Credentialism versus Autodidacticism

Post Reply New Topic

The thing is, I think that the general ed requirements are one of the *benefits* of credentialed education. It forces people to be a little more well-rounded than they would otherwise be. Even if that's harmful to a few, it benefits society in general to have people who can relate to more than their specialized field.

The inherent conception of the OP is that credentials supplied by higher educational facilities are basically worthless and provide no clue to the capabilities of the possessor. Frankly, that seems to me unlikely although it seems very possible to be true in a small number of cases. But if this were the general condition all sophisticated operating organizations would quickly cease to function.

That's the idea behind such requirements, but let's be real... in practice general education requirements are just complete BS that no one takes seriously and no one really gets anything out of them. People sit through an English lit course or Greek mythology course, and immediately upon walking out of the final exam forget everything they "learned" in the class. The classes themselves are watered down because everyone has to take them, so you get relatively large class sizes and professors whoare just going through the motions because they know the students don't care anyways.

I'm so glad I don't have to waste my time with gen eds.

Consider this:

There are two competing factors for the usage of time in college: studying the material versus completion of assignments. The studying of materials increases difficulty with increasing length of reading assignments. The completion of written assignments (which are the only items graded, and thus the only items containing value in relation to the GPA) increases difficulty with increasing complexity of the tasks. When there is much to read and much to write, the writing takes priority unless a student wishes to allow their grades to decrease due to utilization of time for studying. In economic terms, the opportunity cost of time for studying is in opposition to the opportunity cost of time for completion of written assignments and the use of time for studying conveys no benefit for grades whereas the usage of time for churning out busywork does.

Your argument is premised on the undemonstrated assumption that one can satisfactorily complete assignments without studying the material. I don't know what kind of classes you have taken at the college level, but this has not been true in my courses. Studying the material is the fastest way to be able to complete the assigments.

There is no doubt that individuals differ widely in their abilities to comprehend and integrate new material but when an employer is hiring he needs some sort of validation of competence. For a self studier to present himself on his own cognizance is obviously insufficient. It's as simple as that.

Depends if by studying you mean a point by point reference to the text as it pertains to assignments or if you mean in-depth studying for the retention of knowledge rather than a short term usage in order to get a grade.

There are credentials available for people who have the ability to teach themselves, and they cost a lot less than throwing $500 per credit hour into the cash absorption scheme otherwise known as college. For example, A+ certification (a computer repair certificate) costs $168 per test and there are two tests, meaning $336 for the total costs of the tests. The textbooks available for it currently costs up to $80 on Amazon for one of the more expensive ones. That's a total of $336 + $80 = $416 total. At Rasmussen College, they divide the A+ textbook into two classes each worth 3 credit hours, meaning 6 credit hours total. It is about $500 per credit hour, so that is $500 per credit hour times 6 credit hours equaling $3,000 for the chance to rush through an A+ certification textbook and not even take the exams, whereas the price of studying autodidactically plus price of exams is $416, so which is a better financial investment?

Which is the better investment depends on what employers want. If employers consistently prefer to hire the candidate who both took the courses and the test, then the courses are a better investment. If the employer shows no preference, then test-only is the better investment.

The course, itself, is worth only the cost of the textbook. Also, notice that it depends upon what the employers want as they are not all the same mindless automaton but each judges according to their own sets of criteria. There are some general rules regarding psychological traits employers discriminate against -such as pessimism and introversion - however, there are exceptions to even these. Using Sand's variety of logic, any exception invalidates a rule.

Perhaps it's a case where those who need an instructor are also those intelligent enough to act as cash cows for colleges. A person needs an instructor about as much as an instructor needs a job, although it's not really the instructors who are absorbing the vast bulk of the $24,000 per year of financial aid (at Rasmussen anyhow) but people within the higher ranks of the pyramid scheme bureaucracy of the "higher education" institution. Also, their advertising fund, having billboards and an ad on each channel of, at least, broadcast TV every five minutes during the day in the Twin Cities, and their musical offices fund, and their new building fund probably also would tend to absorb a high percentage of the money that's, at least seemingly to me, not spent on education related expenses such as getting textbooks which are better than this load of crap: http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Beyond/d ... 526&sr=1-1

This is really a whole other issue but employers may be biased by the "brand name" of the expensive instutute issuing the degree. There's always going to be a bias towards people with expensive ivy-league issued degrees that is completely independent of actual knowledge and ability qualifying one for the job. This is essentially discrimination based on economic class. I tend to agree with iamnotaparakeet that the system based on expensive credentialism really isn't fair. It may be something that works on the macro-scale in terms of broad statistics, but there are is a significant minority for which the system is slanted against.

a) It probably depends on the field, but most of the time there isn't that great an advantage to an Ivy League degree. In any area where actual competence is relevant, there are much more important things than your alma mater's US News ranking.
b) The Ivy League isn't expensive. All of those schools have a very generous need-based financial aid system set up such that no one who is accepted will have to decline admission for financial reasons. Had I gone Ivy League (and it was an option for me) I would not be paying any more than the local state university wanted from me. It might even have been cheaper.


Instead we should have a system based on people saying "Oh yeah, I know particle physics, I read a book about it once" to decide who gets to handle the expensive equipment at CERN? Or anyone who borrowed some law books from the library can dispense legal advice? Maybe I'll just read up on human anatomy on Wikipedia and become a physician based on that. Is there an "Open-heart surgery for dummies" book out yet?

There are problems in the current system. But the solution is to try to modify that system to fix its problems (mainly by making it more accessible and affordable), not replace it with something completely useless.

The System is broken because it is a system which draws in system people to run it.

Accreditation does not guarantee competence

Credentials say nothing as to qualification.

In most fields with which I am familiar, EITHER:

you become competent before you enter the program, then writhe in discomfort as you jump through hoops for the license,

OR

you work the program, get the license, THEN become competent as you practice.

Check out the routine by which one actually gets to be a brain surgeon - which goes far beyond serve the time / get the paper.

Compare that with getting to be a teacher.

The system will nnot be fixed because it is a system in a paper-trail addicted society.

Are you saying schooling and apprentice training is useless?

ruveyn