Comments on: College – a waste of time and money or just kind of inefficient?

By: MG

MG — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:13:03 +0000

Definitely just inefficient. Admittedly colleges aren’t perfect, but you have to keep in mind that they are NOT trade schools. They are designed to provided a broad life experience rather than merely train students to perform a particular function such as bookkeeping. If you want to argue that people forced into the “real world” to work and pay bills mature faster than students on a slower “college track” in a dorm environment, I wouldn’t disagree. But to argue for certification (a trade school type of experience) as a substitute for, rather than a supplement to, a college degree doesn’t make sense. It’s comparing apples to oranges.

By: John

John — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:51:06 +0000

Ahh, another political scientist! I wonder how many of us end up in web publishing and promotion. If I learned anything from that degree its that anything worthwhile that can be done on the political front has to be done from outside the little system they’ve built up.

Now that I’ve sat through the four year degree, though, I wouldn’t want to do that again to get “recognized” in a second field. I’m at the point where I’d rather learn things on my own and seek some sort of certification to prove that I actually did it.

But still, even if my degree didn’t lead me directly to a related career, I don’t regret the time I spent because it was definitely worthwhile in terms of discipline, expanding horizons, and learning how to solve problems.

By: David Leonhardt happiness

David Leonhardt happiness — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:35:04 +0000

I had to laugh when I read the headline. Of course it’s not useless, but it is often inefficient. I got my BA in political science, and I did learn one thing…what they teach is from another planet compared to the real thing. On the other hand, architecture and engineering students learn what they need to know, and I don’t want to drive across a bridge built by someone who failed in those fields!

By: TigerTom: Personal LoanShark

TigerTom: Personal LoanShark — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:08:05 +0000

Four years of a Liberal Arts degree and you’re qualified for what? Office intern?

A waste of your golden years. Get qualified in something people will pay you good money for. Edify yourself in your spare time, for free.

By: Science Fiction Seer

Science Fiction Seer — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:53:59 +0000

I agree that certification will not change differences in intellectual ability, but why should it, in my opinion, someones ability should be rewarded. This certification will help those with a more fixed income, and also those with less academic but equally intelligent ability, this I feel is the greatest advantage to using this system and I say, go for it!

By: Ninja Zombie

Ninja Zombie — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:25:51 +0000

Richard:

“Certification is good for testing shallow knowledge but it’s more difficult at assessing deep knowledge. ”

The question is not, “is certification perfect?” Clearly it isn’t perfect. The right question: “Is the cost/benefit package of certification better than the cost/benefit package of college for some people?”

I think the answer is clearly “yes” for a sufficiently good certification system.

By the way, in quantitative subjects, it’s pretty tough to memorize your way through a well designed test. When my students try this, they invariably fail miserably.

As for the specifics like “what programming language to use”, that’s a technical detail. I’d suggest multiple certs for different languages, making sure that C++, Java, Python and Lisp are all covered.

Finally:

The reality of college is that, in many fields, it has little value. An employer may look at a college degree while hiring but it will almost never be the deciding factor; it’s too easy for an incompetent person to party for 4 years and pick easy classes. The only thing that college would do [is] make money for the college administrators.

By: Richard G.

Richard G. — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:57:14 +0000

Certification sounds nice. What hiring manager wouldn’t want to be able to accurately assess the skills of a candidate with nothing more than a number? However, certification is fraught with problems.

Certification is good for testing shallow knowledge but it’s more difficult at assessing deep knowledge. A person may be able to memorize a lot of information and have no ability to apply it. As shown by the “No Child Left Behind” program, there is significant incentive to do this, even though it is detrimental to the overall learning process.

Certification would have to be relevant and remain relevant, which is a challenge in some programs. For example, what programming language should Computer Science certification focus on? Java? C#? C++? LISP?

How long would certification be valid for? Would I need to be re-certified every year? Would a 30-year old certificate for computer engineering be acceptable?

The reality of certification is that, in many fields, it has little value. An employer may look at certification in a particular technology while hiring but it will almost never be the deciding factor; it’s too easy for an incompetent person to pass a shallow test. The only thing that certification would do make money for the certifying organizations.