SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We often discuss the merit (or necessity) of having a formal degree in technology. This story is another installment in that debate:
The Department of the Interior's computer systems played a major role in the breach of systems belonging to the Office of Personnel Management, and DOI officials were called before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Wednesday to answer questions about the over 3,000 vulnerabilities in agency systems discovered in a penetration test run by Interior's Inspector General office. But there was one unexpected revelation during the hearing: a key Interior technology official who had access to sensitive systems for over five years had lied about his education, submitting falsified college transcripts produced by an online service.
The official, Faisal Ahmed, was assistant director of the Interior's Office of Law Enforcement and Security from 2007 to 2013, heading its Technology division. He claimed to have a bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, and a master's degree in technology management from the University of Central Florida—but he never attended either of those schools. He resigned from his position at Interior when the fraudulent claim was exposed by a representative of the University of Central Florida's alumni association, who discovered he had never attended the school after Ahmed accepted and then suddenly deleted a connection with her on LinkedIn.
TFA emphasizes the falsification he did of his credentials, but there seems to be heavy insinuation that lack of degree = lack of ability.
Official Submission
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:52AM
Like, for instance, checking the curricula and lectures that top universities post online, checking academic journals, seeing what respected researchers have to say, etc. If you think this is not doable, you may just be lazy and unmotivated, or alternatively, you cannot imagine how someone can learn differently from you. Formal education isn't for everyone, believe it or not.
Anyone who disagrees with you is lazy and unmotivated, or, alternatively, cognitively incapable. Got it.
Reading academic journals is generally a horrible way to learn something. The information is raw, substantially unfiltered, written by people biased to think their research is the best thing ever and that other approaches are deeply flawed, and much of it is just plain wrong. People read academic journals to make sure they don't accidentally redo someone else's research, not to learn the basics of a discipline.
Textbooks and OpenCourseWare etc. are better for self-study. You can probably get a rough equivalent of a single college course from Coursera or OpenCourseWare if you are extremely dedicated and have a strong natural aptitude for the material. To be clear, most people couldn't do it. But if you're really good, it's possible.
The education still won't be as good. You'll still miss a lot. You can't ask the professor questions, you don't get substantive feedback on the homework, so, if you get off-track, you won't have any help figuring out what you're doing wrong, etc. Colleges and universities have existed for thousands of years because people discovered that learning from other PEOPLE, rather than books, has value. It still does even though we now have things like video lectures. Video lectures are really just a talking book if you think about it. Until we have a human-level AI, learning is still a personal experience.
So, basically, you're right that someone can get very far -- all the way, even -- with self-study. But it's much, much harder to do self-study right, because you're at a severe disadvantage. Even if you "succeed", you'll maybe succeed at a C-level when you would have mastered the material at A-level if you took the class.
There are people who have taught themselves how to read. There's probably a list of them on Wikipedia, because it's a colossal achievement to successfully teach yourself to read and it's worth knowing who was awesome enough to be able to do it. But at the end of their study, those people put themselves at the same level as someone who learned to read in Kindergarten and first grade. And the first graders then had time to learn other things rather than having to struggle for years to master the basics on their own.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @08:40PM
Anyone who disagrees with you is lazy and unmotivated, or, alternatively, cognitively incapable.
There's no point in using straw men. The other possibility I listed was that you might be incapable of imagining how someone could learn differently from you, not that you were generally cognitively incapable. Although that might be the case, since I don't know you. Just like you don't know me, and you don't know how I learn best.
Reading academic journals is generally a horrible way to learn something.
But it is still one option. I hesitated to list other options because I felt that anything that doesn't come from universities or similar would be instantly rejected.
The education still won't be as good. You'll still miss a lot.
It's your claim against mine, and I claim differently. Just because *you* and *others* learn more efficiently in formal education, that doesn't mean everyone does. Stop being so damn arrogant and closed-minded. If you want to know why I listed those two possibilities above (lazy/unmotivated, or unable to imagine someone learning in a different way), it's because of this. It was perfectly justified. My problem lies not with all degree holders; it is this elitist attitude that refuses to accept alternative means of getting an education that are viable for some people, not necessarily you.
Colleges and universities have existed for thousands of years because people discovered that learning from other PEOPLE, rather than books, has value.
Self-education has also existed for a very long time. All this means is that lots of people could learn better from teachers, not necessarily that everyone does. Enough with the hasty generalizations.
And the first graders then had time to learn other things rather than having to struggle for years to master the basics on their own.
It's not up to you to decide how quickly or efficiently someone else learns something, as you don't even know them.
To me, you're not being much better than the theist who denies that atheists even exist. "You believe in god deep in your heart."
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday July 19 2015, @01:33AM
I gave several reasons and examples of the problems inherent in audodidactism, which you did not respond to. It's not a personal preference thing. Put shortly, it's that you don't have anyone to turn to when you run into trouble, and you don't have anyone to give you feedback when you're wrong and don't know it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19 2015, @01:59AM
which you did not respond to.
I didn't directly respond to them because they were so trivial that they didn't need a response.
It's not a personal preference thing.
In fact, it is.
Put shortly, it's that you don't have anyone to turn to when you run into trouble, and you don't have anyone to give you feedback when you're wrong and don't know it.
There are many things that are demonstrable or can be proven, and for other things, you can do one of the many things I've already suggested. And traditional colleges and universities have this 'problem' as well, if you have a bad teacher. But that is actually worse, because it gives you confidence in the incorrect answers.
No "problem" you have mentioned is logically impossible for a dedicated autodidact to solve. I don't know why you seem so desperate to show that self-education is worse in absolutely all cases (as my position is only that it can be as good as a top quality formal educational), but it comes off as seriously arrogant and unintellectual. There are around seven billion people on this planet at the moment. Since you're making such an absurd generalization, I'm going to have to ask you for proof that not a single person has self-educated to the extent that we're talking about, or that it is logically impossible to do so. The situation is such that it would be difficult (or impossible) to prove or disprove whether it can be done, because you don't know what someone else knows, and there are so many people. Regardless, until you do so, what you say is unlikely to be of interest to me.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Sunday July 19 2015, @02:34AM
I never said it was impossible to self-educate. I said it is significantly more difficult, and it's statistically more likely you'll get a good education from a class than trying to do it yourself. I also said it's so much more difficult that, even if you're careful, it's highly likely you'll miss something you wouldn't have missed in a class.
I don't have to prove no one has ever self-educated ever, because that's not what I said. In fact, I noted that some people have completed the astounding feat of teaching themselves to read.
You're not making a very good argument here. You've provided no mechanisms by which autodidactism could be superior and have not responded in any way to the mechanisms I posited for why it is usually inferior. SoylentNews discussions are usually better than this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 19 2015, @04:10AM
I never said it was impossible to self-educate. I said it is significantly more difficult, and it's statistically more likely you'll get a good education from a class than trying to do it yourself.
One of the things you said was as follows: "Even if you "succeed", you'll maybe succeed at a C-level when you would have mastered the material at A-level if you took the class." That was stated as an absolute and seemed as if it applied to all individuals who "succeed" at self-education. As if to say that, no matter what, your education will be lacking. It's not just that that gave me that idea, but you have informed me otherwise now.
You've provided no mechanisms by which autodidactism could be superior
Because the main point isn't to list off specific reasons why it might be superior for some individuals. I have no interest in doing that, because I have no interest in getting into drawn out arguments about the specific reasons I could mention.
We haven't even set a standard here. What standard of formal education are we talking about? MIT? Harvard? Completely random no-name colleges? Depending on what we're talking about, the standards could be so low that a significant percentage of people could self-educate to that level. If we're talking about the best of the best, the number of people who could self-educate at that level could be very low. Not all formal education is the same; far from it. Also, what subjects? Not all subjects are equally easy to self-educate in. Anyone with a computer can program, for instance. Becoming a surgeon through self-education would be almost impossible (due to the lack of resources), and not allowed anyway.
and have not responded in any way to the mechanisms I posited for why it is usually inferior.
Because I don't actually disagree that it would be inferior for most people. That's why I think formal education is a valid choice. Lots of people learn better that way, and I won't tell them otherwise.
SoylentNews discussions are usually better than this.
Discussions evolve (as evidenced by the fact that this wasn't what the thread was originally about), and I have no interest in letting it evolve to the point where we discuss individual reasons that self-education might be superior for some people, thereby getting into an even larger back-and-forth argument.