Print Story Knowledge and Education
Diary
By cam (Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 05:51:07 AM EST) knowledge, education, recognising skills (all tags)
I think we all agree knowledge and education are good. But how does paying to be more educated come into it? At what point are we prepared to pay money to say we know it (or will know it?) and others will recognise we know it?


I am willing to bet that the formally recognized aspect of human knowledge and education is about one percent. For instance the high school diplomas, university degrees etc etc etc which are all formal recognition of that we have been tested on an area of knowledge, make up probably one percent of our actual knowledge. If not less.

Yet the formal recognition of knowledge has a massive effect on an individuals future. People with degrees simply earn more than people who don't.

But people have hobbies, interests, moonlighting, tasks etc etc. People know subjects and areas of human achievement in great detail. Often writing about it, meeting others on those issues, producing physical output, passing on those skills etc etc. Yet none of this knowledge is formalised in anyway.

It is still valid knowledge.

Much of this knowledge is applicable to the labor market too, yet because it is going unrecognised formally, that knowledge, skills etc is being lost to the labor market.

So is the very small area of education that employers are willing to recognise as valid knowledge forcing inefficiencies in the labor market and economy?

So when does education and knowledge become recognisable? When is it recognised socially? Culturally? Economically? By the labor market?

What level of testing or output is necessary for others to recognise this existing knowledge, or people who are learning in area?

< Smells like... victory | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Knowledge and Education | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Random points on the subject by lm (4.00 / 2) #1 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 06:53:25 AM EST
At least in the US IT industry, most employers are willing to accept two years of experience at relevant tasks as being equivalent to one year of formal schooling.

Most HR drones and hiring managers I've spoken to think that proof of formal education is more important with regards to showing the motivation of the applicant in doing certain assigned tasks than with regards to showing how much they know. Admittedly, there are quite a few exceptions to this. Not all HR drones and hiring managers think like this.

The people who seek degrees because they want to learn is dwarfed by the number of people who seek degrees simply because they're required to get certain sorts of jobs.

Quality of education from formal institutions varies wildly. Four years at at least one of the accredited universities I've attended is utterly worthless except inasmuch as the degree helps you get a job. On the other hand, I've also attended some universities that make you work quite hard and learn more than you thought possible.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
I agree with all those points by cam (2.00 / 0) #2 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:16:27 AM EST
So how do your harness the existing knowledge/education in such a way so that it is acceptable/uniform to HR etc.

On the varying widely thing, at what does point learning/knowledge become sufficient that is can/should/etc be formally recognised?

Do we pay universities to learn, or for the formal piece of paper at the end?

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
- by lm (4.00 / 1) #8 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 03:34:43 PM EST
Q: So how do your harness the existing knowledge/education in such a way so that it is acceptable/uniform to HR etc.

A. So long as college level education is more or less left to the free market, you don't. Partly because uniformity requires federalization of the educational system so that all college graduates are measured by the same scale. As of the present, the people doing the hiring are left to their own devices with regards to deciding whether or not a degree from X university is or is not on par with a degree from Y university. But if the standards were the same for the same degree from both X and Y, then the hiring drone could compare GPA or class standing or some such objective metric.

Q: On the varying widely thing, at what does point learning/knowledge become sufficient that is can/should/etc be formally recognised?

Is sufficiency good enough? If I want to build a best of breed business, do I look for sufficiency or excellency?

Q: Do we pay universities to learn, or for the formal piece of paper at the end?

A: I can only answer for myself. I've done both. And as long as a free market approach to careers is taken, the answer to that question will always be up to the student.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Say you want to revolutionise the free market by cam (2.00 / 0) #9 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 06:33:09 PM EST
how would you do it? Do you sidestep the old bachelors/diploma thing and start calling them something else. Do you out-source the learning part and hope that the student will either learn on their own or get a tutor? Do you make the test be a bunch of questions? Can you get the price down lower than 26K a year and still provide the student with the same level of labor market recognition?

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
Education is one place where the market fails by lm (4.00 / 1) #10 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 06:48:06 PM EST
I'm a proponent of government funded education (along with health care, income smoothing, defense and a few other market segments). There is abundant evidence that this is one place that the market consistently fails.

But, that aside, outside of federalization and the ensuing uniformity, what method is there to compare degrees? Is a BS in engineering from a fourth tier community college really comparable to a BS in engineering from MIT?


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I also think that there is a level of education by cam (2.00 / 0) #11 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:47:27 PM EST
that no-one should be denied, however there must be an acceptable level of knowledge that doesnt require the capitalisation/infrastructure of a sandstone university in order for a third party to accept it.

If a test is complete enough then surely that denotes sufficient knowledge from a student for the purposes of the third party. Do we need to even bother with any formalised teaching in that case?

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
You mean like a MCSE? by lm (4.00 / 1) #14 Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 03:37:34 AM EST
:)

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Also, I agree that not everyone needs to go to uni by lm (4.00 / 1) #16 Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 04:21:37 AM EST
But as long as there is a free market in education, anyone that wants to and has the resources will go.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
degree from college X vs college Y by garlic (4.00 / 1) #13 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:45:14 PM EST
Many programs are accreditted by national organizations.


[ Parent ]
Like who? by lm (4.00 / 1) #15 Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 03:40:04 AM EST
In the US, I know of no widely respected national accreditation organization for colleges and universities.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
seems like accreditation is program specific by garlic (4.00 / 2) #17 Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 04:38:32 AM EST
ABET: the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology are the group that do it for engineering.
CHEA: Council for Higher Education Accreditation has a pdf listing organizations that it recognizes as real (vs mill) accreditation organizations.

A quick look around my university webpage tells me they have accreditation for at least the engineering, teaching, law, nursing, chemistry, music and social work programs.


[ Parent ]
CHEA doesn't accredit by lm (4.00 / 1) #18 Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 08:55:23 AM EST
They approve/disapprove of accrediting bodies. The list they provide of real schools rather than degree mills comes is a compilation of accredited institutions provided to CHEA by accrediting bodies recognized by CHEA.

Sure, you'll have programs accredited by national organizations, but a degree isn't worth anything, for the most part, unless the school that confers it is accredited by one of the regional agencies that accredit colleges and universities. You'll find some exceptions to this, but not many. Most colleges that can't get regional accreditation are viewed with disfavor.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
hard to comment specifically by MillMan (4.00 / 1) #3 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:34:09 AM EST
but I think in this country especially and the west in general that knowledge is accepted and acknowledged by what you are paid to do.

Really though, what other metrics are there? Most other methods ultimately rely on someone with power deciding who knows what (whether it's a priest, manager, or professor). I don't think many people take tests alone as an indicator of intelligence.

Everybody still hates me in this city and I hate everybody.

I think I am asking by cam (2.00 / 0) #4 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:39:13 AM EST
at what point is there an intersection between where the individuals reckons they know, a third entity (employer?) reckons they know it, and an institution is willing to give the individual a piece of paper saying they reckon they know it.

I am probably also asking what determines the path to that point too.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
A degree in X by komet (4.00 / 2) #5 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:54:41 AM EST
doesn't tell the employer that you are knowledgable in X. It tells the employer that you give a shit about X enough to have devoted 4 years of your life to it.

Do USians not state their hobbies on their CVs?

--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.

Of course they do by cam (2.00 / 0) #6 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:41:00 AM EST
But I am asking about improving recognition of education/knowledge. Courses in VA are now 26K a year. If it goes through 10% inflation again then it is the 30K mark. Too much. I suspect this is because our education system is a left over from an industrial era where few were really educated, so demand was lower. It was also more personal. back in the founding fathers of the US's day, you got into a college on a wink and nod, and then the tutor was sufficiently personal with you that at the end of a couple years they judged you ready. That doesnt scale well, but the present system is not far removed from that.

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
Many institutions will evaluate your experience by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #7 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 09:41:48 AM EST
and award credit hours based upon them, provided that you're a current student at their school.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

Yeh but they wont give you a degree by cam (4.00 / 1) #12 Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 07:49:51 PM EST
unless you do at least half of your course there. So the extraction in funds is a minimum of 50K from you (at a 10% CPI rate)

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

[ Parent ]
Knowledge and Education | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback