Everyone has a degree. Good or bad?

[Garrison0fMars]

Medical schools did not create antibiolics.

I see the point flew over your head. As usual

 

[Varanid]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your tone, but I feel a bit insulted (surely not the first or last time...no worries).

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.

Uh, I have no validation problem. I am an autodidact. I have 15 years experience proving it (and getting paid well for it- that is to say well paid for my field-lol).
I am not a working at CERN, but that is only a difference of degree (no pun intended). The same truths would hold. If inbred-Jed walks out of the forest and is able to better analyze the data than a PHD, well, then he is better able to analyze the data.

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?

That is exactly the point, who cares how an attorney achieved his knowledge set- the point is they either did or did not achieve it. For that matter, all degrees are not created equal, who decides which ones are valid?

... 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.

That is a 'them' or 'you' problem. Use whatever criteria you choose to help decide the intellectual prowess of the person in question. You should critically evaluate the person in question, however, a 4 year (PHD, etc.) is only one possible criteria. In my opinion, a poor criteria.

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.

Did you know that Patrick Ewing has a degree from Georgetown University in Fine Art? Would you feel comfortable describing him as an 'authority' on the subject?

Why not? He has a degree from a very prestigious school. But, I would hope that you would agree there isn't much 'intellectual' about Mr. Ewing (no disrespect intended, just calling it like I see it). Remember that the next time you hear about someone with a degree from Georgetown. Patrick Ewing graduated from the same school. Must be tough....

For that matter, Mike Vick went to Virginia Tech. I have seen Mike Vick speak in person- not a good endorsement for the school. No he didn't graduate, but he was there for a couple of years. So by this logic he surely must be better educated than me (for example).

It isn't just athletes, it is people that apply for jobs from me, colleagues I work with, etc. There are many, many, many uneducated folks walking around with a 4 year (or more advanced) degree.

Of course, one could also find geniuses that graduated from these schools. So maybe, just maybe, there is a better indicator of intelligence or knowledge set than a 4 year degree.

 

[Mark6]

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

If he passed same exam as every other surgeon, why not? That seems to be the thrust of Malcolm's argument, and I happen to agree with it. Now, as to how many self-taught people nowadays actually COULD pass medical certification... my guess is very few.

I actually like the idea that degree -- any degree, not just law or medicine, -- should be awarded by a body independent of any university, and it should not matter whether the applicant spent 4 years at Harvard, 2 years at No Name College, or 10 years at a library. As things stand now, universities have a conflict of interest -- they teach people, and they award degrees. They have an incentive to award degree whether applicant deserves it or not.

But I recognize that under such system vast majority of degree recipients still will NOT be autodidacts, and it does not in any way conflict with government subsidizing higher education.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

If he passed same exam as every other surgeon, why not? That seems to be the thrust of Malcolm's argument, and I happen to agree with it. Now, as to how many self-taught people nowadays actually COULD pass medical certification... my guess is very few.

I actually like the idea that degree -- any degree, not just law or medicine, -- should be awarded by a body independent of any university, and it should not matter whether the applicant spent 4 years at Harvard, 2 years at No Name College, or 10 years at a library. As things stand now, universities have a conflict of interest -- they teach people, and they award degrees. They have an incentive to award degree whether applicant deserves it or not.

But I recognize that under such system vast majority of degree recipients still will NOT be autodidacts, and it does not in any way conflict with government subsidizing higher education.

Sure, I'd trust them if they had to pass the same exam as everyone else. Though it may be rather problematic for a surgeons education, since doesn't that require practice on cadavers? Anyway.. I'd support allowing those alternatives for all degrees, we do it in some cases for law and I think throughout the US with general bachelors degrees (you can test out with CLEP I believe). However, your position is far more nuanced than Kirkpatrick's. He's not only advocating the unrealistic position that it should replace the entire higher education model as it is today, his position seems to be derived from a mix of extreme libertarianism and/or paleoconservative position and tinfoil kookery, since in his mind schools are there to produce union "due paying" satanist homosexuals or whatever, and not derived out of any objective position that it would improve education.

But anyway, should it be an option for those who really can pull it off? Sure, absolutely. It's not a replacement though for our education system at large though.

 

[Mark6]

since in his mind schools are there to produce union "due paying" satanist homosexuals or whatever

Curse you!

I was drinking coffee when I read that... and now must clean my desk!

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Curse you!

I was drinking coffee when I read that... and now must clean my desk!

Sorry about that!

 

[drkitten]

But anyway, should it be an option for those who really can pull it off?

Well, I find it interesting that at least some people on this thread who are complaining about the existing educational institutions are doing so on a cost-effectiveness basis.

Evidently it's more cost-effective to take ten years "reading law" on your own so that you can fail the bar exam, then it is to pay money to a professional to teach you sufficiently well that you'll pass?

If I ran a private, for-profit law school that could only achieve a 23% pass rate on the local bar exam, in most of the world I would be shut down by the local government under consumer protection laws. I am essentially taking money and time from my students by making the entirely unrealistic promise that they'll learn law from me. I'd certainly lose my accreditation when the local professional organization like the ABA looked at my standards.

Indeed, that's what the whole "for profit" college mess currently before the US government is about -- too many colleges are offering meaningless "programs" for which they charge exorbitant fees, knowing that most of the students are neither qualified nor likely to complete, and that even the graduates will be unable to find work in the fields that were advertised to them.

So it's deeply unfair if any individual agents holds out unrealistic promises of educational attainment for a program,.... but if "we as society" collectively hold out promises of educational attainment for autodidacticism as a whole, that's something not only fair, but something we should aspire to?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Well, I find it interesting that at least some people on this thread who are complaining about the existing educational institutions are doing so on a cost-effectiveness basis.

I'm not making that argument though, only Kirk Tinfoil hat in an airtight bunker Patrick is making such an argument, and it's a disingenuous one at that. He doesn't care about cost effectiveness, but about getting "gubmint" out of the education process.

Evidently it's more cost-effective to take ten years "reading law" on your own so that you can fail the bar exam, then it is to pay money to a professional to teach you sufficiently well that you'll pass?

I'd never make that argument. However, if someone can demonstrate the same knowledge that someone who went through the traditional higher ed system, and can pass the same exams and overall demonstrate similar proficiency, why not? I mean, if such an individual can do so by shaking around a couple of chickens while chanting incoherent slogans to Zeus, I wouldn't care, as long as they can objectively prove they are proficient in X profession.

Indeed, that's what the whole "for profit" college mess currently before the US government is about -- too many colleges are offering meaningless "programs" for which they charge exorbitant fees, knowing that most of the students are neither qualified nor likely to complete, and that even the graduates will be unable to find work in the fields that were advertised to them.

Agreed, and it's why I called Kirkpatrick out on his idiotic proposal to let the "University of Phoenix" administrate such exams. They're part of the problem, not the solution.

it's deeply unfair if any individual agents holds out unrealistic promises of educational attainment for a program,.... but if "we as society" collectively hold out promises of educational attainment for autodidacticism as a whole, that's something not only fair, but something we should aspire to?

I don't think it's a matter of we as a society collectively holding out a promise for autodidacticism, but that if you can demonstrate the same knowledge and proficiency, why does it matter where it necessarily came from? While it's not a system that can be adopted by society as a whole, it does work for some people. The 23% that pass the bar exam I'm guessing afterwards practice law, yes?

So, do I think it should be an option for those that can, and want to do it that way? Sure, but they have to pass the same tests, and portray the same proficiency as the traditional students as well.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...your position is far more nuanced than Kirkpatrick's. He's not only advocating the unrealistic position that it should replace the entire higher education model as it is today...

Ummmm...I'm usually pretty careful with this "should" business.

...his position seems to be derived from a mix of extreme libertarianism and/or paleoconservative position and tinfoil kookery, since in his mind schools are there to produce union "due paying" satanist homosexuals or whatever, and not derived out of any objective position that it would improve education.

"Seems to be"? That's strange.

...But anyway, should it be an option for those who really can pull it off? Sure, absolutely. It's not a replacement though for our education system at large though.

I agree with this "should", I expect.
I have been trying to decide where we disagree (aside from about the style in which we conduct this discussion). Defenders of credential policies which require attendance at school have a strange burden of proof, how to answer the following question: "What information can brick-and-morter schools impart that libraries and on-the-job training not impart?"
As Wittgenstein concluded in his Tractatus: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof must one express onesself through plastic arts, music, and interpretive dance." Something like that, anyway.

I'm not making that argument though, only Kirk Tinfoil hat in an airtight bunker Patrick is making such an argument, and it's a disingenuous one at that. He doesn't care about cost effectiveness, but about getting "gubmint" out of the education process.

Joe College here learned the Academicese for "liar": "disingenuous". If you had a stronger argument than insults, I expect you'd make it. Since you haven't...

Agreed, and it's why I called Kirkpatrick out on his idiotic proposal to let the "University of Phoenix" administrate such exams. They're part of the problem, not the solution.

Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher than per-unit costs of colleges operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, after you include tax subsidies?

I don't think it's a matter of we as a society collectively holding out a promise for autodidacticism, but that if you can demonstrate the same knowledge and proficiency, why does it matter where it necessarily came from? While it's not a system that can be adopted by society as a whole, it does work for some people. The 23% that pass the bar exam I'm guessing afterwards practice law, yes?

So, do I think it should be an option for those that can, and want to do it that way? Sure, but they have to pass the same tests, and portray the same proficiency as the traditional students as well.

That's enough agreement for me. The current system would not survive a legislated requirement that tax-supported colleges and government agencies accept credits and degrees earned through exams. The opportunity costs to students of the time they spend in school would kill classroom-based instruction, I expect.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

If you had a stronger argument than insults, I expect you'd make it. Since you haven't...

Because someone like you is meant to be ridiculed, not debated.

Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher than per-unit costs of colleges operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, after you include tax subsidies?

Yes I am. Especially since UoP is one of the biggest tax guzzlers in the nation.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Well, I find it interesting that at least some people on this thread who are complaining about the existing educational institutions are doing so on a cost-effectiveness basis.

As opposed to what other sort of criticism?

Evidently it's more cost-effective to take ten years "reading law" on your own so that you can fail the bar exam, then it is to pay money to a professional to teach you sufficiently well that you'll pass?

Depends on how much you got paid as a legal aide, how much law school cost you and the taxpayers, how much you will earn as a lawyer, and how much lawyers are worth to society, seems to me.

If I ran a private, for-profit law school that could only achieve a 23% pass rate on the local bar exam, in most of the world I would be shut down by the local government under consumer protection laws.

That would depend on how much you charged, wouldn't it?

I am essentially taking money and time from my students by making the entirely unrealistic promise that they'll learn law from me. I'd certainly lose my accreditation when the local professional organization like the ABA looked at my standards.

Accreditation agencies have serious conflicts-of-interest.

Indeed, that's what the whole "for profit" college mess currently before the US government is about -- too many colleges are offering meaningless "programs" for which they charge exorbitant fees, knowing that most of the students are neither qualified nor likely to complete, and that even the graduates will be unable to find work in the fields that were advertised to them.

Can anyone say "Women's Studies"? "Ethnic Studies"? I thought so.

So it's deeply unfair if any individual agents holds out unrealistic promises of educational attainment for a program,.... but if "we as society" collectively hold out promises of educational attainment for autodidacticism as a whole, that's something not only fair, but something we should aspire to?

Across industries, monopolies deliver poor products at high prices, relative to competitive industries, and subsidized goods are over-consumed. The State has a serious conflict of interest when it simultaneously operates and regulates schools. The current political attack on for-profit schools is payback to politically loyal faculty in government-operated universities.

 

[drkitten]

Across industries, monopolies deliver poor products at high prices,

Which would be at all relevant if higher education were in any way shape or form a monopoly. Higher education is fiercely competitive as any admissions officer will tell you.

 

[Mark6]

Which would be at all relevant if higher education were in any way shape or form a monopoly. Higher education is fiercely competitive as any admissions officer will tell you.

Then why do so few of them advertise on the basis of lower cost?

That actually does happen, but very rarely AFAICT.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(MK): "If you had a stronger argument than insults, I expect you'd make it. Since you haven't... "

Because someone like you is meant to be ridiculed, not debated.

If I had as little to support my side, I suppose I might feel the same way.
(MK): "Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher than per-unit costs of colleges operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, after you include tax subsidies?"

Yes I am. Especially since UoP is one of the biggest tax guzzlers in the nation.

Let's see:
Table 352.
Revenues of public degree-granting institutions, by source of revenue and type of institution: 2003-04 through 2006-07
2006-2007___$268,556,045,000
Table 356. Total revenues of private not-for-profit degree-granting institutions
2006-2007___$182,381,275,000
Table 357 Total revenue of private for-profit degree granting institutions
2006-2007___$13,978,218,000

private (total) = $196,359,493,000
Table 190. Enrollment, 2006-2007
public = 13,180,133
private = 4,578,737
Table 193. Total enrollment by control and type of institutions
All students
a = total = 18,248,128
b = public = 13,490,780
c = private(total) = 4,757,348
d = private not-for-profit = 3,571,150
c-d = 1,186,198

Table 194. Enrollment, 2008
public = 13,972,153
private = 5,130,661
non-profit = 3,661,519
for-profit = 1,469,142

Revenues over enrollment:...
public = 268,556,045,000/13,490,780 = $19,906.65
private (total) = (182,381,275,000+13,978,218,000)/(4,757,348) = $ 41,274.99
not-for-profit = 182,381,275,000/3,571,150 = $51,070.74
for-profit = 13,978,218,000/1,186,198 = $11,784

Unless I pushed the wrong calculator buttons, it looks like for-profits operate at lower per-pupil costs.

Now, some will object to the use of figures from different years (2006-2007 revenue and 2008 enrollment) but unless these changed systematically in favor of the public sector, the resulting rank will not change. Some might object that not("enrolment"="graduate"). Again, unless there is a systematic difference between public-sector institutions and private institutions, the rank will not change.

Some may also object that elite not-for-profits like Harvard and public research universities also support research. This makes sense. It constitutes an argument for separating the research functions from instruction. That's a large argument in itself. Some academic economists have argued for a move away from employment of scholars and toward prizes as a way to generate research. That's how the British government motivated the solution to the problem of determining longitude. See Dava Sobel's Longitude.

Anyway, these figures do not support Garrison's argument that for-profit institution per-unit costs are higher. Anyone have a better way to get at this?

 

[mike3]

Wouldn't having a degree also have a collateral effect of changing behaviours?

Beyond the "more educated" aspect of the degree outcome, increased ability to organise, work with others, or plan work better could also be a useful result.

However, why couldn't such things be acquired or taught through different means?

 

[mike3]

Correct. In Australia, at least, science graduates have amonst the highest employability rates - just not in scientific fields. The skills and disciplines gained along the way makes them highly valued employees. I currently do business with an organisation which "enbeds" science graduates in companies to give the company new perspectives.

However, the problem is that not everyone has the mental faculty(?) necessary to do science good. So then there must be some other method to gain the other stuff, which seems more important and that, I believe, is what "everyone should get", while the degrees themselves may not be. Indeed, to make everyone get it one may have to cheapen ("dumb down") the programs, and that would ruin it for the people who _can_ do good.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Unless I pushed the wrong calculator buttons, it looks like for-profits operate at lower per-pupil costs.

Well, given I never made such a claim, your numbers are kind of meaningless in context. I thought you were referring to tuition at for-profit colleges, which are usually more expensive than their public counterpart.

However, keep in mind for profit universities like UoP have terrible graduation rates (currently at a ridiculously low rate of 15%), while being some of the biggest recipients of federal financial aid, like Pell Grants and Stanford loans. Seems they take in more federal tax dollars than they pay out (graduated students) Honestly, your per cost pupil numbers mean little to me if the majority of that money is going into students who will not graduate, and thus bay back that "reduced" cost.

Students at for-profit institutions represent only 9% of all college students, but receive roughly 25% of all Federal Pell Grants and loans, and are responsible for 44% of all student loan defaults. http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=56473

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(MK): "Are you sure that UoP's per-unit (graduate) costs are higher than per-unit costs of colleges operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, after you include tax subsidies?"

Yes I am. Especially since UoP is one of the biggest tax guzzlers in the nation.

...Anyway, these figures do not support Garrison's argument that for-profit institution per-unit costs are higher. Anyone have a better way to get at this?

Well, given I never made such a claim, your numbers are kind of meaningless in context. I thought you were referring to tuition at for-profit colleges, which are usually more expensive than their public counterpart.

Really? Is "...after you include tax subsidies" so hard to comprehend?

...However, keep in mind for profit universities like UoP have terrible graduation rates (currently at a ridiculously low rate of 15%), while being some of the biggest recipients of federal financial aid, like Pell Grants and Stanford loans. Seems they take in more federal tax dollars than they pay out (graduated students).

Dunno what you mean by "pay out". However, students who transfer from UoP to a State university will not count as graduates of UoP.

...Honestly, your per cost pupil numbers mean little to me if the majority of that money is going into students who will not graduate, and thus bay back that "reduced" cost.

Students at for-profit institutions represent only 9% of all college students, but receive roughly 25% of all Federal Pell Grants and loans, and are responsible for 44% of all student loan defaults. http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=56473

Pell grants and student loans are a small slice of tax subsidies.

We're drifting far afield from the proposal to license UoP, Kumon, and Sylval Learning Centers to proctor exams for credit in government-authorized courses. Why would competition not reduce the cost of unsubsidized administration of exams? Why would this not cost less than a 16 week semester at the feet of a $300/hr. State U professor?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Dunno what you mean by "pay out"

As in graduation rates, as I said above. As in worth the money we put in, so it doesn't get sucked into a black hole like UoP is. What's so hard to understand there?

Why would competition not reduce the cost of unsubsidized administration of exams? Why would this not cost less than a 16 week semester at the feet of a $300/hr. State U professor?

We've already been through that. A system replacement like that would be inferior by all counts, DrKitten has already addressed it. Also I could easily see those "unsubsidized" administrative exam institutions becoming degree mills, practically giving them away to anyone who pays.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

As in graduation rates, as I said above. As in worth the money we put in, so it doesn't get sucked into a black hole like UoP is. What's so hard to understand there?

If public-sector per-pupil costs exceed for-profit per pupil costs, public-sector "pay-out" is less in the public sector.
(MK): "Why would competition not reduce the cost of unsubsidized administration of exams? Why would this not cost less than a 16 week semester at the feet of a $300/hr. State U professor?"

We've already been through that. A system replacement like that would be inferior by all counts, DrKitten has already addressed it.

Where? Not in the Bar exam discussion; that related to the relative effectiveness of apprenticeship training versus law school instruction on the same exam. So, ...where?

Also I could easily see those "unsubsidized" administrative exam institutions becoming degree mills, practically giving them away to anyone who pays.

a) Sounds like any State school's Ethnic Studies or Women's Studies program.
b) There is always the risk of fraud: that schools will alter tests if students pay enough. It would be easier to police this fraud than to police the fraud of a wasted semester in vapid university classes.