Education, Credentials, or Schooling?

This is another splinter from the “Masters with the least amount of credits” thread started by Hille back on September 22, out of which have been exposed some wild notions, but it’s not the first time that’s happened here.

Essentially, there are two competing schools of thought. One says (or at least implies) that low-credit-hour Master’s don’t impart as much education as do high(er)-credit-hour Master’s, and are, therefore, inferior. The other school of thought says (or at least implies) that low-credit-hour Master’s are not necessarily inferior to the bigger ones, and that perhaps they can provide the same amount of education.

Both schools of thought are wrong. The real issue embodied in this debate is one of schooling versus education. They are not the same. That’s especially true when you consider the definition of education that is often preferred by the crowd that says more schooling is better. Their definition of education includes such key things like wisdom, understanding, and things that you can’t get from taking tests, or even from independent study. This definition of education takes on a very majestic and romantic nature. The advocates of this definition hold education (whether from process or outcome) in very high esteem, and scoff at the notion that it can be obtained easily. Frankly, I like that definition of education. I agree with it. It emphasizes the beauty of synthesis between people and their surroundings. It suggests fulfillment, deep meaning, and the power of the freed intellect. The problem with education, so defined, is that neither schooling (no matter how much of you have), nor testing can provide it. When you complete a long master’s program, all you can be sure of is that you have more schooling that someone who completed a short master’s program. Conversely, when you complete a short Master’s program, all you can be sure of is that you have less schooling than someone who completed a long Master’s program. The same is true for degrees at all levels. For example, if you complete a BA entirely by testing, having never set foot in a classroom, you can be sure of only one thing, that you have less schooling than someone who completed a BA entirely in residence. In case I still haven’t convinced you that schooling and education (as defined above) are not the same, then I ask you to consider the wonderful things that have been done, the amazing thoughts that have been thought, and knowledge that has been created by a great many unschooled people throughout history in the U.S., the U.K.; the whole world, for that matter. These were people who had freed intellects, found deep meaning, and were fulfilled or gave others fulfillment. There is a difference between schooling and education.

To illustrate my point more clearly, let me say that schooling can be part of a fulfilling life, but it can also lead to a sense of want. Schooling can free the intellect but it can also restrain it. Schooling can help provide meaning, but it can also mask it. If you are an educator or a student, it is essential that you understand that. It is essential that you understand the fact that no matter how skilled you are, and no matter how good your school is, these are the risks associated with schooling. These risks will vary both in severity and probability for virtually every student in every class, and there is no way you can know each of your students well enough to predict accurately which ones are most at risk. And don’t assume that this sort of risk isn’t present even at schools as good as Harvard or Oxford. No matter how great the professor or how great the curriculum, the chance that any of these negatives can happen is always there.

I believe that it was Telfax who suggested that HW MBA students should understand the limitations of the program. I agree with that statement, but it doesn’t go far enough. All students, all administrators, all teachers, all professors, all accreditors--in short, everyone, must recognize that you can’t get an education from school. You might get something that looks like an education, or you might get something that adds to your total educational experience by going to school, but you can also get that by studying for a test, or working, or a raising kids, or a great many other things, but only collectively, in the context of your life are any of these activities educational.

So let’s let schooling be schooling and education be education. How could there be a problem with that? Schools offer a very valid and necessary service—that of providing credentials. That’s it; that’s why we have schools. I believe that to be true, regardless of mission statements, charters, or anything else. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with schooling at all, as long as we all now what we can reasonably expect from it--a credential. Frankly, that’s why I go to school, to get a credential. Providing credentials is the one and only thing that schools can do with any reliability at all. Furthermore, I feel that I need the credentials that only a school can provide in order to get a better job. I choose regionally accredited schools because I feel that employers more readily accept those than non-regionally-accredited schools. Additionally, by choosing regionally-accredited schools, I know that my credential meets an acceptable standard, not of education, but of schooling. It’s all extraordinarily practical. That said, there are many ways to be schooled, or to get a credential. Traditional study is one way; nontraditional study is another way. A long master’s program is yet another way of getting schooling, and so is a short master’s program.

Let me close by saying that I agree with Lawrie Miller on most things. There are some things I don’t know about. For instance, I don’t know if the hypotheses he suggests for testing educational outcomes from testing versus taking classes have any validity at all. Why should I care? There are limited educational outcomes from either of those means. One thing I disagree with Lawrie on is his implication that certification equals education. Certification is certification, education is education, and schooling is schooling. Is that harmonic, or what?

 

Tracy,

I think you are in good company with respect to the difference between schooling and education. The late "Philosopher-at-Large" Mortimer J. Adler of the University of Chicago, the irresistable force behind E. Britannica's Great Books program, wrote about this of which you can read here:

http://radicalacademy.com/adleronlyadults1.htm

Bob

 

It would seem reasonable to say that "all other things being equal", low credit hour master's programs impart less learning than do high credit hour programs.

The key phrase here is "all other things being equal". A poorly done high credit hour masters could impart no more than a low credit hour masters. And if someone can find a magic way to impart learning with less effort - then there may be a place for low credit hour programs.

But it seems akin to finding a way to loose weight or built muscle with less effort. "No pain, no gain"????

Next time you look at a low degree masters program (say a 30 or 36 hour MBA), ask this - how can they in 36 credit hours impart what high quality, full-time MBA programs do in 60 credit hours? What's the magic?

Can a run of the mill DL MBA in 36 credit hours, conducted part-time with adjunct faculty do the same job that Harvard does in two years of full time study with exceptional students, using world class faculty?

I'm not saying that part-time programs don't have a place and that they don't impart knowledge. But the idea that low credit hour programs can compare sounds like a lot of wishing and hoping.

Whenever someone comes up with a degree that requires fewer credit hours I have to ask - How do they do it? Have you found a magic way for people to learn?

I'm not sure I can by this. While I agree that there are many ways to gain an education - life experience for one - I can't see how it is that schooling can't impart education.

For example, does a student going through medical school not get an education in how to be a physician? Of course they need more experience - that's what residency is for. But doesn't hours of studying the human body, following experienced doctors and the like lead to education?

I totally disagree. Credentials are a by product of schooling, but not the purpose. Education is the product of academic institutions. When employers come to my school to hire engineers, they are looking for educated people that can produce in the work place. People with pieces of paper - and no skill - need not apply.

I challenge you and all degreeinfo.com readers to pursue education, not a credential. Don't forcus on getting a credential so that some one can call you "Doctor so and so". Get an education so that you can add to the body of knowledege. Get an education so that you can serve mankind. Forget the paper - it doesn't mean much. The thrill of being called "doctor" goes away quickly.

 

Re: Re: Education, Credentials, or Schooling?

Why couldn't there be a place for low-credit-hour programs anyway? The programs themselves impart nothing but a certain way of thinking, a skill. And even at Lawrence Technological University, the focus is on "real world" career training. This from the LTU homepage:

"Top job placement and higher salaries. How the 'real world' works and why. Industry-savvy faculty. A nurturing environment focused on your success. Isn't this what you expect from your college degree? Growth, opportunity, personal attention, knowledge, experience and career direction are important priorities at LTU. Our commitment is to prepare you for leadership through theory and practice."

See the emphasis on practical matters? This statement even includes an admission that that's what LTU students expect from their degree. Why should they expect more? Could LTU reliably deliver anything more than great career training?

This is what really bugs me about "educators." I would and do expect pain when it comes to physical training. But why does mental activity necessarily have to be difficult in order to be useful? Doesn't the effort that it takes to learn in school relate to the process of schooling itself? Learning statistics, economics, or anything else for that matter can be made easy, or it can be made difficult. What's the point in making it difficult? I've heard stories of many successful teachers who made learning easy for their students, but I've heard of few successful teachers who made it difficult.

Wishing and hoping? Universities wish they could guarantee an education, and students hope they will get it. For now let's look at the 36-hour evening MBA program at LTU. In the introduction, it says,

"Lawrence Technological University’s College of Management has three primary operational objectives with respect to the information, knowledge, skills, and insights necessary to compete in contemporary organizations:

• to instill and develop these skills/insight in graduate students;
• to demonstrate unique applications to managerial problem-solving issues and;
• to contribute to further theoretical/practical developments through applied research."

Notice again the emphasis on skills and practical application. If LTU can do that in 36 hours, why can't other schools do it. too? I also note that nowhere on the Introduction page does it even mention education. It does say that the degree's relevance is based on "'real world' situations." (I find it somewhat odd the way LTU always places the phrase "real world" in quotation marks, as if the real world doesn't actually exist. However, I give them credit for assuming that it does, if only to provide relevance to those of us who believe in the so-called "real world.")

The introduction continues: "Establishing long-term objectives and articulating innovative, highly targeted strategies for success are skills which every contemporary manager and leader must possess." Note once again the clear empahsis on career skills, rather than education. And just to be sure there is clarity on making this skills learning as easy as possible, the introduction says:

"The Lawrence Tech College of Management’s graduate programs are designed to enable the student to develop and demonstrate proficiency in these personal and organizational strategies. The seminar-style format utilized at Lawrence Tech allows an open dialogue between the teaching professionals and the predominantly working student. Faculty understand the conflicting demands of balancing academic preparedness, family needs, and full-time employment. This understanding leads to the use of relevant case studies, simulations/classexercises, and guest speakers who can add a greater dimension of expertise to the course materials."

The program seems to be designed around user friendliness for working family men and women. I note that there is likely nothing here that couldn't be conducted at a distance either. Dialogue can happen over the Internet just as easily as it can in the classroom. (This discussion board, at least, offers proof.) Guest speakers can interact with participants over various technology platforms as well. Case studies can easy be done over the Internet. Finally, simulations and class excercises can take place even when the students in a class are at a distance from each other, once again, using various technology platforms. If LTU chooses not to offer their program at a distance, okay. I'm just saying that they could.

You say that now, but later you say that schooling can lead to education. I don't agree with you now, but I will agree with you later. So far we've read about learning job skills, which is great. Imagine leaving college without job skills. Every student across America would want his or her money back. (Of course they wouldn't get it. University administrators know that the only thing they can guarantee to students who meet their requirements, is a degree. That's true for any school; Harvard, Stanford, LTU, Touro, Capella; any school. You meet the standards, you get a degree. An education, competence, anything but the piece of paper, are much more tricky.)

Here, this is where you say that schooling can lead to an education. I'll grant you that. But is it an education? No. The doctor learns job skills. That, Andy, is what I care about in the doctor who operates on me. Does he have job skills? Job skills are extremely important. They are life and death matters for doctors and engineers (more about them later). Job skills, not the more elusive concept of education, are the key.

Engineers need job skills. Certainly they do. You can say that education is the product of universities, but how can they reliably provide education, especially if they make it difficult? And you know as well as I do that the piece of paper from an engineering school has more meaning to the potential employer than the potential hire's skills until the engineer can prove his skills on the job, or at least on the appropriate lisencing exam. The piece of paper does matter.

I do intend to continue to persue an education. I am pursuing one right now, in fact, by analyzing your arguments, seeing if I think they have merit, thinking objectively, even creatively. There is no reason in the world why I should have to put my pursuit of an education on hold while I earn a credential. I don't ever intend to stop. I figure that, if I continue to ensure that my pursuit of a credential has relevance to my life, if I apply my schooling creatively and practically, it may even become part of what I consider "my education." I won't hold my breath, though. If all I get is job skills, fine by me.

I'm not focusing on getting a credential so someone can call me "Doctor so and so." I don't doubt that the thrill of being called "doctor" goes away very quickly. Did you think it would last longer for you? The paper lasts longer. It's actually pretty important, too. Why, if you don't have it, you may never get a chance to show an empoyer what you can do. I really do hope to serve mankind. I'll need job skills for that. The great thing is that, all the while I'm serving mankind, I may be getting the best education possible, no matter how short or how long it takes.

 

Dr. Borchers,

"I totally disagree. Credentials are a by product of schooling, but not the purpose. Education is the product of academic institutions. When employers come to my school to hire engineers, they are looking for educated people that can produce in the work place. People with pieces of paper - and no skill - need not apply."

I know you hold a doctorate and you must be a pretty smart guy, but aren't you limiting your definition of education to a job skill here?

Tracy (and Dr. Adler) has provided you with the way out of the trap of confusing schooling with education and along with it the mistake of confusing educatiion with vocational training.

I'll try putting the matter a different way:

The majority of the majors at our academic institutions are vocational, ie. Business Adminstration, Engineering, even Brewing. Long gone are the days when education meant good thinking, writing, and speaking skills developed by rigorous training and broad and deep exposure to the liberal arts (think Thomas Jefferson).

Educated (well schooled) = being able to think, to write, to speak well. This only gets better with practice and exposure to real life.

Well vocationed (is that a word?): being able to run a Wal*Mart efficiently (or brew good beer) and at the same time not sound stupid to your superiors, clients, or even your kids (having minimal thinking and communication skills). Often graduates end up sounding like (educated?) idiots anyway, even those with advanced degrees (not you!).


The mentality you decry is a direct result of the need to get a job. It naturally follows that someone would want to shorten the process- to get a job sooner. We all need to eat, after all, sooner rather than later. Recognizing this need and their own as well, our esteem academic instituions are more than happy to oblige, some more than others.

This talk about contributing to the body of knowlege and serving mankind is all well and good. But then there's that need to eat again. We go to school nowdays to get what we need to be gainfully employed, not to get an (education). If a real (education) is gained along the way, all the better, but in my observation that gain is extremely infrequent. What is gained instead is a compromise.

Up for a challenge, Dr. Challenger?

I challenge you to be like Thomas Jefferson and Mother Theresa, who contributed to many bodies of knowlege and served humankind greatly, respectively.



Bob

 

Learning is the output, testing is its emasure

Tracy's contribution is an excellent introduction to an important topic for 'educators'.

His distinction between 'schooling' and 'education' debate appears to miss out the most important function of 'schooling' (which I treat as a surrogate for an institution, such as a university), namely 'learning'. Our business is creating learning environments for our students' benefit - we should be more student oriented and less faculty or administration oriented. Our clients are our students. Their learning is the output of our educational processes; not a by-product or after-thought.

Hence, we create learning modes that address the needs of individual students. In the extreme, we provide the whole range of learning modes; in practice, we have to limit them to our resources. We should not demand that all students learn the same way, because they don't (our research into learning showed that conclusively and is backed by many other studies). At EBS we do not tell students how to learn or how to study.

Knowledge on its own is the starting point, not the end point. If all that an institution's testing did were to test for knowledge it would not constitute a sufficient test (except at the Bachelor level for a pass, not for an Honours distinction). At the graduate level (MBA, taught MSc) we test for knowledge of the subject's fundamental concepts; analytical abilities applied to real world cases; evaluative and synthesis abilities applied to more difficult applications of the concepts and, in the capstone courses, a synthesis of all prior subjects' concepts as they are applied to difficult problems of strategic understanding.

The testing is a third party 'attestation of fitness' that is necessary for the world we live in. The relative worth of different Schools attestations is correlated with their testing regimes ('softer' regimes being less valued that 'tougher regimes', with reputations to match - though these reputations may rely on stricter selection criteria to get in than on strict standards to get out).

Is a school programme the only way to learn? No. The proposition is absurd. Is it the only way to be attested? Usually, because schools mainly do the testing, and as the attestation of fitness requires validity that is recognised by those relying on it, schools tend to seek recognition for their tests (degrees, awards) as widely as possible.

Of course, a non-recognised school could also produce graduates of equal fitness to recognised schools. The problem is recognition on one level and the known association of many unrecognised schools with sub-standard learning outcomes on another. It does not have to be this way, but the corruptibility of standards by corruptible persons is a fact of life (where there is a 'buck' to be made, someone, somewhere will find a way to make it - dealt with by derision and the justice system).

Can there be learning after graduation (or without it), in a formal setting or outside such a setting? Yes. But unless it is tested by independent third party examinations, or by refereed journal editors and their assessors, by duplicable experiments, by replicable learning instruments and by the practice by others ('itworks!'), such learning - with its many advantages for those who undertake it and those who subsequently benefit from it - is not validated by tests for fitness. Does this matter? Yes and No. I presume we all know the contents of the 'yes' and the 'no' parts of the answer to that question.

 

Re: Re: Re: Education, Credentials, or Schooling?

Tracy - Some thoughts in reply. One key point - I'm no longer teaching full time at Lawrence Technological University. I teach for another school in the Flint, Michigan area.

Regards - Andy

LTU focuses on both practice and theory. That's their motto. I don't believe you can have one without the other. All practice fails over the long term to provide students with the ability to grow and learn. All theory misses out on application. Take the two together - and you have a winning combination.

As for low credit hour programs - I don't doubt they have a place. I teach in such programs. But realize the limitations. All others things equal - less credit hours means less learning.

Now you are confusing education with training. There is a difference. Training imparts specific skills - often used within a short period of time. Education prepares one's mind for a lifetime.

As an example - a student interested in computer networks can pursue a MCSE or CCNA certification. With the MCSE he/she can click their way around a Microsoft operating system. Such certification is quite useful - at least for the current generation of Microsoft operating systems.

Taking a course in data communications goes deeper. In such a course I will teach my students about the underlying concepts of TCP/IP and other protocols. This knowledge can help create a mental framework that will prepare the student for a life of learning.

Should students pursue an MSCE or take an academic course in networks? I'd argue for both.

Perhaps because some topics aren't always easy and natural to learn. If you think you can master electrical engineering or computer networking without some effort - you are kidding yourself. These fields aren't easy - they are fairly complex.

I spend my life trying to make complex topics understandable for my students. But if "making it easy" means not teaching the subject - I'm not interested. Frankly, in teaching statistics to graduate business students I'm pretty frustrated. Students don't want to work with numbers - they want to discuss and chat. I'm finding it increasingly difficult, for example, to get students to understand the Central Limits theorem. If you don't understand this - you don't know much about statistics.

I don't claim to make things "easy", but I do work to make them "understandable".

Our nation is full of schools that have made learning "easy" but have failed to educate students. Look at how U.S. students compare with their peers in math and science.

Did you miss the words "theoretical" and "research"? Sure, LTU is focused on practice. And it is focused on "theory".

I don't doubt that schools can do something in 36 credit hours at the graduate level. LTU does. But don't confuse LTU (or anyother 36 hour MBA program) with a top flight business school. The degree may say "MBA", but the experience is different. I've taught in and attended both low credit hour and high credit hour MBA programs - there is a difference.

I don't write the LTU catalog. If I did it would read different.

This is pretty typical marketing fluff for many MBA programs. I don't deny that there should be a practical focus to such programs. At the same time, the school's motto says "Theory and Practice". It isn't an "either or" scenario.

Imagine leaving college without an education. Imagine leaving without being able to write, read, think critically or a host of other skills that aren't job specific. I'm not opposed to students gaining job skills. But a college education that is all "job skills" and no general education is sadly lacking.

Inicidently, in LTU's undegraduate programs they have a wonder general education component. My wife is taking classes there and has really enjoyed literature and history classes. A lot of students complain "why do I need all of this stuff". If only they had the benefit of a few more years of living. The point of a college education is more than learning to earn a living - it is all about learning to live life.

BUt doctors need other non-job related skills. They need to be human. They need to understand people and why they think and feel as they do. To reduce medicine to a set of job skills is to degrade the profession. Why do people have to complete a BA/BS before they go to medical school? So that they can learn to live.

Sorry - But I think you are off base here. Students of electrical engineering study math through differential equations. Why? Because math at this level is necessary to understand the field. I'm sorry, but differential equations is a difficult topic. Lots of students flunk such courses. And for the well being of society I hope that engineering schools flunk students who can't master math. If they don't, I not sure we can trust the structures and other things that engineers design.

Pre-med is a tough road to follow. Lots of people don't make it into medical school. That's ok by me - I want doctors that have specific job skills, but also have human skills. Is all of this going to be "easy"? Hardly.

There are lots of ways to pursue an education. Libraries are a great place to start. And there is no reason that one can't pursue education in a formal sense and receive a credential at the end of the process. My point is that the credential is "icing on the cake", a by product of a worthwhile process.

 

I agree with your schooling/education distinction. I'd say that schooling provides an institutional framework intended to impart education. But education obviously occurs outside that framework as well.

That's why I vehemently disagree with the suggestion that independent study can't be educational. Testing is more of a question. I am kind of a believer in the Socratic method, and I believe that we grow through questioning ourselves and each other. To the extent that testing challenges us and makes us articulate our ideas, it's educational.

I think that education is a lifelong process. Schooling is only one aspect of it.

But if schooling imparts education, then more schooling can probably be expected to impart more of it.

Why not? My experience is that taking university courses has often been very educational. That's why I enrolled in them.

I agree with your point. But I think that ideally, schooling provides an occasion for education. The two shouldn't be identified, but they aren't unrelated either.

I think that this demonstrates that while schooling provides a framework for education, education doesn't only take place inside that framework.

I don't understand this section. What risks are you talking about?

While you can't get *an* education, you can certainly get *some* education. I really don't think that education is a state that one arrives at and then stops.

So perhaps one risk that schools represent is pumping up their graduates' sense of pride and blinding them to their continued ignorance. (No matter how much education people receive, ignorance remains. It's the human condition.) There *is* a lot of posing and preening associated with education.

I think that most of what one learns in universities is technical. I learn many of my most important lessons from life itself, but I probably would never learn Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' or about the structure of cell membranes that way. Schooling widens peoples' horizons and provides a much larger, if artificial, context for education to happen.

I disagree strongly and vehemently.

Then where does that leave people like me?

I don't need any more degrees. The credentialing function is of little relevance to me. But I'd like to know and understand more. I feel the drive to continue my education indefinitely, probably for the rest of my life. That's what attracted me to DL, since it seemed to offer an avenue for doing that. Was I mistaken?

 

I empathize. I am similarly uninterested in additional credentials (since I already have a "name brand" PhD in the field in which I am employed). I participate in several DL programs only because they help me learn.

 

Reminds me a story an Engineer once told, that said, that in order for him to be recognised as a good or great or superior Engineer that a credential was a necessary evil. So, that really good Engineer, went out and got the credential. With no B.Eng, the Engineer a self taught person followed the Engineers series of courses and exam syllabus and completed 12 courses/exams just to become a P.E/P.Eng.

Just a great Engineer (with no Degree) working side by side with other Engineers with BEng, Masters & Ph.D. In actual fact that great none degreed Engineer is the Senior Engineer on staff at Microsoft running the team.

Credentials are wonderful to those that have them, and to those that want them they look great from afar.

Terminal outcomes and terminal objectives in life and to credentials are all one and the same. It's a personal call left to the individual that sees it the way they want to do it for themselves.

Life long learning matters, but to those boring credential holders...whatever next?

J.R (ic)

 

Hold on a minute

I think we might be in danger of sliding into error (not terminal by any means but debilitating nevertheless).

Gert has a 'top PhD' and is not interested in further attestation of his fitness. Fine. But if he did not have his top PhD attestation what would be his position, not now but in his earlier years when he was without one?

John went to another top school (Imperial, London) and is critical (not without reason) of 'credential' holders, preferring life long learning. But his perspective as a 'credential holder ' from Imperial (one of the UK's top universities) might be different if he was bereft of such a credential and, indeed, without one at all.

As for the microsoft engineer without a credential doing good, fine. But software at the beginning of the industry was a wide open frontier and in such (rare) occasions anything goes. He or she who can, does, and the paperwork does not matter. But in established professions it won't do. Try joining Microsoft now with a blank resume, other than walking to Katmandu and praying to Mother Earth.

For the bulk of people of a certain age, or just past it by a few years, credentials are needed. Afterwards we can all 'do our own thing' and contemplate life enhancing learning. And I hope you do.

 

Professor Kennedy, point being that Bill Dayson & Gert both have the opinion that with a Ph.D who gives a hoot about credentials any longer. Is it not about keeping up with it, and learning, not about credentials anyway. Society needs people that can do & think, not stale brains.

What more can an academic achieve beyond the Ph.D, since they are the supreme being in the academic sense?

That is unless the higher Doctorate is available, or a University Fellowship or maybe Knighted by the Queen..who knows whats possible. (it's just another credential)

In the real world of WORK where producing something for humankind and not just teaching alone to those that will eventually do something. And by the way that great Engineer thing happened in the last 10 years.[ this last piece will get me into real trouble]

At HW for example where a fine straight forward MBA is sort by those who think (a) The MBA will get them the higher and better paying Jobs, or (b) Want to get the MBA so that they can go further academically, or will eventually like to teach others. Was this about credentials is the first place or about learning or about the money thing?

What if HW, was to offer their MBA totally by dissertation (even though none is required now), do you think the whole world would say HW has now gone down the tubes?.

By the way Professor Kennedy is this available through HW, and if so what is the criteria for entry?

It's still about a credential, or was that the lifelong learning thing that I mentioned?

A real Masters degree, no matter how earned, taught, taught with thesis, or plain old fashioned degree by dissertation, in my mind these terminal degrees are all the same..only examined differently, and I hope in todays UK & USA schools seen by those in academia as such (not).


J.R (ic)

 

I think (and hope) that most people pursue a university education both for the credential and for the learning.

I don't see that there should be a conflict between learning and earning a credential. Indeed, I am scornful of any university program that doesn't aim to meet both of these goals in reasonable measure.

JR mentions the EBS MBA, which certainly achieves both goals -- with excellent course material and a recognized credential if one meets the challenge of the exams. I completed the Economics course and I learned a lot. But I didn't earn a credential, and that suits me fine.

I would expect that participants in a research-only EBS Master's degree (which presumably wouldn't be called an MBA) would also learn and ultimately gain a credential.

Incidentally, I don't believe that "with a Ph.D who gives a hoot about credentials any longer." I understand the value of additional credentials for people who want to switch careers or expand into other fields, etc. But additional credentials are of little interest (or use) to me.

 

Re: Hold on a minute

I don't think that anyone has argued that credentials are not important or that people don't oftentimes need them.

The question is whether the only purpose of schooling is to bestow credentials or whether one might pursue schooling in order to become better educated.

Education does seems to be logically prior to certification:

It's possible to have knowledge, skills and understanding without pursuing a credential. But if you obtain a credential without the requisite knowledge, skills and understanding, you have satisfied one definition of "degree mill".

To the extent that a school is sound, education would seem to be a precondition of certification.

 

Your paraphrase is essentially accurate, except that I don't have a Ph.D. My highest degree is a mere M.A.

Frankly, I can't justify the cost, time and effort necessary to do a Ph.D. If I earned a Ph.D., I don't really know what I'd do with it, except pose.

But I have no less interest in education for all that.

I am interested in philosophy and religious studies. My chances of making a living in that field are virtually nil. But that doesn't imply that these things are not worth pursuing, only that some of us had better have a day job. And that in turn turns makes DL and the other flexible options attractive.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Education, Credentials, or Schooling?

I agree that theory misses out on application. But how does practice fail "over the long term to provide students with the ability to grow and learn?" Can't one learn and grow as a result of practical application of skills? Is growth and learning limited to academic or theoretical pursuits? Might it be possible that someone who does think so, has an intellect that has been stymied by schooling?

All we can say with any certainty is that it leaves them with less schooling. Can you be well-schooled and come away with little learning? I think the answer is yes. That's the limitation of all schooling.

I can't think of one college subject that does not try to impart skill as its primary outcome. Math attempts to impart skill at solving mathematical problems, science attempts to impart skill in applying the scientific process. Art attempts to impart skill in some art form, or in thinking about art. History imparts skill at thinking about what consequences the past has had on our present, and so forth.

How does learning the underlying concepts of TCP/IP prepare a student for a life of learning, but the MCSE or CCNA certification does not?

I never said that making it easy means not teaching the subject. That’s your idea. If you're trying to make the subjects understandable, than you're probably doing the best you can do. But a student could just as well find someone who works in the field to help them understand it. Learning does not have to take place in college to be useful, but it likely does have to take place in a college (or at least assessed by college) to be credentialized. That's the difference.

Now that is a very relevant point. It demostrates how schooling can hinder learning. Funny how they all came to college after several years of schooling, yet they are still not ready for more learning. Schooling certainly didn’t prepare these students for a lifetime of learning, did it? Of course, there are students who will come to learn, but will find it difficult to do so because of all the distracting chatter. Anyway, I suppose those students will be in the minority, because as you say “students [as opposed to some students, or few students] just want to discuss and chat. So, I assume you mean those chatty students are in the majority. I would concur with that observation. Most of my college schooling has been in the classroom, and I know what you are talking about. (Boy, I'm glad I took statistcs by DL, far fewer distractions.)

If you’re working to make things understandable, that may be all anyone has a right to expect from you. But don’t assume that things have to be difficult in order to be educational.

I agree. Schooling is not up to the task of educating, but not necessarily because schools have made learning easy. Learning can be difficult in the school setting, what with its frequent distractions, and inflexible pedagogy. One method of teaching is applied to the masses, until some students fall behind. They are generally considered slackers or some such thing. Many of them just have a learning style that does not match the pedagogy of the school.

I came away from reading the LTU information with the idea that the clear focus was on practical application of skills, and theoretical concepts were only useful in their application to real world circumstances.

Clearly the greatest difference between the high- and low-credit-hour programs is the amount of schooling. Learning and education are entirely different matters. And as I’ve mentioned above, schooling does not necessarily lead to learning. Don’t you agree?

Reading, writing, and thinking critically are all skills. They all happen to be useful in many job functions and in other aspects of life. Something as simple as reading a newspaper requires both reading and critical thinking skills, for example.

Yes, another reason why schooling fails to pass the education test. Too many students complaining. We can only hope that once they leave school the will learn to enjoy things like literature and history. Haven’t you ever wondered why the twelve or more years of schooling they had before going to college hasn’t made them ready for a life of learning?

BUt doctors need other non-job related skills. They need to be human. They need to understand people and why they think and feel as they do. To reduce medicine to a set of job skills is to degrade the profession. Why do people have to complete a BA/BS before they go to medical school? So that they can learn to live.

Do they really learn to be human in school? Do they come to understand people in an academic setting? The practice of medicine is the application of a set of job skills. Being human is an entirely different thing that academia has little impact upon in the big picture of the doctor’s own life.

I hope schools flunk these people, too. I did write previously that credentials should only be awarded to those who meet the school’s criteria. Math is a skill. An often difficult one to master, I know. Those who don’t master it certainly shouldn’t be given engineering degrees. But you insist, fairly consistently, that anything that comes too easily is not educational; that those who choose the easy path to a credential are missing out on some valuable aspect of education, simply because they chose a path of relative ease. If learning differential equations is difficult and the best you can do is to try to make it understandable, fine. That’s all that can be expected of you. But not everyone needs to learn differential equations.

I already said in a previous post that doctors need job skills. You agree with me. You said that doctors need “human skills.” I’m not sure what human skills are, but if it means they need things like compassion, understanding, and that sort of thing, I agree with you. I agree that those things are difficult to master. But I don’t see how those things come from a course of study at a university.

If you insist that schooling (or “education in a formal sense”) must lead to learning, I disagree with you. The only way you get a credential (degree), though, is to have your academic performance assessed in or by a school. I contend that the credential is the cake. How you ice it is up to you. I choose to ice it with things in life that are sweeter to me than schooling.

 

Truth is, the DL market is overwhelmingly about certification, convenience and utility. Generic MBAs, MPAs, M.Ed., LLMs, and other trade degrees abound. The mass of the market is already "commoditized".

To reflect that, I designed the master's listing page on my web site to resemble a market "bucket shop" selling discount degrees as if they were knocked off airline tickets. I have billboards with chalked prices and sale tags. No one is smiling. Not too big on Parody and social commentary round these here parts, huh?

Learning is assessed in terms of demonstrable outcomes, and certification is the mark by which the conferring institution attests that the student has learned. That is, that the student has qualified at a specific level, indicated by the award. Isn't that what qualifications are, attestations as to the accomplishment and learning of the student?

I do not think there can be any doubt about it. If one were to say, in this context, that there is certification, and then there is learning, then what we are discussing is a new issue, namely one of misrepresentation and fraud, where an accredited institution attests to a level of learning and accomplishment the student does not in fact possess. Now, that is a whole other debate that demands detailed and verifiable evidence of wrong doing.

In the real world certification drives the education industry. It is the product the education industry sells. Most of its customers are driven to seek certification to use as a tool with which they might better their lot. If they learn along the way, well that's cool. By definition, certification attests that indeed, the holder has learned and has acquired the requisite demonstrable skills. The modern societal requirement for certification, compels the many to seek that which hitherto had been the province of the few. Now that's really cool.

"Comodiditization" of the wares of the education industry then, should not be feared and resisted by the vested interests of that industry, it should be welcomed and encouraged. Yet the pedagogical quacks and Luddites are ever hard at work, undermining innovation and the promise of cheap affordable higher education for all.

 

Reading Lawries posting I'm reminded of all the new threads on this board that have started out, "I need a degree in order to get a) a job, b) a promotion, c) a raise, and it doesn't even matter what subject the degree is in as long as its a degree..." People get raises for earning Masters degrees in areas that have nothing to do with their work, etc so it's clearly not the learning that's being rewarded, it's the credential. This may be a sad reality but it's reality nonetheless. Beyond this I will only say that this has been a great discussion and I'm reminded on the quotation from Mark Twain, "I've never let my schooling interfere with my education."
Jack

 

Re: Re: Education, Credentials, or Schooling?

Sure. I don't deny that schooling can't be educational. I do deny that schools are the great gate-keepers of education that some make them out to be.

And the Socratic method is often (usually?) not employed effectively in schools, but it can be easily and effectively employed outside of schools, whereever these learners choose to meet.

In my estimation, a very small aspect of it.

*If* schooling imparts education; that's the key.

But you may have recieved that education appart from schooling, too; maybe even to greater extents.

I agree that there can be some relation. I also strongly agree that schooling and education should not be identified.

One risk is that the intellect can be restrained by pedagogy, whereas the individual pursuit of education can free the intellect in ways that schooling can't. Another risk is that the dogged pursuit of "education" in school can lead, not to fulfillment, but instead to a sense that you just can't get the education you desire through schooling. For a person who is fulfilled in other ways, that may not lead to want. For other people, however, I imagine it can lead to a great deal of want. A third risk is that meaning can be masked. Schooling has a way of being sterile, and of removing a person from the context of his life. This masks meaning that should otherwise be associated with educational activities.

.

Your emphasis on *some* is appropriate.

More accurately, there is a lot of posing and preening associated with the education (schooling) *industry*. Education, it seems, ought to lead to a certain degree of humility; a quality often lacking in some of the most well-schooled individuals (especially Ivy League grads, who suppose their education is superior to that of others. They have superior schooling, though, I don't doubt that.) This risk you mention here, that schooling can lead to a pumped-up sense of pride and intellectual blindness is one that I hadn't thought of. (I would consider intellectual blindness and a restrained intellect different, but related, risks.) These risks you mention may be greater than the ones I had thought of. Thank you.

Why couldn't you learn the structure of cell membranes or Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" on your own, or among collegues or friends? The fact that you chose to learn them in school poses no problem, as long as it was your choice, but I think the artificiality of schools can, and often does, narrow horizons, and distorts the context in which education happens.

Well, if neither education, nor credentials should be identified with schooling, then why *do* we have schools?

I don't know. If schooling can be identified with neither credentialing nor education, where does that leave you? I've read your posts, you seem like a brilliant guy, for whom schooling has little left to offer, except some amusement. There's certainly nothing wrong with that.

I think you've answered that question for yourself. You like to pursue interests in school, but most of your education comes from life itself.

 

Perfect! I think I'll put that on a T-shirt.