A Real Change Coming?

[Kathianne]

Alternative credentials in lieu of degrees? Way past time it seems to me:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/next/2011/09/22/think-different-not-in-higher-ed/


Think Different? Not in Higher Ed September 22, 2011, 8:34 pm
By Jeffrey Selingo (http://chronicle.com/blogs/next/author/jselingo/)
When Steve Jobs introduced the “Think Different” advertising campaign on his return to the helm of Apple, in 1997, the slogan was not just aimed at consumers. It was also meant to inspire those inside the struggling company to innovate for the future.


Of course, what followed is now the story of one of the most successful companies in American history: a decade when Apple transformed the music industry with the iPod, the mobile-phone industry with the iPhone, and now the publishing industry with the iPad.


Apple succeed partly because it decided to take a different path than its competitors in the tech industry, and consumers followed. The history of business is filled with similar tales. Just look at what happened to Detroit’s Big Three after the arrival of Japanese automakers in the United States.


Many in higher ed believe the analogy with businesses doesn’t apply to them. They think they have a corner on the credential business and right now a credential is the ticket to most good jobs.


Whenever a new competitor enters the higher-education market and tries something different, those at traditional colleges criticize the newcomers as not understanding pedagogy. Just see the negative comments on recent Chronicle articles about online education (http://chronicle.com/article/How-Big-Can-E-Learning-Get-At/128809/) or StraighterLine, (http://chronicle.com/article/Ambitious-Provider-of-Online/129052/) which offers self-paced introductory courses but not degrees.


But what if higher ed lost its grip on the credential business? Perhaps then administrators and professors would be forced to think that there is more than one way to provide a college education.
The day when other organizations besides colleges provide a nondegree credential to signify learning might not be as far off as we think. One interesting project on this front is an effort to create “digital badges,” (http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/09/15/openbadges/) which would allow people to demonstrate their skills and knowledge to prospective employers without necessarily having a degree...

[ConHog]

Alternative credentials in lieu of degrees? Way past time it seems to me:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/next/2011/09/22/think-different-not-in-higher-ed/

The thing that has always made me laugh about degrees is that most of the time employees don't even care what the degree is in, just that you have one. Now of course for some fields that isn't true. But in general, they just want to see A degree.

[Gaffer]

Something that's long over due.

[ConHog]

Something that's long over due.

I can foresee a day when physical colleges don't exist.

[Kathianne]

The thing that has always made me laugh about degrees is that most of the time employees don't even care what the degree is in, just that you have one. Now of course for some fields that isn't true. But in general, they just want to see A degree.

In most companies, they want to train the employees in 'their way' of doing things. What a degree has meant, at least in the past, was the ability to not only master the curriculum, but the determination to see it through. I'm not so sure about that anymore, considering both grade inflation and the poor performance of many degree holders.

Life experiences, whether in the military or from a variety of jobs and interests can provide ample opportunities to develop useful skills and the ability to utilize them in employment.

[ConHog]

In most companies, they want to train the employees in 'their way' of doing things. What a degree has meant, at least in the past, was the ability to not only master the curriculum, but the determination to see it through. I'm not so sure about that anymore, considering both grade inflation and the poor performance of many degree holders.

Life experiences, whether in the military or from a variety of jobs and interests can provide ample opportunities to develop useful skills and the ability to utilize them in employment.

I agree. Like I've said , I have four degrees and none of them have anything to do with what I did for a living. Nor am I likely to at this point utlize them. So ultimately what do they mean other than I had some free time, the National Guard offered to pay, and I'm pretty good at taking tests? Not much. LOL

[Kathianne]

I agree. Like I've said , I have four degrees and none of them have anything to do with what I did for a living. Nor am I likely to at this point utlize them. So ultimately what do they mean other than I had some free time, the National Guard offered to pay, and I'm pretty good at taking tests? Not much. LOL

20 years ago or more, my ex was the regional IT manager for AT&T. He was required to hire only those with at least a bachelors degree, though even those from prestigious universities in computer science were not cutting it fast enough. This was especially true when they were 'project hires' to write the codes for something like adding new area codes and making sure they'd work and be billed correctly. These were mainly going to be temporary workers for a specific project, thus there wasn't time nor incentive to put them into 6 months of training.

Pretty often he'd be interviewing someone that actually knew the program and could problem solve during the interview. Over and over again he'd find they were either self-taught or from DeVry, a technical institute. Agencies would send them, knowing their strong skills and hope that the degree requirement would be waived.

It took 5 years of fighting corporate HR, but he eventually came up with a 'test' for the hiring that could be used in place of a degree. After that? Nearly all were from DeVry and a few of those that self-taught.

Seems the same type of thinking and evaluations are behind this 'badges' idea.

[ConHog]

20 years ago or more, my ex was the regional IT manager for AT&T. He was required to hire only those with at least a bachelors degree, though even those from prestigious universities in computer science were not cutting it fast enough. This was especially true when they were 'project hires' to write the codes for something like adding new area codes and making sure they'd work and be billed correctly. These were mainly going to be temporary workers for a specific project, thus there wasn't time nor incentive to put them into 6 months of training.

Pretty often he'd be interviewing someone that actually knew the program and could problem solve during the interview. Over and over again he'd find they were either self-taught or from DeVry, a technical institute. Agencies would send them, knowing their strong skills and hope that the degree requirement would be waived.

It took 5 years of fighting corporate HR, but he eventually came up with a 'test' for the hiring that could be used in place of a degree. After that? Nearly all were from DeVry and a few of those that self-taught.

Seems the same type of thinking and evaluations are behind this 'badges' idea.



About the only areas where I would say a degree is a MUST today are

medical
legal
teaching
accounting

I DO want those people to have a formal education in their fields.

[Kathianne]

About the only areas where I would say a degree is a MUST today are

medical
legal
teaching
accounting

I DO want those people to have a formal education in their fields.

Actually the legal profession has a long history of the self-taught, Lincoln being the most famous example.

http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/2119/Self-Made-Lawyers/


...Well-known attorneys such as Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow achieved extraordinary success as lawyers without obtaining J.D. degrees. Other famous lawyers who never received J.D. degrees include John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Benjamin N. Cardozo, Justice of the Supreme Court; Patrick Henry, Governor of Virginia; Daniel Webster, Secretary of State; and Strom Thurmond, U.S. Senator and South Carolina Governor. It wasn't until 1878 that the American Bar Association (ABA) began to establish itself as a force in the legal field and law schools began to become mainstream...


Medical has a longstanding with apprenticeships especially in rural areas, until the past 100 years or so.

Engineering, economics both seem to require a specific curriculum. So do most science based jobs, whether engineering or research.

[ConHog]

Actually the legal profession has a long history of the self-taught, Lincoln being the most famous example.

http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/2119/Self-Made-Lawyers/



Medical has a longstanding with apprenticeships especially in rural areas, until the past 100 years or so.

Engineering, economics both seem to require a specific curriculum. So do most science based jobs, whether engineering or research.

Sure Medical and legal both have a long standing history of apprenticeship, but I just feel like with how much legal and medical information there is out there to know I prefer formal education.

[Kathianne]

Sure Medical and legal both have a long standing history of apprenticeship, but I just feel like with how much legal and medical information there is out there to know I prefer formal education.

and yet, regarding the legal, quite a few states allow one to 'read the law.' ;)

[ConHog]

and yet, regarding the legal, quite a few states allow one to 'read the law.' ;)

That's cool, I personally just wouldn't make use of an attorney who hadn't been law school.

[Kathianne]

Now to the area dear to my heart, education.

I really don't know what an 'education' degree is about. Seriously. Having taught in a pre-school-8th grade school for more than a decade, seems to me that their 'education' regarding practical knowledge really didn't amount to much. One could see with the 'new teachers' that they certainly had covered behavior plans and such, but when they didn't work? They were as lost as us secondary teachers who hadn't had more than a mention of such in one of our 3 required education courses.

Like the secondary teachers, when the university lessons failed, they had to deal. Most did and became teachers, some quit after a year or two. It wasn't 'burn out,' just an awareness that this wasn't what they'd thought it was and they couldn't adapt.

I'd really like to see universities emphasize a subject matter approach for education degrees. While many 'education majors'-note these are early childhood-5th grade teachers-take a minor in a subject area, it seems to me there should be a movement towards specialization.

Unlike the upper grades, the teachers could switch classes-not the students. The kids would have a 'math teacher', a 'reading' teacher, a 'social studies' teacher, a 'science' teacher. Their 'teacher' would be their specialist teacher, but also their 'homeroom' teacher. Unlike the upper grades where classes are 45-50 minutes long, the lower grades would perhaps be 20-30 minutes on most days. The obvious breakdowns would be teachers in 1-3; 4-5. Lots of possibilities for teaching across the curriculum and added benefit of spotting LD or ruling it out. Too many times a teacher/student issue results in labeling or rather mislabeling of students. Beyond personality conflicts and such, is the 'enthusiasm factor.' We are excited and interesting when addressing things that we know and like. The kids pick up on that.

How many teachers fail to teach a certain subject because they are uncomfortable with it? How many stick with the 'text' whether or not the students get it? All because they aren't truly comfortable. It's a problem, with an easy solution.

[chloe]

The thing that has always made me laugh about degrees is that most of the time employees don't even care what the degree is in, just that you have one. Now of course for some fields that isn't true. But in general, they just want to see A degree.

I wish what i wanted to do didn't require one

[ConHog]

Now to the area dear to my heart, education.

I really don't know what an 'education' degree is about. Seriously. Having taught in a pre-school-8th grade school for more than a decade, seems to me that their 'education' regarding practical knowledge really didn't amount to much. One could see with the 'new teachers' that they certainly had covered behavior plans and such, but when they didn't work? They were as lost as us secondary teachers who hadn't had more than a mention of such in one of our 3 required education courses.

Like the secondary teachers, when the university lessons failed, they had to deal. Most did and became teachers, some quit after a year or two. It wasn't 'burn out,' just an awareness that this wasn't what they'd thought it was and they couldn't adapt.

I'd really like to see universities emphasize a subject matter approach for education degrees. While many 'education majors'-note these are early childhood-5th grade teachers-take a minor in a subject area, it seems to me there should be a movement towards specialization.

Unlike the upper grades, the teachers could switch classes-not the students. The kids would have a 'math teacher', a 'reading' teacher, a 'social studies' teacher, a 'science' teacher. Their 'teacher' would be their specialist teacher, but also their 'homeroom' teacher. Unlike the upper grades where classes are 45-50 minutes long, the lower grades would perhaps be 20-30 minutes on most days. The obvious breakdowns would be teachers in 1-3; 4-5. Lots of possibilities for teaching across the curriculum and added benefit of spotting LD or ruling it out. Too many times a teacher/student issue results in labeling or rather mislabeling of students. Beyond personality conflicts and such, is the 'enthusiasm factor.' We are excited and interesting when addressing things that we know and like. The kids pick up on that.

How many teachers fail to teach a certain subject because they are uncomfortable with it? How many stick with the 'text' whether or not the students get it? All because they aren't truly comfortable. It's a problem, with an easy solution.

That's how our school does 4-6th grade. K-3 the students have one teacher because really they are just learning the fundamentals; but starting in the 4th grade we start pairing teachers with subjects. Our kids have 3 teachers, and as you suggested the teachers change rooms, not the students. of course beginning in 7th grade they have a different teacher for every course and they go from room to room.

I would like to see in the lower grades more emphasis on teaching children to socialize as opposed to pushing them harder and harder to learn subject matter earlier. How freaking young does a kid need to start learning Algebra , beyond the general concept anyway.

Next year we are going to put Spanish into our general curriculum beginning in 2nd grade. Just the basics of course, but our population in this area is becoming more and more Hispanic, so Spanish is almost necessary to socialize.

It's MY feeling that if we do a better job teaching our kids social skills in the early years then we could have more time to teach them the educational stuff later on in their schooling.

[fj1200]

I wish what i wanted to do didn't require one

Which is?

[Kathianne]

That's how our school does 4-6th grade. K-3 the students have one teacher because really they are just learning the fundamentals; but starting in the 4th grade we start pairing teachers with subjects. Our kids have 3 teachers, and as you suggested the teachers change rooms, not the students. of course beginning in 7th grade they have a different teacher for every course and they go from room to room.

I would like to see in the lower grades more emphasis on teaching children to socialize as opposed to pushing them harder and harder to learn subject matter earlier. How freaking young does a kid need to start learning Algebra , beyond the general concept anyway.

Next year we are going to put Spanish into our general curriculum beginning in 2nd grade. Just the basics of course, but our population in this area is becoming more and more Hispanic, so Spanish is almost necessary to socialize.

It's MY feeling that if we do a better job teaching our kids social skills in the early years then we could have more time to teach them the educational stuff later on in their schooling.

IMO when we see algebra and geometry in lower grades, we are looking at fuzzy math. http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_3_7_03mc.html

I hate to denigrate my alma mater, but it seems the University of Chicago may be one of the most, if not the top problem here. The district I lived in for most of my life bought the program and implemented across the board. For one year. While 'cutting edge' in many areas, they recognize disaster quickly. They paid for a 5 year program and dumped it, though kept it for the 'gifted,' my youngest benefited greatly in the program, but he was gifted in math. It certainly would have been a disaster for my daughter, but she was in a parochial school that didn't use it.

As for your 'socialization' issues. Sorry, but by the end of 3rd grade kids should be able to read a newspaper, though not necessarily understand the topics; be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. Have the math facts 'down.' They should be cognizant of fractions, money, time. Regarding science, they should be able to differentiate the seasons, understand photosynthesis, understand species, etc. They should be exposed to scientific method and stages of it.

The socialization comes from recess, gym, lunch, and 'specials' like music and art. It's really the parents responsibility at this stage to provide the times for kids to get together. Schools have way too much to do.

[chloe]

Which is?

I want to work in an old folks home or work for the red cross or a drug/alcohol rehab as a social coodinator and you have to be a licensed social worker with a bachleors degree or higher. Mostly I like old people.

[avatar4321]

About the only areas where I would say a degree is a MUST today are

medical
legal
teaching
accounting

I DO want those people to have a formal education in their fields.

Having a legal degree, I can promise you, it really doesn't do much to prepare you for legal work. I'd much rather we returned to the old way of apprenticeship. If we need to have formal education for law, let it be one year for basics. Legal fees are much higher than they need to be merely because of the degree process.

I think the same thing about medical. the amount of schooling they have to pay for is overkill. One of the reasons medicine costs so much is doctors need to make back their education costs.

Teaching degrees? not sure about the either. Maybe if they have a degree in the subject they are actually teaching. As for education degrees themselves, Ill withhold my judgment in favor of someone who has experienced them personally. But what Ive heard it's pretty much the same as the others.

As for accounting, i bet you could learn basic accounting practices with a few classes. I could be wrong, its not an area i know well

I don't know that degrees are really necessary as long as you can pass boards/bar/etc in any of these fields. If you can pass the test to be licensed, why do you need to get a degree?

[ConHog]

Having a legal degree, I can promise you, it really doesn't do much to prepare you for legal work. I'd much rather we returned to the old way of apprenticeship. If we need to have formal education for law, let it be one year for basics. Legal fees are much higher than they need to be merely because of the degree process.

I think the same thing about medical. the amount of schooling they have to pay for is overkill. One of the reasons medicine costs so much is doctors need to make back their education costs.

Teaching degrees? not sure about the either. Maybe if they have a degree in the subject they are actually teaching. As for education degrees themselves, Ill withhold my judgment in favor of someone who has experienced them personally. But what Ive heard it's pretty much the same as the others.

As for accounting, i bet you could learn basic accounting practices with a few classes. I could be wrong, its not an area i know well

I don't know that degrees are really necessary as long as you can pass boards/bar/etc in any of these fields. If you can pass the test to be licensed, why do you need to get a degree?


My wife is an attorney, so I get what you're saying. I just don't think many people are going to be passing the bar without formal training. I could be wrong though.

[avatar4321]

My wife is an attorney, so I get what you're saying. I just don't think many people are going to be passing the bar without formal training. I could be wrong though.

I bet alot of people could. Im sure I could have if I had that option.

[ConHog]

I bet alot of people could. Im sure I could have if I had that option.

I in NO WAY believe a lot of people could. That's just ridiculous.

[chloe]

I in NO WAY believe a lot of people could. That's just ridiculous.

Agreed ! My second ex husband is an attorney too.

[fj1200]

My wife is an attorney, so I get what you're saying. I just don't think many people are going to be passing the bar without formal training. I could be wrong though.

So's mine but people don't take the Bar exam right out, they take another class on how to pass the Bar. Besides who says apprenticeship is not another form of formal training. The ABA has a bit too much control if you ask me.

[Kathianne]

So's mine but people don't take the Bar exam right out, they take another class on how to pass the Bar. Besides who says apprenticeship is not another form of formal training. The ABA has a bit too much control if you ask me.

I agree, though I doubt law school is going to lose favor with those that want that as a career. However, I'm pretty sure that many that chose to spend an equivalent amount of time reading law, philosophy, rhetoric and logic could certainly pass the bar.

[fj1200]

I agree, though I doubt law school is going to lose favor with those that want that as a career. However, I'm pretty sure that many that chose to spend an equivalent amount of time reading law, philosophy, rhetoric and logic could certainly pass the bar.

Sure but I think many law schools are not teaching practical law but more the theoretical and increasing competition in law schools and their specializations would better serve lawyer wannabes.

[Kathianne]

Sure but I think many law schools are not teaching practical law but more the theoretical and increasing competition in law schools and their specializations would better serve lawyer wannabes.

Actually with the number of lawyers today and the costs, perhaps this would be the way to go. I think that is a bubble about to burst?

[ConHog]

So's mine but people don't take the Bar exam right out, they take another class on how to pass the Bar. Besides who says apprenticeship is not another form of formal training. The ABA has a bit too much control if you ask me.


I would consider a formal apprenticeship as formal training. Just not sure it's a viable option to completely do away with law school.

AND when I said most could not pass the bar, i was speaking of lay persons, since that is what the poster I was responding to seemed to have been saying that most people off the street could pass the bar.

[Kathianne]

Actually with the number of lawyers today and the costs, perhaps this would be the way to go. I think that is a bubble about to burst?

Okay, weird case-in-point:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/09/nlj-aba.html


September 27, 2011 NLJ: ABA Stalls on Honing Law Schools' Jobs Placements Reports National Law Journal, ABA Stalls on Honing Law Schools' Jobs Placements Reports (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202516871137&ABA_stalls_on_honing_law_schools_jobs_placements_r eports&slreturn=1), by Karen Sloan:
Law schools will not have to report to the American Bar Association the percentage of their 2010 graduates who landed jobs requiring bar passage or the percentage of graduates in part-time jobs.

Those queries will not appear on the questionnaire that law schools will be required to submit next month for the class of 2010. The ABA's questionnaire committee finalized that list of questions on Sept. 23, prompting criticism from some reformers that the ABA is protecting law schools from reporting what would surely be grim statistics.

"By all accounts, 2010 is the worst of a series of very bad years so far," said Brian Tamanaha, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. "And now, owing to this decision, law schools do not have to say precisely how bad it was. NALP [the National Association for Law Placement] will still ask the question, but it publishes only aggregate data, not data on individual schools."

Tamanaha analyzed data (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/09/tamanaha-the-.html) compiled by the advocacy group Law School Transparency and concluded that for the class of 2009, 30 ABA-accredited law schools had 50% or fewer of their graduates in jobs that required a law degree after nine months.

[Kathianne]

I would consider a formal apprenticeship as formal training. Just not sure it's a viable option to completely do away with law school.

AND when I said most could not pass the bar, i was speaking of lay persons, since that is what the poster I was responding to seemed to have been saying that most people off the street could pass the bar.

Hmm, not people off the street. How about those that qualify for law school based upon LSATs?

[ConHog]

Hmm, not people off the street. How about those that qualify for law school based upon LSATs?

I doubt it. You do have to have some specialized knowledge to pass the bar. Now could that knowledge be acquired in ways besides law school? Sure for some, but probably not for many.

[Kathianne]

I doubt it. You do have to have some specialized knowledge to pass the bar. Now could that knowledge be acquired in ways besides law school? Sure for some, but probably not for many.

More than you might think. I qualified and was accepted into Northwestern School of Law back in '77. No tricks and I didn't even study for LSATs.

[ConHog]

More than you might think. I qualified and was accepted into Northwestern School of Law back in '77. No tricks and I didn't even study for LSATs.

And yet that isn't the same thing as passing the bar exam.

[Kathianne]

And yet that isn't the same thing as passing the bar exam.

LOL! Want to bet that I could? With law school or without? I wrongly chose marriage over law school, though knowing that my hearing would be a big problem. Older and wiser now, I'd probably do the same, the handicap is more than a small issue. However, I doubt I'd have problems with the bar, then or now. My readings are beyond that.

[Abbey Marie]

Something that's long over due.

I agree, Gaffer. College isn't for everyone, nor is every job best prepared for with college.

[Abbey Marie]

LSAT's: I never studied for the LSAT's either. Did well, enough to have a choice between a few law schools. We're not talking Harvard or Stanford, though, lol. Good standardized test people tend to do well in all these types of tests, I think.

Bar exam(s): Took two/passed two in 3 consecutive days. While bar review courses are a must, I would have to say that law school prepares you excellently for the "how to dissect and think logically" skills that are behind all of the actual legal knowledge.

Apprenticeship would be an interesting alternative. I think I would have preferred that to school. The apprentice would certainly learn more practical things, and save a ton of money in the process. I know I thoroughly enjoyed my internship with the Manhattan D.A.'s office in my last year of college.

I wonder who would decide who gets the position, and how they would preemptively weed out those who just couldn't handle it? And which working lawyers really have time to instruct? We are much more fast-paced than we were 100-200 years ago. It seems like it could end up being more of a paralegal job, doing the work the lawyer doesn't want to do.

Finally, there is always the danger of having all your instruction from one person, and not being exposed to lots of smart minds and pov's.

Just some thoughts...

[avatar4321]

LOL! Want to bet that I could? With law school or without? I wrongly chose marriage over law school, though knowing that my hearing would be a big problem. Older and wiser now, I'd probably do the same, the handicap is more than a small issue. However, I doubt I'd have problems with the bar, then or now. My readings are beyond that.

Im confident you would be able to pass the bar without it too.

Considering tons of lawyers did before the progressives made law school a requirement, i think tons of people could now too.

[avatar4321]

I'm also of the opinion that law shouldn't be so complex that a lay person couldn't do it if necessary. I know im essentially eliminating my career. But if people are going to respect the rule of law they should be able to understand it. At least criminal law should be taught to people so they know what's criminal to do.

[logroller]

That's cool, I personally just wouldn't make use of an attorney who hadn't been law school.
Nor would you hire attorney purely because they did.



Next year we are going to put Spanish into our general curriculum beginning in 2nd grade. Just the basics of course, but our population in this area is becoming more and more Hispanic, so Spanish is almost necessary to socialize.

It's MY feeling that if we do a better job teaching our kids social skills in the early years then we could have more time to teach them the educational stuff later on in their schooling.

Language is best taught before the age of twelve. And multilingual people are usually more intelligent than monolingual counterparts. So there is some justification for introducing foreign language early. As for algebra, I'd say it varies with the individual. Capable and unchallenged students are as much a cause for concern as the challenged, incapable ones, if not more so.


My wife is an attorney, so I get what you're saying. I just don't think many people are going to be passing the bar without formal training. I could be wrong though.

I know it was mentioned by others, but just to reiterate, Passing the bar doesn't require a law degree (in most states anyway); Any more than having a law degree guarantees one will pass. I checked to see what rates are for passing--they vary greatly; as low as 20%, highs around 60%. I'm guessing the majority of those taking the exam have law degrees, so its pretty dismal regardless. Ca's own Gov. Brown failed the bar the first go round.