Credentialism versus Autodidacticism

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not a college professor, but I am active in changing the world one piano student at a time.

And yes, I've spent way more than a generally respectable amount of time in the desk. Going back for more looks a little bit better every day.

Here's my philosophy on teaching/learning in terms of how I approach my students, bearing in mind that I believe what I teach is a skill rather than a memorized set of information. Basically, if you don't feel I'm teaching enough, don't hesitate in the slightest to study and practice what it is you DO want. I know autodidacticism to be good practice because in the earliest stages of my own development it worked best for ME. Hence I try to differentiate between the mediocre book-learners who will always be mediocre, the loose cannons, and the book-learners who are ready to REALLY reach out and do some amazing things. My greatest successes are always the loose cannons (if I can hang onto them long enough, and if they absorb the techniques I try to teach them) and the book-learners on the edge of greatness. These aren't necessarily the kids their regular classroom teachers would say are the "smartest. But on some level they are aware that there is more to life than "the rules."

The ONLY reason why I went back to a piano teacher myself after I'd quit for a few years is that I had a desire to learn a specific set of information and develop specific kinds of skills, and I knew that to do what I wanted to do would require someone who HAD spent much of their lives sharpening those skills in an upper-level institution. I had no way to get that information or develop those skills on my own, and I was prepared to conquer the world within two or three weeks of that. Unfortunately (at the time), that also helped me understand things about playing the piano that allowed me to progress much faster than the typical student, so I was forced to actually play in front of PEOPLE. Alas... But while I had good guidance from piano teachers, I pretty much chose what I wanted to do and worked the h3|| out of it.

And of course, there was college, which didn't really teach me all that much that was very useful. It seemed to me that much of what I studied was more like because that's the way everyone else does it and that's the way it's always been done. Goals seem to be oriented more in favor of what the teacher wants for the teacher's sake rather than genuine concern for the academic or real-world success of the student. When I moved to study on the graduate level, I noticed at my new college that FOR THE MOST PART teachers at least PRETENDED to have a vested interest in their students. From time to time I got to sit in on undergrad classes and was just amazed at the relaxed atmosphere and the warmth of the teachers. One of my favorite theory teachers was a Severus Snape kind of character with a dour disdain for voice majors without perfect pitch. Underneath the tough veneer was a kind heart concerned with the success of the student, yet never willing to lower academic standards. Much of what I encountered at that school was encouragement of the students to explore their subject matters, a kind of spirit I found extended beyond the music school. The math and computer science teachers that I got to know as acquaintances enjoyed the close bonds they had with their students and were always helpful.

The advantage that credentialism has over autodidacticism is a certain level of objectivity.

When a potential employer looks at my transcripts, they can place a certain reliance upon those documents as a demonstration of the curriculum that I have been exposed to, and to the results that I have achieved through competitive examination.

That's not to say that the system is perfect. Nor is it to say that an autodidact cannot have a comprehensive understanding of a field of study comparable with a degree holder. But sometimes there is no substitute for the formal course of study that the piece of paper represents.

What if the case is that the understanding of the field of study is what is desired, rather than a mere piece of paper? Could not the autodidact then have the possibility of a superior education?

That would be Rash-Mustard college, or more properly stated, Rasmussen.

Thanks for the humor. It is better to laugh at a situation I cannot change. Well, unless I had ten thousand chickens with choppers.

Well, right, and I think this also is a matter of the people involved. Frankly, I do think autodidacticism can work as a model to some extent, and even further, that even within conventional education, autodidacticism is necessary. Heck, autodidacticism even exists within the highly credentialed elites, who often do become successful with it.

I think a real issue here is that autodidacts are not subject to a selection process, like credentialed individuals are.(no GRE, SAT, or anything like that) Also, the incentives are in favor of credentials if possible, meaning that those capable of getting credentials are going to seek them. Even further, many of them are really just odd people, and those are more likely to have issues. Finally, you are not an unbiased commentator on issues of intelligence at all. In fact, your perspective of intelligence is ridiculously skewed. I think many autodidacts exceed the ability of average college students.(Bachelors) They often do worse than the above average college students. The vast majority cannot compare favorably to a PhD or Masters student.(but then again, the most talented people are more likely to get a credential than not)

Most universities aren't "decent". Even if everyone is fluent in English, a lot of people are not good at giving information on their field.

Even further, you probably have a much more intimate relationship with the vast majority of your professors than the average student. This means that you are yielding benefits that the average person will not receive at all. (that being said, I don't trust insider information too much as I get the strong feeling that this really reflects the professors biases and interests more than the nature of the field itself in some cases. It is still helpful, but, academics are not necessarily unbiased.)

And I intend to keep it that way.


Hasn't been my experience. I've only had one professor I can think of who was genuinely bad at teaching.


Not particularly, actually. That's true with a handful of my professors, maybe, but not most, and the only benefit received is recommendation letters for internships and such, rather than actual learning. The professors are willing to provide extra information or help to any student who sends them an e-mail.


Decent profs typically know that they're biased, and are smart enough to say "this is my view, but here is another view held by other scholars." But I see that more in the history department. In math and biology, it's more of information about what is going on in the research community, what areas have more opportunities in them, how to approach research, etc.

I've taken two general chemistry courses on my own, it was actually the first college level subject which I studied autodidactically. I had my stepdad check my work and grading though, so as to be accountable. It did help a little that he had a bachelor's in chemistry and physics, but for the most part I only pestered him about grading because if I talked with him for too long he'd usually drift of into a soliloquy about the latest things he was programming or testing at work.

What I would like to see done is to have it where proctored examinations of knowledge, skills, and understanding could be taken by anyone regardless of whether they have paid myriads of money for their education or whether they have the ability to teach themselves. If it were possible to just get credentials by examination, and I know such examinations would have to be safeguarded against cheaters, then it would be possible for people who are capable of pushing ahead on their own not to need to have wasted tens to hundreds of thousands of their own, and/or other people's, money upon something which seems as though it is becoming more and more worthless each year. It would be nice just to demonstrate knowledge and comprehension through testing and not have to go through the long drawn out rigmarole of mindless busywork at absurd prices.

I can sum up what i learned in College with one word: USELESS.

School is f*****g boring, teachers does not know how to motivate everyone, and the pace ot the tutoring is adapted to the slowest students. When you are alone, you can go as fast or as slow as you like. Education there is static, and when you finally get a job, you learn quickly that it's either continue to learn - or die.

Nothing on the college level were actually useful in a working environment. Everything that i've found useful i've learned in a higher educational environment - or by myself (my preferable way of learning things). At this day and age, we all can access knowledge at the press of a button (Depending on how good you are to find quality information on the internet), and if you are really interested in a subject, you can learn tonnes more than you would ever be able to learn in school.

Yes, i am mostly autodidactic, i prefer to play around with things to see how they work, to dive into subjects of my interests and explore things in their true nature.

Some people cannot handle that freedom and has to attend educational institutions and be spoon fed with dry, boring information. Some people are idiots.

Is that a "cows with guns" reference perhaps?

Precisely.

As I said, it is possible that an autodidact has a comprehensive knowledge of a field. But it is equally possible that the autodidact does not. A credential is a statement from a third party that says, "this person followed our prescribed course of study and performed satisfactorily." An autodidact has no one's statement but his own.

I have degrees in Mathematics, Medicine and Law. Certainly the first could have been accomplished on my own, although I would have been extremely challenged to complete my thesis satisfactorily without the assistance of an advisor.

However, neither my MD nor my LLB could have been completed autodidactically. Both involved significant amounts of socratic, seminar and small group learning that could not have been accomplished alone.

Learning is not merely the accumulation and recall of fact.

Correct, knowledge is not the only important aspect of education, but also understanding and skills related to the field of study as well. None of these require an hundred thousand dollar bill to obtain.

There are ways to obtain a formal education without paying large amounts of money for it. I will soon graduate from a top-50 university without having paid a dime for tuition. After that, I go on to graduate school, where I will also receive an excellent education without paying for tuition.

But to your substantive point... mastering and understanding those skills often does require the help of professors, interactions with other students, and access to the resources that a university has. The professors and the university's resources cost money. Unless you can convince someone else that it is worthwhile for them to fund your education, you are going to end up accumulating a bill. But it is at least a good investment.