Our Education System is outdated, unfair, and overpriced

[Mallette]

I would appreciate a thorough and exhaustive critique of this as it is my intention to post to it a worldwide education forum with some 80k members. They will make every attempt to burn me at the stake and I’d like to at least be prepared.

Yesterday one of my staff was discussing his daughter's college plans. All of his children have been home schooled entirely and rank very high academically. In her case, she's been able to test out of 50% of her college courses.

Right as we were discussing it, it hit me: Why not the rest???

Only answer I can come up with: It's about the money, it’s about inertia, and it’s about time somebody objected.

There you have it; right in front of my face for years and never realized the enormity of an archaic system that is that is completely outdated, unjust, and creates enormous public and private debt for no good reason. High School and bachelor's degrees should be conferred by competency testing, not by building up enormous debts and sitting in class for "X" hours. I do not care whether a person went to Harvard for their English degree or never set foot in a classroom...only that they are competent in the field. That is what a diploma is supposed to represent: competency.

I am a training professional. Specifically, technology based competency systems. As such I am intimately familiar with and have designed engines that can deliver assessments of competency at pretty near 100% accuracy when based on a sufficient variety of well-formed questions developed by qualified and competent persons in the specific field. I’ll place these against the finals of any college or university in the world as just as valid indicators of qualifications for a given undergraduate degree.

You have to really clear your mind to get what I am saying...not that it's complicated, but because it represents something that has been a part of us for thousands of years that only recently technology has provided the means to modernize, make fair, and open true equal opportunity education to all.

A bit of an aside here to eliminate a potential source of red herrings: Graduate degrees and doctorates (especially) are somewhat different as those levels are about new ground, original research, new concepts, and new thinking that requires stringent peer review and guidance. However, even there the required fundamentals that are based on existing research should be subject to test out in order to get on with the real business of learning.

If you want a math degree with a UT logo, then spend 80k and four years sitting in class at UT. If you want the same degree and have the discipline to learn on your own, then get the same degree for free. Or do a bit of both. A degree is a knowledge milestone and HOW one gets to it should be irrelevant. I understand that MIT has most, if not all, their undergraduate courses on line for free. If you master them, you should have a choice of paying MIT a flat fee of whatever they see as value for their logo or you should be able to have the state of Massachusetts (or your own) issue a completely valid and respected BA or BS diploma.

Many are likely familiar with the "coat of arms of the College of Education," that bell curve that condemns everyone to tread the same path at the same speed. In includes everyone without fitting anyone and ensures that some are pushed too hard or others are held back too much and in doing so ensures that NO ONE gets the education they need. It was true enough in its day but is way past it's sell by date.

What if a railroad started 10 trains, each 1500 miles away in evenly spaced compass directions, towards Topeka and then averaged the times it to them to arrive. Then, they took those averages and insisted that all trains for Topeka must travel consistently at 44.6 miles per hour henceforth as decreed by the resulting curve. Some would arrive very late, a few would arrive close to time, and others would wreck catastrophically by going too fast for their particular conditions and never arrive at all.

All degrees short of post graduate degrees are conferred primarily by means of testing. While all cannot be done by means of computer based testing, the vast majority can including ALL high school diplomas. The rest, such as painting, performance, etc can be done by juries of qualified individuals certified and paid by the state or other institution, as well as by the student.

We are perpetuating a completely outdated, unfair, and ineffective educational system.

If MIT wants to place a premium on their name brand, fine. But if you've mastered the knowledge required for a BS in computer science you should be able to obtain a valid diploma from the state to that effect. That diploma should be as valid as one from MIT and all universities should be required to accept it in an application for graduate school.

Actually, I am not suggesting any particular method of education as better or worse. I am just saying that the road one takes is irrelevant...or SHOULD be. I am only suggesting that it is measurable competency that determines a HS, Bachelors, plumber, or gunners mate diploma or rating...not hours spent in a classroom or the amount of money paid to Harvard.

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Go to Youtube and check out the Kahn Academy. In the last week I have shown this to one friend who is getting a chemical engineering degree and another who is starting a business degree.

http://www.khanacademy.org/

I spent way too much time in a classroom and always believed that it was a very inefficient way of learning.

OK, but here is a problem. All good intentions eventually get abused. Home schooling. It worked very well for your staff person’s daughter. She AND her parents were motivated and achieved a goal. How many people have you met that have the kind of discipline to work together toward a common goal? It is difficult and moreover, delayed gratification. In this particular circumstance, you need to be self motivated, which most people lack. How many families even eat dinner together, let alone spend hours working together?

Next problem, weeding people out. Sounds terrible, but it is very necessary. The current system is very flawed, but it does work to a degree. I had to take the LSAT and have straight A's in undergrad to get into law school. In engineering school, anyone could sign up. But there were 100 level classes that made sure that people who could not cut it went elsewhere.

Before getting upset at these harsh statements, think about this. You are in a difficult profession and I am sure that what you do seems easy to you, even though it is very complicated. Now think about times that you have tried to explain concepts to others. Some people are going to click, or have the raw materials where they will catch on. Others will never get it no matter how long it takes or the manner of teaching. It is very unfair to put someone in a program where they will never succeed.

The last thing is monetizing the education. You do need people out there to provide the service of offering and presenting the material, they cannot work for free. The cost can be significantly less than the current system, but there does need to be a stream of income. The beauty of this is that the very best professors (you remember them) can now teach thousands of students or more each semester instead of just a few classes. Only the best will be teaching.

If you can think of a way to overcome the abuse of the system and making sure that people are matched to their capabilities, this is promising.

I would think that this is all pie in the sky, but just last night I was helping a 20 year old friend with his resume. He is enrolled in college and all of his classes are taken online, so we are already moving in this direction very quickly.

[jacksonbart]

This is a general rule as there are always exceptions, but smart parents lead to smart kids, dumb parents..... you get the idea. School is just one facet to a person's education.

[oscarsear]

Unionization. Education isn't about education and hasn't been for many decades. It is about keeping a swath of people employed, well paid and taken care of. --- IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!! -- You heartless people, you.

[Mallette]

Next problem, weeding people out. Sounds terrible, but it is very necessary. The current system is very flawed, but it does work to a degree. I had to take the LSAT and have straight A's in undergrad to get into law school. In engineering school, anyone could sign up. But there were 100 level classes that made sure that people who could not cut it went elsewhere.

As I see it, those are neither harsh statements, nor are they relevant. People are weeded out of school by failing tests. As to law school, anyone should be able to take the bar exam, and should be credentialed as lawyers if they pass. That's how Lincoln got his lawyer designation, by "reading" for the law. In fact, that's how it was done tradtionally.

A person's competency is as good as valid tests say it is, no more, no less. One of my professors told me in my sophomore year "Dave, getting a degree is stupidly simple. 1. NEVER miss a class. 2 Do PRECISELY what the professor says, nothing more, nothing less. In four years or less you will have your degree." He was dead right, and right because by following those two rules one could never fail enough tests to prevent getting a degree. A person capable of studying the material without the regimentation of going to the class could do the same thing and come out every bit as competent.

The last thing is monetizing the education. You do need people out there to provide the service of offering and presenting the material, they cannot work for free. The cost can be significantly less than the current system, but there does need to be a stream of income. The beauty of this is that the very best professors (you remember them) can now teach thousands of students or more each semester instead of just a few classes. Only the best will be teaching.

Fully agree...but there is nothing new in algebra that isn't long since paid for. Nothing in geometry we owe anybody for as Pythagoras is beyond our ability to compensate, as is Newton for the calculus...and most things. For improved methods of presenting these materials there are, indeed, marvelous new technologies which my own department uses to rapidly and efficiently instill competency in complex subject matter...and we are well paid for it as we should be. However, to pay off some school or university to "legitimize" something a person already knows by requiring them to sit through a class and pay for it is just wrong.

If you can think of a way to overcome the abuse of the system and making sure that people are matched to their capabilities, this is promising.

Yes, I've done that. Test engine technology is now available that guarantees completely randomized, individualized tests based on algorithms that require adequate question banks for each objective to ensure there is no chance of passing without mastery of the material. Of course, the quality of the questions in those banks is based, as it always was and will be for quite some time to come, on the human who writes them. Of course, that is why we have accrediation panels. We just need to adapt them to the new technology. Shouldn't be a problem.

Some of the things you mention, Khan and your young friend, support what I am suggesting. However, unless people get on the bandwagon and demand change it will take decades and cost billions in waste to jerk the established education system into line with the 21rst century. We cannot afford to wait.

Dave

[JJkizak]

The best schooling I ever had was the US Navy Electronics. If you flunked you then became a deck ape. Never heard of anyone flunking.

JJK

[Mallette]

US DOD in general has the finest education in the world. OTOH, what did you do for deck apes? []

Dave

[Don Richard]

Getting a diploma is not the end of one's education. There is much to learn after starting a career and getting a job, and what is learned at that time are the sorts of things that you use every day at work. About 2/3 of what I learned in school has not earned me one dime. I didn't understand why I was required to learn the some of the stuff I was being taught and as I near retirement it is still a mystery to me. Now it seems that students are mostly taught how to write about their "feelings" and how to elevate their "self esteem". I don't understand how learning to do that can properly prepare anyone for gainful employment. Except, maybe, to become a teacher and teach others to do the same, thus perpetuating this sort of nonsense.

[Mallette]

Fully agree with you, DR.

Dave

[Marvel]

Free, public education was mostly set up to pry Catholic families apart, since they were traditionally in Catholic schools and learning traditional family values (mostly European immigrants). As it happened, it also worked well to separate Protestant kids and the rest from their families.

Bruce

[Chris A]

Why not the rest???

#1:

When employers stop hiring preferentially from those ranks of high-price graduates of said institutions, the problem will correct itself immediately. But hiring managers don't want it to be egalitarian because then they'd have a problem of huge proportions to deal with every time they hire: too many applicants to choose from that are qualified applicants.

This is a problem that they don't want to deal with. So they do the less-than desirable thing. And this situation is self-reinforcing. Graduates of your proposed egalitarian higher educational system will still be discriminated against when they go into the hiring marketplace, unless they pay their union dues (i.e., $$$$ and exclusivity).

Assuming that you acknowledge that market forces and demand prevail in our relatively free society (i.e., this is NOT a socialistic higher education policy as some countries have adopted), see http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0910s.pdf

Quoting:

"

I have yet to find any evidence that the quality of learning an institution provides determines its success in the marketplace

...

This lack of linkage between learning quality and market performance has devastated the motivation for improvement...

Alternative models for boosting quality do exist, but they have been slow to develop because of shortfalls in motivation and, therefore, time on task.

"

What could be clearer? It's not about what you know, its about who you know and your pedigree. Remember the blue-eye/brown-eye primary school students experiment in the 1960s?

#2:

The schools that you quoted are for-profit, including Ivy league universities. Most state schools are now being run like for-profit institutions in order to make up for shortfalls in state funding. They don't want to sell you a degree based on placement tests alone - it's too inexpensive for the students. These universities would be diluting their brand by selling their diplomas at too low of a price, increasingly flooding jobs markets that are already flooded with qualified job seekers.

#3:

Who besides the cash-strapped students would benefit? There are presently too many students turning into graduates that are looking for jobs, and expecting to be paid more than folks in foreign countires that are taking "off-shored" jobs. Off-shoring companies don't want trained U.S. citizens - because they can pay 24 cents on the dollar or less to someone in, well, let's say, India, who is willing to take that job for that pay. CEOs of major corporations are complaining that they need more foreign worker visas because they "can't hire citizens with the right skills". And this is [bs]--these corporations don't want to pay qualified citizens market rate.

But you've heard all this before...

Chris

[tigerwoodKhorns]

As to law school, anyone should be able to take the bar exam, and should be credentialed as lawyers if they pass. That's how Lincoln got his lawyer designation, by "reading" for the law. In fact, that's how it was done tradtionally.

You really do not want this. Lincoln got a better legal education than any practicing lawyer today. You missed one very important aspect of his education. In the system back then, you had to be a legal apprentice for many years before beign certified. On the job training from a TRUSTED attorney, and hence the problem. If there were many qualified attorneys who would actually take the time to really train a person from zero to certified, then a test, the system would be great and we would have really well trained professionals, but this is not going to happen. Way too much abuse in this profession from about 10-20% of those in practice. Another 25% who are relativey incompetent and you get the picture.

As far as actual training, I worked at a "top tier" law firm right out of law school where you are supposed to get this great training. A few partners made some efforts, but with everyone on the billable hour treadmill, there was never enough time to actually train. So I had to study, study, study and be really pushy to learn. After about 4 months after I had learned the basics, I would actually grab a file off of a senior attorney's desk and say "I am going to work on this" over their protests. Then come back and review and they would then trust me and give me more to do, but I had to keep pushing. Sometimes I had to sit there for 1/2 hour staring at them while they took calls, etc before they would review what I had done. How many people are going to do that? But that is what it took to get experience.

Oddly enough, you can test to get an EI and PE in engineering with 4 and 8 years of actual experience (that you need to document and have other engineers sign off on). The rule is written so that an engineering degree can be swapped for four years of the requirement (shortening the requirements to right out of school and 4 years, respectively). But the exams are heavily theory and you would be severely disadvantaged and need to study a huge amount to pass. In any event, there is a model for your idea in the engineering profession.

[Mallette]

Point well taken, TIgger, especially in areas where I have no real qualifications. I shall try to avoid specific qualifications as it will dilute the main point:

The vast majority of educational competency can be achieved by a variety of methods, and the choice should be made by the individual. The competency should be tested by accredited tests. A degree in economics earned by an individual using a variety of methods should be every bit as good for grad school admission as one from State U. That's all I am trying to say.

Just that...

Dave

[tigerwoodKhorns]

Not trying to derail your thread at all. I think that things are moving in the direction that you are pointing, but changing the establishment is very difficult.

Please let us know hour you are recepted at your presentation.

[oldtimer]

An education should teach one how to think, which can then be implemented by the educated person the rest of their life. That's what a traditional liberal arts education was for. Unfortunately employers want pre-trained specifically skilled hirees. They may pay lip service to wanting well rounded individuals who can read and write (communicate effectively), but that type of hire rarely happens due to what I feel has become the tyranny of the market, which is the blind pursuit of the almighty dollar. I agree with you Dave regarding obtaining credentials, and I also think a real education is also just as important. It usually takes one to get to the other. I disagree with the idea that unionization in whatever form posited is the problem, the market demands certain credentials and the education industry simply helps fill that demand. Again, it is the tyranny of the market which controls, not the side effects.

[oldtimer]

You have an interesting view Marvel, except that free (never free let's just say publicly funded) public education started before and in a place where there were hardly any catholics. Feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong because the idea is intriguing.

[Boxx]

My views regarding public education as we have moved into a new era of time and learning.

Much can be achieved and accomplished, for the majority of students, at the secondary educational level if the school community has firmly in place an educational philosophy that is designed for the 21st century learner.

The core components that must be found in a 21st century model include the following:

1) Consistently involving students in "purposeful engagement" activities;

- Purposeful engagement is the most effective long term way to learn and must be the primary responsibility of the school.

2) Making every attempt to hire quality teachers;

- Quality teachers are the single most important influence on the quality of learning.

3) Supports an environment where collaboration and continuous improvement are the norm.

4) Each individual is valued.

- Each person/student is unique and of infinite value. Diversity is embraced and celebrated.

5) Creating schools that impact the community and beyond.

- Quality schools encourage and sustain quality of life, democracy and economic growth.

As someone who has been involved in pubic education, for many years, this is the system of beliefs that I subscribe to in an attempt to consistently engage the hearts and minds of students . Now is this the only pathway a learning organization can follow to achieve success? No. However, I like this approach and I believe in its merits.

Is this the only way to prepare students for the post secondary world? No. It does however provide an excellent spring board for a large percentage of students that desire to pursue goals following high school.

Yes, in many ways our educational system is outdated. That can be changed. Is it unfair? Perhaps, it depends on your own perspective. Overpriced? It depends on your own value system and what you expect to take from the educational experience.

I realize that I'm addressing the pre-college age group, however, this is a good place to start re-evaluating our learning/educational system.

[germerikan]

I would agree with Boxx for pre Collage education, at least the schools I was in tried their best to teach you how to learn.

On the Collage level however I would embrace what Mallette is suggesting. I myself only went into the Army to get money for Collage. I fell in the to poor to afford it and not the right gender, degree of handicap or correct race to receive a scholarship. Even community Collages were to expensive for me at the time.

27 Years later I still do not have a degree but have learned just about everything I know self-tought. I now work as service technician in a middle size software company and the people with the degrees come to me for help with problems. They however are the ones earning more money since they have received a piece of paper stating they have learned "something" x ammount of years. Many here are not even working in the field in which they have received their degree.

With a system as Mallette suggests it would be possible for people like me who have struggled hard to acchieve the level of knowledge they have to reap the benifits of this.

[Mallette]

Hey, Boxx. I, too, went to schools that were badly underfunded and had teachers who really cared. They made a difference in my life. Nothing I am suggesting has anything to do with the qualities or methodology that might be better or worse...merely with how the required competencies are measured. Nor would I suggest whether state, federal, or local standards should apply, that is up to the people.

I am just saying we have the technology to treat all students truly equally and fairly in determining their competency.

I would point out that I've observed that my children probably recieve less than 2 hours per school day of actual "schooling." We can do better than that within the current public school structure and I have a plan for that representing a paradigm shift as well. Perhaps I'll float that one here at some point. However, I don't want to get off into ancillary issues.

As to college, Germerikan points out and the news of the past few years supports the incredible debt...now greater than credit card debt...amassed by those simply trying to get a bachelor's degree. That process would be greatly impacted by what I propose and competition would increase. No way the standards would slip as the core of my concept is, well, standards. Fair, accepted, and uniform and from objective sources.

Dave

[neo33]

You mean dumb parents lead to exceptional kids?

This is a general rule as there are always exceptions, but smart parents lead to smart kids, dumb parents.....