Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Ivory Towers
Colleges aren't the only place to learn...
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
2002-03-11 07:51:48
11 KB |
|
|
 |
 olleges and Universities once stood for education and learning. They were a place you went to learn thing, be assessed on what you know, and share information with other people who were knowledgeable in your area of interest or expertise. But more and more the concepts of "ivory tower" and out of touch educators, is combining with a mire of bureaucratic hoops and over-powering any goals of "higher learning" or balanced assessment of knowledge.
              
Think of this. In the employed world one of the most bureaucratic departments (in the name of objective compensation) is supposed to be Human Resources Departments. They also have the goal of negotiating salaries and keeping them as low as possible (while still keeping the employees from leaving) and thus getting the most value for their organizations.
In general, HR departments will recognize and trade one years work experience for one year of college experience; so four years of work experience is roughly considered equivalent to a bachelor's degree. Now if you've ever been a hiring manager or worked with lots of people fresh from school and from the work-force, then you know that one-for-one is an assessment that is completely in the businesses favor. I find that in a very few areas, the graduates will have a tad more theoretical knowledge and maybe a slightly broader knowledge-base; but in ability to do a job, or work with others, I'd hire someone with 4 years of work experience over someone with a degree and no experience (for the same level of compensation) any day of the week. In fact, economic and practical realities are such that a graduate with a degree and no experience has almost no value at all to most organizations, and their compensation reflects that until they can work as an intern for a while and actually get some basic knowledge. So one-for-one is not an objective measure, and in all honesty the scale should lean far more towards practical experience than academic experience.
Based on the "real world" (in the most pro-academic scale) there is roughly a 1:1 trade for experiences between academic and work experience. So the question is how do Universities assess their own value? Well, let me give you an idea.
  
I've talked with and dealt with Universities and Academia for decades. Many of their professors have cited my articles, asked me questions, have used books that I was a technical editor for as part of their curriculum, I've helped seniors, grad students and instructors with their graduate papers, homework and so on. I have over 20 years of practical work experience in many industries. And we're not talking "40 hour weeks" and an "average" employee; we're talking a 60 hour a week hard-core worker and one of the top producers. So I tried to talk to some Universities about getting some of that practical experience applied as College credit, in order to get past most of the boring and mundane undergrad classes, and get focused on Senior or Graduate level classes where I could learn more. I figured if I could trade experience at a 10:1 ratio (in their favor), and I've had a couple years of College classes that I could transfer in, then I could get most of the way to a undergraduate degree and go past most of the bullshit, and on to higher learning. Not only would they not accept the self-important ratio of 10:1 in their favor, but most Universities have just flat out said, "No". What they are saying is that in their minds there is no amount of practical experience that can equal a single college credit. They don't believe their job is to assess abilities, or let people get on to learning; and thus they are putting bureaucratic processes above learning.
To give you an idea of how extreme this is, imagine this; I've written over 300 articles, published in Newspapers, Magazines, Books, and Websites. I've written books on martial arts, dozens of technical and user manuals. One of my ancillary hobbies of writing in my spare time has actually been a more successful "career" than most University graduated journalists will ever have. Yet, I can't get a single credit for any of that? Think about the message that sends.
Another "hobby" I had was martial arts; I earned a fourth degree black belt (about 15-20 years of experience), a few third degrees and assorted other lower ranks in many arts. I ran a successful Dojo, won tournaments and trophies (before I lost interest in competition). I did paid public demonstrations including one on Pay-Per-View TV. I was a Martial Arts Stuntman in Hollywood for a movie (a second rate movie, but still). I've met dozens of famous martial artists, and worked with hundreds of martial artists. On top of that I taught business classes on how to run a studio, teach, and be successful. But that is not worthy in the eyes of many Academics for a single public speaking credit, teaching credit, business credit, or even a P.E. (Physical Education) credit? What does that say about our academics?
Those two previous examples were in ancillary hobbies; in my primary career I have far more accomplishments and accolades. I've won awards for User Interfaces I designed; but I can't get a single credit for Human Interface experience. I designed and built my own networks (both hardware and software). I'm not talking just the cables (though I did that too), I've actually built the low level hardware, burned the ROMs, built the protocols, and so on. I've built computers; and I'm not just talking put together cards, I'm talking about back in the days where I soldered components onto a prototype board and wired the chips together myself. I even created my own chips. I used to help a girlfriend with her 4th year homework while she was getting her EE degree. I created and used my own computer languages or extended some (like BASIC), yet I can't get waved past the most mundane of those computer classes. Some Universities will not give me a single credit for any of that?
This is not intended to sound as egomaniacal or self-important as it will come across, but I need to establish my own credentials to challenge others. I honestly value continued learning more than measuring some "has-been" accomplishments from decades past. However, the raw arrogance and blindness of these bureaucrats is stunning as well as insulting. They are spitting on everything I've ever achieved in my life, and telling that what is important is not what you can do in the real world; but what is really important is jumping through their hoops and wasting my time taking classes that have no practical ability to teach me anything new.
In fact, it was the snails pace of University work that drove me out in the first place. I was always given a choice; take a 12 week class where we slowly go through one book with impractical examples and homework; or I could read 3 books on the subject in a month, create an application or solution on the subject in another month that was far more complex and practical, and find a real world use for it that would make money and add value to society - often while often getting paid to do it. And I kept choosing learning, doing and being compensated over having to pay extortion and jumping through endless hoops to prove to educators that I know what we both know that I know.
Now as if that wasn't insulting enough there are a few Universities that are actually are trying to fairly assess work and life experience and credit that to students. Instead of those Universities being held up as progressive and ground breaking (for returning to a focus on higher learning and fair assessment); they are instead often mocked in academic circles as being "not academic" enough because they are too willing to give people credit for the work they've done. The idea being that they should be like "them" and hold people back, instead of helping them get on with learning and growing.
The irony is that Academic Bureaucrats have succeeded in making the process so complex and wasteful that a degree has been getting devalued. Many organizations will not hire people with a degree and no work experience, or speak volumes in how they valuate those people. Degrees are starting to mean so little that people keep raising the bar to higher and higher degree requirements in hopes of raising the standards to some level where the people with the pieces of paper will actually know something.
This is getting to the point where I don't think a degree means as much any more as even an Honorary Degree does. After all, to be successful, wealthy and recognized enough that even the bureaucrats in Academia have to admit you know what you know (by giving you a piece of paper attesting to that) without having jumped through their hoops; well that means something. It means that you're so successful without them, that by denying your credentials and achievements that they are just embarrassing and discrediting themselves. Some day I hope to achieve the piece of paper still worth something; that Honorary Degree. I believe that even buying the degree for money as many Universities will sell you, is a more honest and "fair" way to assess someone's abilities than the other processes that they currently have in place.
 
Bernard Shaw said that the reasonable man would adapt to society, and the unreasonable man expects society to adapt to him; therefore, all progress is made because of unreasonable men. I'm not a black and white thinker, and believe the world exists mostly in the grays. But one area that I do believe in more black and white and the deeper message of Bernard Shaw, is how we expend our energies and thus what our lives stand for. Are we contributing to the solution by trying to change and improve things and make a positive difference), or are we passively or actively accepting and thus promoting that which we know is wrong, because it is "too hard" to resist and do what is right?
I don't expect people to quit over every injustice, or to fight every battle like it is the only wrong that deserves righting. But I do expect that people will keep trying to improve (even in little ways) the systems that they know are wrong, and keep chipping away towards progress. And when we fail to do so, then it is an embarrassment to our society, to all those involved, and to humanity itself.
The question that I keep asking is "have Universities become a mockery of themselves?" Can a degree mean anything when the Ivory Tower syndrome is so prevalent that the purpose of college has become less about teaching, learning and exposing people to new ideas; and instead is more about indoctrination, forced conformity and bureaucratic pettiness? And when almost all involved have even given up fighting the good fight towards progress, and are instead accepting and promoting what is wrong as some ideal we should strive for, then what have we become? 
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
