the other nine hundred ninety nine, then you're not even right.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Darwin had a degree in Theology, not Biology. The Wright brothers were high school dropouts. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. Cyrus McCormick was homeschooled. Ben Franklin attended school for two years.

And all of your examples are as DrKittne puts it, exceptions to the rule. They also tend to be from at least 100 years ago, and Ben Franklin being centuries ago. Would you really trust a surgeon who just read medical textbooks in his spare time?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Need I point out that you're not Darwin? That no one except Darwin is Darwin?...Need I point out that your're not the Wright Brothers, either?

Need I point out that you're moving the goal posts again? I establish that people accept real performance as a credential. The best credential, really.

If your argument is that one person in a thousand can achieve notable success without formal schooling, then you're right but not relevant. If your argument is that to benefit that one person, we should screw over the other nine hundred ninety nine, then you're not even right.

My argument is this:
1. Certification processes that mandate class time create incentives for those who conduct classes and bill taxpayers to expand student residence time in school.
2. Certification processes that mandate class time create precedents which those who conduct classes and bill taxpayers will use to expand the range of occupations subject to occupational licensure which require time in school.
3. Credit-by-exam saves taxpayers' money and students' time.
4. Credit-by-exam limits the potential for abuse by instructors.
5. The arguments for tax subsidization of K-PhD instruction are weak. The arguments for State operation of schools are weaker still. The education industry is not a natural monopoly. Beyond a very low level there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education industry as it currently operates. Education only mareginally qualifies as a public good as economists use the term and the "public goods" argument implies subsidy and regulation, at most, not State operation of an induustry. The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education", and the State's definition will then bind students, teachers, taxpayers, and employers.

I recommended Ivar Berg's Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery.
Here's a review.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And all of your examples are as DrKittne puts it, exceptions to the rule. They also tend to be from at least 100 years ago, and Ben Franklin being centuries ago.

The current obsession with academic credentials is the exception to the rule, over historical time.

Would you really trust a surgeon who just read medical textbooks in his spare time?

Strawman. I certainly would trust someone who learned surgery through apprenticeship to a veterinarian at age 12, apprenticeship as a surgical nurse at 18, and apprenticeship to an established surgical practice at 26. Above most of today's MDs.

Please explain "argument from antiquity". You used the phrase.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

The current obsession with academic credentials is the exception to the rule, over historical time.

So is personal hygiene.

Strawman. I certainly would trust someone who learned surgery through apprenticeship to a veterinarian at age 12, apprenticeship as a surgical nurse at 18, and apprenticeship to an established surgical practice at 26. Above most of today's MDs.

Are you referring to someone specific here? Some surgeon that practiced 300 years ago?

Please explain "argument from antiquity". You used the phrase.

It's the argument that "if it made sense in the past, it makes sense now", a fallacy you're very guilty of.

Example "Herbal medicine works, we've used it for thousands of years". Reality "When we used herbal medicine, we died like flies, with modern medicine, we've greatly expanded human health and lifespan"

 

[drkitten]

So is personal hygiene.

And effective treatments for bacterial infections.

Example "Herbal medicine works, we've used it for thousands of years". Reality "When we used herbal medicine, we died like flies, with modern medicine, we've greatly expanded human health and lifespan"

But for some reason, that argument doesn't apply to medical school?

"Medical education by apprenticeship works, we've used it for thousands of years." Reality is that when doctors were trained by apprenticeship, we died like flies. Now we have a panorama of drugs that let us treat many more diseases, but the panorama is far to complex to pick up via apprenticeship.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

But for some reason, that argument doesn't apply to medical school?

"Medical education by apprenticeship works, we've used it for thousands of years." Reality is that when doctors were trained by apprenticeship, we died like flies. Now we have a panorama of drugs that let us treat many more diseases, but the panorama is far to complex to pick up via apprenticeship.

Yes, of course it would, no need to be rude about it though...

But thank you for putting it better than I did

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

It's the argument that "if it made sense in the past, it makes sense now", a fallacy you're very guilty of.

Flat false. Garrison asked for examples of exam-based certification and apprenticeship-based instruction in fields now served by post-secondary schools and I provided them (law, medicine, actuaries). I do not make the argument he "quotes".

Example "Herbal medicine works, we've used it for thousands of years". Reality "When we used herbal medicine, we died like flies, with modern medicine, we've greatly expanded human health and lifespan"

Whom do you quote, here? Speaking of fallacious arguments, how 'bout post hoc, ergo propter hoc? Before the detonation of the atomic bomb, the world's population was under three billion. It is now over 7 billion. Like, the bomb caused population growth?

Neither Kitten nor Garrison addressed the argument about class time being expensive. If class time really makes a difference to test performance (the bar exam, supposedly), then legal requirements of class time for a credential or occupational license serve no useful purpose as screening devices; you could use the exam alone. If class time makes no difference, what is the argument for it? I see legally-enforced rent-seeking by college professors.

(Garrison): "Would you really trust a surgeon who just read medical textbooks in his spare time?"
(MK): "I certainly would trust someone who learned surgery through apprenticeship to a veterinarian at age 12, apprenticeship as a surgical nurse at 18, and apprenticeship to an established surgical practice at 26. Above most of today's MDs."

Are you referring to someone specific here? Some surgeon that practiced 300 years ago?

Today, I would trust someone with the medical education I described. The corpsman on my ship thirty years ago went through the Navy's training program then worked his way up. He was our only medical care provider, authorized to set bones, administer antibiotics, and even to perform some surgeries.

School is a means, not an end in itself.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Reality is that when doctors were trained by apprenticeship, we died like flies. Now we have a panorama of drugs that let us treat many more diseases, but the panorama is far to complex to pick up via apprenticeship.

Medical schools did not create antibiolics. Medical schools did not build wastewater treatment plants. Louis Pasteur was a chemist, not an MD. Why suppose that profit-motivated hospitals would pay no attention to successful therapies? Why suppose that hospital staff would pay no attention to professional development? Somehow, paying $30,000 tuition for the privilege of kissing some professor's
toes is supposed to generate more interest in professional development than working around colleagues? There's a gaping hole in the argument for school, seems to me.