What is the purpose of a college education?

[Nano-Passion]

I can understand the path to a PhD. You need proof of an academic education before entering graduate school.

I was referring to getting an undergraduate degree just to get "knowledge" without a PhD as a goal.

Trust me, there is way too many people that get an undergraduate degree and end up flippin burgers because they were lied to by universities that their degree would guarantee them a good salary. As a matter of fact, in these hard economic times, 40k is not enough when you have to pay insurance and loans.

You could easily be making 40k$ without a degree.

I see your point. I was referring to going to college for the love of knowledge, not for the (sometimes) misled "knowledge" in getting a job.

I disagree that 40k isn't enough, if you know how to budget yourself it isn't so bad at all. You have approximately $3333/month. The numbers seem to add up to a comfortable yet modest living. I don't see what is so terrible about that. Physicists don't come out with much loans at all. If you are a med major on the other hand then paying off loans are a major factor.

 

[CheckMate]

I see your point. I was referring to going to college for the love of knowledge, not for the (sometimes) misled "knowledge" in getting a job.

I disagree that 40k isn't enough, if you know how to budget yourself it isn't so bad at all. You have approximately $3333/month. The numbers seem to add up to a comfortable yet modest living. I don't see what is so terrible about that. Physicists don't come out with much loans at all. If you are a med major on the other hand then paying off loans are a major factor.

I did a mistake by assuming that the cost of a physics degree would be somewhat around the same as an EE degree.

However, I still think that a physics degree should be free when it comes to tuition. I am sick and tired of universities lying to prospective students in order to sucking every single penny and credit out of their pockets.

 

[Nano-Passion]

I did a mistake by assuming that the cost of a physics degree would be somewhat around the same as an EE degree.

However, I still think that a physics degree should be free when it comes to tuition. I am sick and tired of universities lying to prospective students in order to sucking every single penny and credit out of their pockets.

Sounds like you would be more accustomed to a social government rather than a capital one. I would personally love to get out of America and live under a social government. It looks to be a less stressful environment. You will know what I'm talking about if you've watched Michael Moore's films such as 'Sicko'. But hey, looks can be deceiving, I don't have a deep knowledge of this subject.

 

[CheckMate]

I don't have any problem with capitalism. I believe the economic system should be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Some things people need should be covered by the government if and only if the economy is strong (done by capitalism). These things should be certain areas of education (everything before graduate), necessary food,clothing, housing and so on.

I haven't watched Michael Moore's Sicko but I do agree with a lot with him when it comes to America's economic issues.

I live in Canada: social government, free healthcare and other benefits, but rising tuition costs and heavy taxes. Free healthcare is great but we have a rising unhealthy population and not enough docs---> rising health care costs--->more old people living and not dying yet---> rising health care costs----> more taxes----> potential loss of jobs or migration

 

[Vanadium 50]

0 Trust me, there is way too many people that get an undergraduate degree and end up flippin burgers because they were lied to by universities that their degree would guarantee them a good salary.

Trust but verify. Please provide evidence of one of these guarantees.

 

[CheckMate]

Trust but verify. Please provide evidence of one of these guarantees.

Most university websites. Most speeches by university recruiters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/university-of-phoenix-rec_n_687681.html

That's just 1 example.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Most university websites.

Please cite one.

Most speeches by university recruiters.

Please cite one from a non-profit university - like the majority of them in this country.

 

[CheckMate]

I did not claim that unis are for profit. I said their goal was to get as many students as they can, in order to cover their own expenses.

I can find a source, but after many journalistic investigations, universities have changed their websites. What I claimed is what I have read back when I was a high school student and I cannot cite what recruiters said. I don't have the conversation on tape.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I see. So you can't support your inflammatory claim. (Apart from one statement from a for-profit university).

In the future, it's good to be able to back up what you say before you say it - particularly something that accuses a large number of people of fraud.

 

[CheckMate]

Alright you got me, I made the mistake to generalize (assuming that 1 for profit university= others).

Regardless, you can't deny that there is an increasing number of folks with undergraduate degrees working in a job that offers a lower salary than expected.

 

[Edin_Dzeko]

Alright you got me, I made the mistake to generalize (assuming that 1 for profit university= others).

Regardless, you can't deny that there is an increasing number of folks with undergraduate degrees working in a job that offers a lower salary than expected.

Most definitely. I know people personally. One guy is working at Macy's and is considering going back to school for nursing because the first time around was just a waste of time. Another kid started out with nursing then switched to catering and now times are hard for them. They are dependent on their parents more than before they left for college.

We are getting to a point where certain degrees just don't pay anymore. Why go to school for many years then I can't find work with what I went to school for? Waste of time don't you think?

 

[Edin_Dzeko]

Some people go for college with the intent of a job. Others go to quench their thirst for knowledge. Personally, I am proud to be part of the latter.

You don't have to go to college to "quench your thirst for knowledge". Ever hear of the internet or the library?

Here's a dialogue you from the movie Good Will Hunting:

Will: See the sad thing about a guy like you, is in about 50 years you’re going to start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you’re going to come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One, don't do that. And two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f****g education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the Public Library.
Clark: Yeah, but I will have a degree, and you'll be serving my kids fries at a drive-thru on our way to a skiing trip.

Both characters are right in their own way. There's a wealth of knowledge that can be acquired outside of college for a very low price. But you see, education isn't just a paper that says so and so has completed x amount of years of study in a specific field/subject. I don't have to ever set foot in an ivy league school building to be "well educated". But education and the school system today has changed. College is about learning but learning goes beyond math, science, etc., how many college's promote the idea of "preparing you for life / the real world"? What does that mean?

 

[Edin_Dzeko]

Guys, ultimately, we should first define what education really is. Once we define education then we can determine what constitutes a good, bad, above average education and the purpose of education.

Second of all, if you look at the history of universities (medieval times) you will see that the purpose of college goes beyond "education" in the sense that people are arguing about here. It's not just about math, science, etc., think about the idea of leaving mom and dad around the age of 17/18 and being on your own for most of the year. What's that supposed to train you for / prepare you for?

 

[Nano-Passion]

You don't have to go to college to "quench your thirst for knowledge". Ever hear of the internet or the library?

Do you think the internet and the library would suffice for PhD level work? I am talking about the deep and complex knowledge that is at the forefront of math and science. Not the schaum's outline for dummies. Or whatever they call it nowadays.

 

[Rayquesto]

I would agree that a PhD would require not only research, but acquired knowledge and mostly outside experience. I'm only a freshman in college, but I would think that is true!

 

[GregJ]

Well, to the question of this thread: "What is the purpose of a college education?". Well let's first see how they advertise themselves to prospective students.

1) To improve career prospects
2) To pursue a vocation
3) To earn a larger salary (often compared to the "lower" incomes of non-graduates).
4) To develop employable skills
5) To build self-confidence, independence & responsibility
6) To Study a subject which is enjoyed

Some "facts" used by universities:
1) Only 6% of graduates are unemployed after 6 months.
2) According to the Government, by 2010 50% of all jobs will require someone educated to degree level.
3) It is estimated that over a lifetime the average graduate would have earned almost 50% more than the average non-graduate.
4) Around 7 million of the jobs expected to be filled by 2012 are in occupations most likely to demand graduates.
5) Research supports the fact that employers are increasingly seeking graduates.As you may see, most colleges/universities get sold to students playing on their fears of the "real world" outside high/secondary school (that they will not get a job, earn little money, etc.). Not that I disagree with going to college/university at all, it's just that a lot of students go for the wrong reasons.

Which leads to my conclusion, "What is the purpose of a college education?": For the colleges/universities (perhaps the government too if on a government student loan) to make more money. Of course this applies only to a certain group of people. To others, the purpose of college/uni is to get an education to be used in a specific profession/career or purely to learn a subject of interest (and they go into college/uni knowing that from the start).
***Edit: How could I forget. Some people go just to have wild parties.***Sources:
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/simplyparents/whygotouni/index.html
http://www.kent.ac.uk/secondary/pdf/tips_whyuni.pdf
http://www.port.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/parentspages/whygotouniversity/

 

[Rayquesto]

"Well, to the question of this thread: "What is the purpose of a college education?". Well let's first see how they advertise themselves to prospective students.

1) To improve career prospects
2) To pursue a vocation
3) To earn a larger salary (often compared to the "lower" incomes of non-graduates).
4) To develop employable skills
5) To build self-confidence, independence & responsibility
6) To Study a subject which is enjoyed

Some "facts" used by universities:
1) Only 6% of graduates are unemployed after 6 months.
2) According to the Government, by 2010 50% of all jobs will require someone educated to degree level.
3) It is estimated that over a lifetime the average graduate would have earned almost 50% more than the average non-graduate.
4) Around 7 million of the jobs expected to be filled by 2012 are in occupations most likely to demand graduates.
5) Research supports the fact that employers are increasingly seeking graduates.


As you may see, most colleges/universities get sold to students playing on their fears of the "real world" outside high/secondary school (that they will not get a job, earn little money, etc.). Not that I disagree with going to college/university at all, it's just that a lot of students go for the wrong reasons.

Which leads to my conclusion, "What is the purpose of a college education?": For the colleges/universities (perhaps the government too if on a government student loan) to make more money. Of course this applies only to a certain group of people. To others, the purpose of college/uni is to get an education to be used in a specific profession/career or purely to learn a subject of interest (and they go into college/uni knowing that from the start).
***Edit: How could I forget. Some people go just to have wild parties.***"

I completely agree! Some decide to achieve these goals in other ways more independently, but it's much more easier to achieve through going to college. When money becomes an nuissance, that's when they try to find ways around those goals by avoiding paying for college, going on the internet, studying at the library during own time, and doing other things. College, none the less, is the best method to achieve those things hands down. I don't think there is anything better than going to college to achieve all those goals. It's the best bang for you buck, you time, etc.

 

[twofish-quant]

You don't have to go to college to "quench your thirst for knowledge". Ever hear of the internet or the library?

Yes. The internet is great at providing raw data, but its incredibly unorganized, and there are things that you just can't learn by reading about it. One example which comes from another thread is how to handle yourself in a job interview. You have to do it to learn out to do it.

Libraries are useful, but it's really, really expensive to put together a well run research library, and one of the big problems that I have is that I don't have easy access to a research library.

Also the important thing to learn is people, and universities end up putting people in the same room.

Even the free stuff isn't free. Google is a multi-billion corporation, and over the last several decades tens of billions of dollars have gone into putting together the internet. A lot of this is paid for by advertising and tax dollars, but the fact is that someone has to pay. It may not be you, and it probably shouldn't be you, but someone has to pay.

There's a wealth of knowledge that can be acquired outside of college for a very low price.

And there is knowledge that really can't be. Most of the really important bits of knowledge involves interacting with people, and people are busy, so you end up having to pay them for their time.

I don't have to ever set foot in an ivy league school building to be "well educated".

It helps a lot. A lot of the people that run the world have degrees from Harvard, and if you spend some time on campus, you learn about the psychology of people that go to Harvard. This is not a minor thing to figure out.

Also in order to get anywhere you have to have friends and connections, and college is one place where you end up with friends and connections.

College is about learning but learning goes beyond math, science, etc., how many college's promote the idea of "preparing you for life / the real world"? What does that mean?

They do. One of the important functions of colleges is "young adult daycare." You end up learning about how to handle sex, drugs, alcohol, and human relationships in an environment in which you won't do permanent damage. Suppose you party all night, and you get totally sick. In college, you miss a class, and you learn not to do that again (or you learn to do that again), and nothing bad happens. If you are in a family, you could get fired, and very bad things can happen to you.

 

[twofish-quant]

Please cite one.

start with

http://nber.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html

and then go to

http://www.phds.org/the-big-picture/scientist-shortages/

Granted, none of them are recent, and around 2007 people stopped talking about shortages in skilled labor, but I think it's a bad thing to try to rewrite history and pretend that people weren't talking about as late as 2005.

Also, putting things down the "memory hole" is something that you'd expect from George Orwell. One thing that worries me a bit about everything going online is that it makes it easier for people to pretend that they didn't say things that they did.

You can say "we'll we didn't promise *you* a job" but that's the sort of thing that I'd expect from used car dealers and bond salesman, and not from people that are supposed to be 'in loco parentis'.

 

[twofish-quant]

Guys, ultimately, we should first define what education really is. Once we define education then we can determine what constitutes a good, bad, above average education and the purpose of education.

And one thing that I think you'll quickly figure out is that "we" will never agree, and waiting until "we" agree means that nothing will get done.

I happen to have a personal definition of what it means to be educated. It works for me, and if you like it/hate it/are indifferent to it, then that's fine. For me, part of being educated is to figure out where and how I got my ideas about what it means to be educated.

Second of all, if you look at the history of universities (medieval times) you will see that the purpose of college goes beyond "education" in the sense that people are arguing about here. It's not just about math, science, etc., think about the idea of leaving mom and dad around the age of 17/18 and being on your own for most of the year. What's that supposed to train you for / prepare you for?

Something that you quickly figure out when you investigate things is that it turns out that some things happened by historical accident. If you talk to people in my father's generation, it was expected that you'd leave home around 17/18 and join the army, which also fulfils the function of "young adult daycare." Around the 1960's, that became unpopular in the United States, so you had the rise of colleges that filled the same social role.

 

[twofish-quant]

Do you think the internet and the library would suffice for PhD level work?

If you add in some people willing to hand down knowledge, then that's all you need for theory.

Also a well stocked library is not an easy thing to create. Getting all of the collections can cost tens of millions a year. One thing that saddens me is that a lot of the budget cuts are hitting libraries hard.

I am talking about the deep and complex knowledge that is at the forefront of math and science.

My opinion is that the deep and complex stuff is mostly "social knowledge." I watch my adviser and the more senior people in the department solve a problem and talk with each other. I absorb that culture through osmosis, and the next generation of intellectuals comes into existence.

 

[twofish-quant]

More about education and jobs (the magic google word is "competitiveness"

http://www.educause.edu/thetowerandthecloud/PUB7202h
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2011/col2-content/main-content-list/higher-education-key-to-economic.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...d-competitiveness-announces-industry-leaders-
http://icw.uschamber.com/newsletter-article/education-key-global-competitiveness

There's also this part of me that is thinking "get real". You think that the federal and state governments are pumping tens of billions of dollars into colleges so that people can learn French literature? If you are taking the position "but we never promised you a job" then you are skating on some really, really thin political ice.

Higher education has this huge dilemma right now. If colleges and universities take the position that what they do has nothing to do with jobs, then there is this huge massive line item that will be cut, and you'll have tenured faculty in the unemployment line. If they take the position that one of the goals of colleges and universities is to create jobs, and frankly I see no other politically viable alternative, then it gets sucked into some pretty deep politics.

 

[Vanadium 50]

start with

http://nber.nber.org/~peat/PapersFolder/Papers/SG/NSF.html

and then go to

http://www.phds.org/the-big-picture/scientist-shortages/

Granted, none of them are recent, and around 2007 people stopped talking about shortages in skilled labor, but I think it's a bad thing to try to rewrite history and pretend that people weren't talking about as late as 2005.

None of them are recent, and none of them are incidents of a university guaranteeing that it's BS grads will get a good salary.

Also, putting things down the "memory hole" is something that you'd expect from George Orwell. One thing that worries me a bit about everything going online is that it makes it easier for people to pretend that they didn't say things that they did.

I did no such thing and I strongly resent your suggestion that I did.

 

[boomtrain]

Yes. The internet is great at providing raw data, but its incredibly unorganized, and there are things that you just can't learn by reading about it.

It's getting more organized.

http://www.khanacademy.org/

watching those videos and trying some practice problems will give you a much better understanding of basic physics, math, chemistry, finance ect. than the average university student. Remember, lectures are given by people with tenure, who have no incentive to care about how much you learn, or people trying to get tenure (who are focusing on research).

Also, the fundamentals of math, computer science, engineering ect. haven't changed for decades (centuries?). Who's stopping you from buying a used textbook on Amazon for $10 and reading through it yourself?

as for learning by doing...
http://philip.greenspun.com/seia/
http://philip.greenspun.com/sql/
http://diveintopython.org/
http://w3schools.com/

you can develop a ton of practical programming skill from the internet.

Also, the learning involved in a private certification (Cisco, Oracle, Microsoft) can sometimes be independent of classroom instruction.

Internet learning won't bring you to the leading edge of human knowledge, but it will give you some (free) marketable skills.

 

[Nano-Passion]

If you add in some people willing to hand down knowledge, then that's all you need for theory.

Also a well stocked library is not an easy thing to create. Getting all of the collections can cost tens of millions a year. One thing that saddens me is that a lot of the budget cuts are hitting libraries hard.

Hey twofish-quant =D! I wrote a post yesterday and it got deleted because the server was offline. I'll reiterate.

True, but you are greatly undervaluing the importance of colleges. Colleges aren't only about helping you learn the material. They are able to stretch your abilities by putting pressure and deadlines for you to work hard. They help unlock your potential. They are also a great community to develop your social skills, aside from being able to bounce ideas with others on problems-- which is very essential to learning higher-physics or mathematics (particularly physics because it isn't as rigorous, some things are fuzzy).

Don't forget that if you never went to school, you would have most likely never have had the incentive to do a bit of math let alone even look at it. You would have been much more occupied just trying to survive. The goals you set is much less effective then the external pressure from outside. Let's admit it, there is always those times of grind, and college gives you some external motivation to get through it.

You might argue that motivation should come solely from within etc.. but let's face it-- bottom line is its much more efficient to have an external source breathing down your neck. Often, it can bring out the best in you.

My opinion is that the deep and complex stuff is mostly "social knowledge." I watch my adviser and the more senior people in the department solve a problem and talk with each other. I absorb that culture through osmosis, and the next generation of intellectuals comes into existence.

In addition, don't forget about the deep and complex problems on the pinnacle of theoretical physics and mathematics. It simply wouldn't be wise to try and self-study up to these points and expect to make some major contributions-- which brings me back to my original point.

It's getting more organized.

http://www.khanacademy.org/

watching those videos and trying some practice problems will give you a much better understanding of basic physics, math, chemistry, finance ect. than the average university student. Remember, lectures are given by people with tenure, who have no incentive to care about how much you learn, or people trying to get tenure (who are focusing on research).

Khanacademy.org sets you up with just the bare necessities of understanding the concept. While Khanacademy is organized, that doesn't mean Internet on the whole is getting more organized. You need much more resources than just understanding the basic concepts, such as, but not limited to: solving challenging problems, looking up proofs for certain things, acquiring practice problems with their respective answers, etc.

You might argue that Khanacademy is adding more and more problems; but currently they make them too simple.

 

[mathwonk]

what is the point of this thread? this could go on forever.

 

[Nano-Passion]

what is the point of this thread? this could go on forever.

Mathwonk, I am disappointed, I would expect you to be careful with your wordings. Forever implies infinite time.

Jk=p

Its nice to have a debate every once in a while: even though it might be relatively non-factual. Just look at the other threads such as "post your grade". Not every thread has to be about what college should I go to, what classes should I take, etc..

Who knows, maybe someone will pass by here and figure out if college is really for them or not. ^.^

 

[twofish-quant]

True, but you are greatly undervaluing the importance of colleges.

I don't think that I am. Part of it is that we are swimming in data, so if it was "easy" to replace a college, then it would have been done already. It's partly out of my one efforts of self-study that I appreciate how difficult it is to put together a college online.

There are a lot of subtle social aspects of colleges that need to be replicated online.

Don't forget that if you never went to school, you would have most likely never have had the incentive to do a bit of math let alone even look at it. You would have been much more occupied just trying to survive.

On the other hand school isn't the only thing that provides motivation to learn.

You might argue that motivation should come solely from within etc.. but let's face it-- bottom line is its much more efficient to have an external source breathing down your neck.

One problem here is that sometimes you need to tell the external source of motivation to get lost. Also it's not that easy to divide between internal motivation and external motivation. When you take a test in a college, it's not as if someone is pointing a gun to you and if you just leave the classroom, you aren't going to physically die. So "external motivation" requires some internal agreement. At the same time, you have to wonder where internal motivation comes from.

In addition, don't forget about the deep and complex problems on the pinnacle of theoretical physics and mathematics. It simply wouldn't be wise to try and self-study up to these points and expect to make some major contributions-- which brings me back to my original point.

Except that the Ph.D. degree is all about self-study. Once you finish up the first two years of the degree and pass your qualifiers, there are no more formal courses, and you spend most of your time in the library trying to teach yourself whatever it is that you have to learn.

Part of it is that for Ph.D. degrees it's not a matter of "knowledge transfer" between a professor and student. You are expected to do something original that no one else has done before, and that means going to the library and figuring out what it is that you need to figure out.

You need much more resources than just understanding the basic concepts, such as, but not limited to: solving challenging problems, looking up proofs for certain things, acquiring practice problems with their respective answers, etc.

Which means putting together a lesson plan. Eventually someone is going to do it.

 

[atyy]

I don't think that I am. Part of it is that we are swimming in data, so if it was "easy" to replace a college, then it would have been done already. It's partly out of my one efforts of self-study that I appreciate how difficult it is to put together a college online.

There are a lot of subtle social aspects of colleges that need to be replicated online.



On the other hand school isn't the only thing that provides motivation to learn.



One problem here is that sometimes you need to tell the external source of motivation to get lost. Also it's not that easy to divide between internal motivation and external motivation. When you take a test in a college, it's not as if someone is pointing a gun to you and if you just leave the classroom, you aren't going to physically die. So "external motivation" requires some internal agreement. At the same time, you have to wonder where internal motivation comes from.



Except that the Ph.D. degree is all about self-study. Once you finish up the first two years of the degree and pass your qualifiers, there are no more formal courses, and you spend most of your time in the library trying to teach yourself whatever it is that you have to learn.

Part of it is that for Ph.D. degrees it's not a matter of "knowledge transfer" between a professor and student. You are expected to do something original that no one else has done before, and that means going to the library and figuring out what it is that you need to figure out.



Which means putting together a lesson plan. Eventually someone is going to do it.

How about the Open University? Not online, but they started before the internet, and seem to be in the spirit of what's being discussed. http://www.open.ac.uk/

Phoenix seems to be quite respected too - I gather you've taught there?

 

[twofish-quant]

Phoenix seems to be quite respected too - I gather you've taught there?

Yes. Lots of mixed feelings about it.

For some things. I think of University of Phoenix as the "McDonald's" of higher education. It's not a five star restaurant but it gets the job done.

The things that I find annoying about University of Phoenix is:

1) it's not intended to teach physicists. They don't even have calculus. The have an assembly line method of teaching that works very well for business degrees. I don't know if it can be made to work for anything math intensive.
2) They treat teachers like McDonald's workers. You are an interchangeable part in a giant machine.
3) Their resource allocations are a bit shocking. They spend 10% of their income on teaching and about 40% on marketing. Their return on investment is also scary since it's a money making machine. Also the people that are students at UoP tend to be older which means that they don't have to spend time and money on babysitting.

So University of Phoenix is what you get if you take a university and then strip away all of the romance and sentimentality. I'm of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, there is quite a bit less hypocrisy. If you are a teacher there, you are a cog in a machine, you make some extra money, and no one pretends otherwise.

I don't know of the UoP model work work for anything mathematically heavy, and University of Phoenix cares nothing about research. I do know that Open University cares a lot about research and science.

 

[chiro]

Yes. Lots of mixed feelings about it.

For some things. I think of University of Phoenix as the "McDonald's" of higher education. It's not a five star restaurant but it gets the job done.

The things that I find annoying about University of Phoenix is:

1) it's not intended to teach physicists. They don't even have calculus. The have an assembly line method of teaching that works very well for business degrees. I don't know if it can be made to work for anything math intensive.
2) They treat teachers like McDonald's workers. You are an interchangeable part in a giant machine.
3) Their resource allocations are a bit shocking. They spend 10% of their income on teaching and about 40% on marketing. Their return on investment is also scary since it's a money making machine. Also the people that are students at UoP tend to be older which means that they don't have to spend time and money on babysitting.

So University of Phoenix is what you get if you take a university and then strip away all of the romance and sentimentality. I'm of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, there is quite a bit less hypocrisy. If you are a teacher there, you are a cog in a machine, you make some extra money, and no one pretends otherwise.

I don't know of the UoP model work work for anything mathematically heavy, and University of Phoenix cares nothing about research. I do know that Open University cares a lot about research and science.

Hey twofish-quant I had just a question that came to my mind and am interested in your response.

Do you think a kind of forum based approach will ever be adopted for learning in the spirit of say physicsforums?

I know many institutions have their own online learning system with forums, but they have a boundary of being completely within some network like the university network.

So just to clarify, could you see a completely (or at least largely) open model of education where everything is more or less open including the content, the ability to ask and answer questions, and the ability to do assessments and have the whole process go through an open process (in a kind of 'analog' to how open source software is created, managed, and maintained within that respective community)?

This would require organization (quite a bit) but I can visualize an environment like physics forums evolving into some kind of system that I described above.

 

[ColonialBoy]

Hey twofish-quant I had just a question that came to my mind and am interested in your response.

Do you think a kind of forum based approach will ever be adopted for learning in the spirit of say physicsforums?

Its common.

http://docs.moodle.org/20/en/About_Moodle
http://www.blackboard.com/

 

[chiro]

Its common.

http://moodle.com.au/
http://www.blackboard.com/

Thanks for that link, very much appreciated.

I guess the next question that is a followup, is could this model end up becoming an acceptable form of learning that is recognized and taken seriously by employers, researchers, government, and industry?

 

[ColonialBoy]

Thanks for that link, very much appreciated.

I guess the next question that is a followup, is could this model end up becoming an acceptable form of learning that is recognized and taken seriously by employers, researchers, government, and industry?

During my current education degree we use moodle & blackboard. Those two are the standard for online course delivery, and online courses are becoming far more common in universities. You get course content, forums, assignments, courses documents, exams all in the one place.

In fact I'm in Australia & we did one course jointly with Canadians https://blackboard.ucalgary.ca/webapps/login/

 

[Rayquesto]

they should keep the chalkboards! I can now relate to those who say that it makes everything related to learning much more meaningful in a way!