The most usual way in which we measure educational attainment/knowledge is by seeing what degree(s) a person has. However, it seems that a number of people are in a similar situation to myself. I am an independent learner. While I have around 11,000 hours of formal education completed, I am interested in learning, not obtaining pieces of paper.
Unfortunately that usually translates as meaning that I am not well educated, even though I have spent more time completing formal coursework than someone who holds a straight Ph.D. Furthermore, a Ph.D. is just an indication that a person has a lot of knowledge on a very narrow field of study. It does not in many way measure breadth of knowledge or experience.
Both of these issues seem rather concerning. At the very least, I think that the academic community should realize that a lack of a Ph.D. does not imply any level of intellectual or educational inferiority, and that a person may have a greater amount of education that does not translate to a single degree.
Perhaps the concept of "mathema" discussed in this paper could help: Book Polymathy: A New Outlook
Dear Dr. Daniel Goldman ,
This is an interesting question. In addition, it is a nice and interesting proposition. I completely agree with you dear Dr. Daniel Goldman . The development of a new scale is an idea worthy of reflection. I follow you, and colleagues in this debate to more benefit.
Regards.
Dear Daniel Goldman,
The basic question is the answer to the question to what extent the specific education obtained helps in achieving professional goals. An equally important issue is the use of new information technologies in education processes.
Best wishes
The basic question is the answer to the question to what extent the specific education obtained helps in achieving professional goals.
Interesting. While I don't entirely disagree, Dariusz Prokopowicz, what it suggests is that the function of "education" is simply to prepare one for a job. I'm a little concerned by this notion.
And I just realized that I could have asked this question as part of https://www.researchgate.net/project/Improving-Academia
That was dumb of me. Oh well.
Dear Dr. Daniel Goldman ,
This is an interesting question. In addition, it is a nice and interesting proposition. I completely agree with you dear Dr. Daniel Goldman . The development of a new scale is an idea worthy of reflection. I follow you, and colleagues in this debate to more benefit.
Regards.
Daniel, My initial reaction to your question was "Why MEASURE education/knowledge at all?" We know the reason WHY it is done: to give employers estimates of the likelihood that a given person can and will do the work they want done. But given that learning is such a multidimensional process with such a multitude of results, of all sorts, from infinitely varied forms of appropriation to boredom and rejection, the idea of measuring seems grossly inadequate. Measure requires deciding on the quantum to be measured. Employers want measures of skill (usually narrowly defined) and willingness to channel one's energy into work. Even things like grades and diplomas are poor proxies for such things. With a much larger array of objectives and results, even an array of measures seem unlikely to be useful. On the subject of diplomas, you might enjoy the 1903 essay "The PhD Octopus" by William James: http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEJamesOctopusTable.pdf
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking