How much education do you need to be "educated"

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Saw this article about a suggestion to make college degrees three year instead of four.

 

msnbc

 

In an era when college students commonly take longer than four years to get a bachelor's degree, some U.S. schools are looking anew at an old idea: slicing a year off their undergraduate programs to save families time and money.

 

If part of this means summer classes I'm not sure where the "cost savings" comes in - but on a larger scale - it raises the question - how much education do you have to have to be "educated"

 

I'm all for programs that give you credit for knowledge you already have - particularly in general knowledge - Advance placement in high school - or testing out which they used to call it CLEP (if they still do that?)

 

I also admit I question whether some of the general ed courses taught on college campuses today really "educate." A couple of years ago I took some classes at a local community college for "fun" - maybe my perspective was changed because I'd had so much formal education but the classes seemed much easier and the teachers almost "spoon fed" the students. Some students were also quite rude which was a surprise. On of the most interesting and IMO sad events, one night my astronomy instructor offered to come back at night with his telescope and show us the constellations and I was the only one that showed up. (I was taking the class for fun and all the others were apparently taking it for "elective credit")

[ensign_beedrill 0]

Ummm... if people can't even do it in four years now, what makes 'em think they'll be able to do it in three? I graduated last year, and the only reason I was able to do it in four years was because I did do a lot of those AP and CLEP tests. I didn't even get credit for a few of them (well... useful credit). And I knew a lot of fifth and even sixth year seniors. And some colleges will have more fifth year seniors than others. Engineering and architecture are two colleges off the top of my mind where it is more the norm to stay five years.

 

If universities want people to start graduating in three years, they are going to have to lighten the course load. I was a computer science major. I had to take two chemistry classes, two physics classes, two U.S. history classes, two political science classes, an anthropology class, two health/kinesiology classes, an art history class, an electrical engineering class which could easily have been integrated into the computer architecture class I had to take as well, an engineering ethics class that had nothing to do with computer science and everything to do with civil engineering, and five classes in a supporting area (I chose a business minor). That's not to mention the math/calculus classes I took. While comp sci is very mathematical and I love math and I love to learn and do math, statistics, calc III, and differential equations were really not necessary for an understanding of what I was doing. In fact, the only non comp sci class that I took that actually helped me and that might help me in the workplace was a speech class. Actually, I had several comp sci classes that were quite unnecessary. (I tested out of five of the classes in that list.)

 

The universities would have to pare down these classes and have students stick to the basics. The problem is this would kill just about everyone in the college of engineering. (I can't speak for the other colleges, since I wasn't a part of them.) Some of my favorite classes each semester were the non comp-sci ones. And anyone will tell you that taking more than two core classes in your major per semester is pretty much suicide. Plus, those extraneous classes really help get you out of your comfort zone, help you to meet new people in other majors, and give you a sampling of everything that's out there. I believe that to be an asset. What if you're in a certain major and you take an elective class that you wind up liking and discover that that's what you really want to do? Add to that, there are certain classes that you can only take once you've finished others, and you can see why reducing a program to three years will be difficult.

 

Besides, I learned that the purpose of a four year institution is not necessarily to impart knowledge. There is some learning going on, certainly. But with some classes, there was a lot of overlap with what I learned in high school. (Poli sci, chemistry, English, math.) The classes that I did learn something in, I will probably never be able to apply to any use in my profession. On-the-job training and learning takes place. Right now, my job has me doing something that I never learned about and am having to read up on a lot of stuff and ask a lot of questions. Especially in a field like software engineering, things are changing all the time. My lead has told me on many occasions that the things he is doing now are things that he never learned in school.

 

No, the purpose of a four year university is to go to football games. Join organizations. Volunteer. Make friends. Take a road trip to see your team play. Network. Become a leader. Learn to adapt to new circumstances. Face adversity. Become an independent, productive member of society. Have fun. My school called it "the other education," and I think it is so much more important than the education you receive in the classroom. I believe I was happier and more proud the day I got the class ring I wear on my finger than the day I received the diploma that hangs on my wall. I value both, but I value what the ring represents more. I loved the time I spent in school and wished I had more years there. College is so much more than just the classes. And if you cut that to three years, I think you're robbing students of some great experiences. My junior and senior years were the best because I'd finally figured this out. As an underclassman, I didn't have a sports pass and I wasn't in any clubs and I didn't do much more than go to class. But my last two years, I went to so many athletic events and joined two clubs and made friends and had a blast. It took me two years to figure out what the experience was really about. If I had been in a three year program, I would have only had one year to enjoy that.

 

OK. That was a little more than two cents. More like two dollars.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

You can get a Bachelors degree in 4 years - but only if you don't work, don't participate in activities, don't take a hard major, and don't mind a C+ average.

 

Craming a 4-year degree into 3 years wouldn't necessarily save you a ton of money if you pay by the unit, but it does get you into the income-earning world a year sooner. If you are majoring in something that is the least bit technical, however, it simply isn't possible.

 

Plus you have to consider that not all required classes are taught every semester, and the summer and winter terms have very limited offerings. There are often prerequisites and prerequisites of prerequisits and if you miss an opportunity for a required course the next opportunity might be a full year later.

 

I completely agree that "general education" courses should not be required, but it won't happen. You know why? The Faculty Senate is the body that determines geaduation requirements. This group usually has a teacher's union representative, and many of the teachers themselves are members of the union. These teachers know that if they lighten graduation standards so non-Philosophy majors don't have to take Intro to Philosophy there won't be enough students to fill a section, and no need to pay the teacher to teach. Its job protection. By forcing students to take classes that are irrelevant to them they keep their union brothers and sisters employed.

[Bethlehem 7]

After reading the posts I decided it was more than I have. :)

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

John Stossel on College Education

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Thanks for the link LVR - that was interesting. I tend to agree - I think there are some fields that require a degree - mostly in the science, and advanced technical fields but many jobs can be done without a degree.

 

Another good point is the prestige of a degree and I agree that exists - but is it worth what it costs?

 

And even with a degree - do you really need the two years of general ed that most degrees require? I don't think it should be eliminated but it could definitely be pared back, maybe by redisigning courses for non-majors such as a four hour general principles of science - rather than two three hour courses from a list.

 

And not everybody does the traditional college experience - many can't afford it. Many students now are struggling to balance a degree with a full time job and often a family. If the goal is to increase earning potential - do they need 60 hours of general ed before they get to the specialized classes?

 

There are some employers (or there used to be) that will pay for two college courses a semester for full time employees - it would take a while but it's a definite alternative if you're working anyway.

[ensign_beedrill 0]

You can get a Bachelors degree in 4 years - but only if you don't work, don't participate in activities, don't take a hard major, and don't mind a C+ average.

 

Well then I may be in the minority!

 

As for the worth of a college degree, I went to the school rated number one in value for your dollar. And some degrees carry more worth than others... certain liberal arts and humanities degrees (not trying to put anyone down here!) don't necessarily carry the guarantee of a high paying job. Medical and technical degrees often times do. Some majors are harder than others and some majors have a lot more job availability. Compare something like English to mechanical engineering. What jobs are available for the English major? What jobs are available for the mechanical engineering major? I have a sister who's going to a high priced private college to major in art. Luckily she's gotten some pretty good scholarships. But still, is the cost worth the product? What is she going to get in return for her degree?

 

I stand by my argument that while learning does take place in college, the real value is in the experience.

Edited May 26, 2009 by ensign_beedrill

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I stand by my argument that while learning does take place in college, the real value is in the experience.

 

You can have "experience" without going to college. I've actually joined organizations, done volunteer work, had fun, organized events etc outside of college. And if that is the only value then I'd say it isn't worth it.

 

I miss being in college too sometimes - certinaly more fun than working but still - it isn't the taxpayers responsiblity to provide people with fun. If our colleges aren't preparing people to be better employees and better citizens then they don't need to be receiving tax dollars.

 

And many people don't ever get that particular college experience - they attend night classes while working full time or go back later in life. I don't beleive their degrees are less valuable.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Theunicornhunter

[ensign_beedrill 0]

You can have "experience" without going to college.

 

True, true. But it is a very nice little isolated laboratory to experiment in. It's not something that everyone needs, but it was certainly something that I needed. When I first got there, my dad told me, "It's like a little city where everyone is your age!" And for the most part, it was true. I was surprised that none of the organizations were run by adults. It started in Fish Camp (it's a three day camp you can go to to learn about the school and traditions and make friends and stuff). I was so surprised that there wasn't a single "adult" at camp and it was all run and planned by college students. Fish Camp is a really, really big undertaking with many sessions and tons of incoming freshmen. And there are other huge projects and organizations that put on big things that are all entirely run by students. It was my first taste of actually being able to do something big without adult supervision... without asking mom and dad first. I was also going through some serious mopey times my last two years of high school and I think college really helped to pull me out of that. Like WWII and the Great Depression. It really was a big change in me, and I don't know if it would have happened without the experiences and attachments I made there. You pay for everything you do, whether in dollars or time. College is more pricey than most, but for me at least, it was well worth it. Even if a bachelor's degree isn't all that meaningful anymore.

 

And you can't beat the Aggie Network!

 

And many people don't ever get that particular college experience - they attend night classes while working full time or go back later in life. I don't beleive their degrees are less valuable.

 

You are, of course, correct; I didn't mean to imply this at all. I was speaking strictly of the traditional four year program as referenced in the article. In fact, I think earning a college degree in such a situation is much more difficult and admirable. It shows you were really serious about it and willing to make the sacrifices and do what it took, as opposed to a lot of the high school kids who graduate and go to college because that's what everyone else is doing. It is too bad a degree does not show how hard you worked, or what you learned, or how difficult it was to balance school and other life challenges. I graduated with some people who are way smarter than I am or ever will be, yet we have the same degree. Is that very fair?

 

 

Tax Dollars! You bring up a good point. Perhaps the universities shouldn't be funded by tax dollars. This would make tuition more expensive, but perhaps it would also limit enrollment to those who really want to/need to go. I'm not sure of the numbers comparing the amount of college graduates fifty years ago and the amount of grads today. But I'm sure they've increased quite a bit. And I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that it seems to be a trend. Coming out of high school today, it is pretty much expected that you go to college. Was there a time in the past when that wasn't true, and where was the tipping point, I wonder. And if tax funding was pulled and suddenly everyone had to pay all of the tuition themselves, would there be a drop in the number of college grads again? Or would everyone just suck it up and take out even larger loans? It is of course a hypothetical question, given that once the government starts spending money on something, it is very hard to get it to stop!

[Theunicornhunter 2]

One thing upon which I think we can all agree - there is no easy answer.

 

I graduated with some people who are way smarter than I am or ever will be, yet we have the same degree. Is that very fair?

 

On the other hand - some people can take a few notes and look over them before the test and get A's while people who study for days get C's. So, if they're smarter they probably didn't work as hard.

 

once the government starts spending money on something, it is very hard to get it to stop!

:)

 

As much as I dislike taxes I really do think education is important. There used to be statistics (I say used to be as I haven't looked any up in years and perhaps they have changed). Anyway when I was younger - people with some college were less likely to get divorced than those with just a high school education - and people with degrees tended to be less prejudiced. So, I think education can make you a better citizen and thus be worth some tax dollars. My current job doesn't require a degree but I can see how my education has helped me do a better job in all the jobs I've had - I don't know there's any way to quantify that.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

And many people don't ever get that particular college experience - they attend night classes while working full time or go back later in life. I don't beleive their degrees are less valuable.

I graduated high school, went in the US Army for 3 years, and my academic advisor classified me as a "non-traditional student" because I didn't start college right after high school and was taking a combination of day and night classes (which was common for my major since some of our classes were only at night). She said I might have trouble fitting in with a younger crowd because I was 21.

 

I ended up being Student Body Treasurer as a Freshman, started a business club, and became President of my fraternity. I really don't agree with the "non-traditional student" label.

[Yillara Skye 1]

Don't know how shaving a year off will change much, save for maybe how many (or is that few??) stay on to receive higher education. I am 29, hold an associate's degree & a technical certificate and am about 8 classes away from a Bachelor's in Chemistry AND 5 classes from a Bachelor's in Physics. I dual enrolled during my junior and senior years of high school ( 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 school years). Got the associate's in 2000 and the certificate in 2007. The cost of classes was RIDICULOUS 10 years ago, and is even moreso now... which is why I have yet to continue on and also why it took me so long to get what I have already gotten. PELL grants are great, but when I received them I kept losing them all because I was back at the community college and had well over 70 credits. All I could afford was CC, I say this because the GOVERNMENT said I qualified but the school went UH-UH go to a university if you want this grant, oh and repay us the full price of classes by 5pm today or you are out the door.

 

Bright Futures was great while it lasted, but that was yanked from me because I withdrew during a semester and in the end of the year didnt have enough credit hours to maintain the scholarship... even with an excellent GPA and documentation of my illness and backing from financial aid department of the university I was attending with that scholarship. I tried to appeal, but even though it cost an arm and a leg and more for me to attend school up there (I drove an hour each way to attend that university), they just said DENIED, because I was more than 5 years out of high school. I had a 4.11 weighted GPA (3.9 or 3.95 unweighted) and was 22nd in my class (there were 80 of us who were honor grads) when I graduated high school, and I could only manage a partial scholarship from Bright Futures. I didnt even know about the PELL until I was 24 years old and was trying to get prereq classes to get a Bachelor's in Chemistry. I had gotten bored with Physics, found I excelled farther in Chemistry and wanted to make a switch; but though many prereqs are the same, there are many that are different.

 

Taking off a year does nothing, especially to those who can't afford dorms or apartments near the college (I lived until recently with my parents, moved out when I got married) and therefore must commute. That then brings you to parking passes... last I heard UNF's yearly was over $200, and the semester passes were just as pricey. Then books... when I bought my Organic Chemistry book at the community college level in 2004, I paid $135. Got lucky because I had the PELL at that time and had money left over to buy books (since the only allot x amount per semester to use). But there were many others that didn't have it. And partial Bright Futures does not cover any class matierials such as books. My coworker is in Pharmacy school at a well known university, and said that before she even GOT to that school the community college was charging up over $200 for some of the same books (and this was just 2 years ago). Then if the class includes labs there are extra metriculation fees to cover school's insurances and matierials that will be used. And then if you are limited in work hours to make room for school... WOAH, forget it. You are not going to make it in 10 years... 3 is a far cry from even being close in sight.

 

Except to pay for $300 in books my first semester, my parents had not been able to help me out for college costs at all. My first paid job was a gymnastics coach and I made $5 an hour and could only work 3 to 4 days a week tops while I was in classes. And even when I pushed it where I could work all available hours to me I was only working 20-25 hours per week, and since I was in school a 2nd job was completely out of the question. To be 100% honest I would not be in as much debt, nor would I have ever owned a credit card had I not even bothered with college until later in life. Stinks because though Chemistry helps in my work as a pharmacy technician, I could have easily jumped into the field while in high school. And this is a medical based field. And as for my coworker the intern, I choked on my water when she told someone how many loans she had out in her 3rd year in school of a 6 year program. Which I just recently learned they were trying to make longer than 6 years. Not to mention that it was abour $192 to try and just get into pharmacy school back when I was asking her about how to get into that program. So this idea of shaving a year off is really for the birds and the very rich(are there any of those in the world nowadays??) in my honest opinion.

 

As for CLEP, I tried it in CC but that was about 10 years ago because I didnt want to take Government & economics because I had just done them in high school the year before. Still had to take them because I missed qualifying by 1 point on each. Oh, and had to shell out money for each too. Money I couldnt really spend, especially when there was a chance I wasnt going to get the CLEP credit. Dont know if they still do CLEP though. I did luck out on 3 classes that were on the books, but didnt exist anymore due to lack of interest in the subject. And that took me 2 months of letters back & forth getting those approved. Then there are the CLAST I believe they are called, if you qualify you are exempt from remedial or prep courses. One of my other coworkers seemed surprised they didnt make me do any because they made her take and pay for all of them... I did have to explain to her that was because I CLAST out and in her case she comes from another country and I dont think they offer it to anyone from out of state (DUMB DUMB DUMB idea because there are many people who could easily qualify to skip those remedial classes from all over the US and the world!! Another opinion of mine of course)

Edited June 13, 2009 by Yillara Skye

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

CLEP tests are still around, but fewer colleges accept them now (or keep their acceptance of them well hidden) because colleges (snd sometimes faculty) derive their revenue from class enrollment. Any kind of "testing out" means they don't receive as much revenue. The only incentive they have to accept them for credit is to reduce average graduation time and publish this in their glossy brochures.

 

CLEP tests are free to military personnel. The US Army used to give you points toward your next promotion (to Sergeant or higher) if you passed them. Convinving your chain of command to give you time off every time you want to take a test is another matter.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I'm sorry to hear CLEP isn't well utilized but I understand the reasoning. But I also know that part of the formal education process involves re-learning something you already know - which is IMO inefficient. And I believe LVR is right - it's a primary because it's a source of revenue.

 

I think this goes back to the original question - just how do you define what it is to be "educated" We all enter college at different experience levels but as long as we all pay for the same number of classes we get the same degree. IMO, if a degree was about having a certain competence level then there would be more emphasis on demonstrating that competence not just measuring the number of classes taken.

 

One of the criticisms I often hear in education reform is that a teacher doesn't have a degree in their field. Sometimes that's a difference of a couple of credit hours - would that one extra three credit class make you a better teacher?

[Bethlehem 7]

Is a CLEP test one that tests your knowledge?

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

All tests test knowledge. A CLEP text, in theory, measures what college credit you should receive for "life experience".

 

One more 3-unit class might not make someone a better teacher, but it would give a student or parent a higher degree of confidence that the instructor knows his material.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

One more 3-unit class might not make someone a better teacher, but it would give a student or parent a higher degree of confidence that the instructor knows his material.

 

Why? Seriously why would knowing someone had one more class in an area increase your confidence in their abilities?

 

Here in Florida, regardless of your major or number of credits you have in a field, you have to take a subject area competency test to be certified. From what I understand they are difficult even for majors. I've been studying to take one - not in my major - but with some coursework. Suppose I pass the test and someone with a major doesn't - which of us is most competent in the field?

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

One more 3-unit class might not make someone a better teacher, but it would give a student or parent a higher degree of confidence that the instructor knows his material.

 

Why? Seriously why would knowing someone had one more class in an area increase your confidence in their abilities?

One more class doesn't make a difference. One more degree makes a big difference. It might be all a student or parent has to go on in choosing one teacher over another.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Lt. Van Roy

[ensign_beedrill 0]

The college does decide whether to accept CLEP tests for credit. But it also decides what a passing score is. CLEP has its recommendations, but at my school, the accepted scores for the history tests I took were about fifteen points higher. Don't ask me why. Probably again trying to get you enrolled in classes rather than taking the test. But it was worth it. I took three CLEP tests and five AP tests. Three of the AP tests didn't count for credit in my degree plan, but that's five classes I didn't have to take. A whole semester. I wouldn't have graduated on time without them.

 

Why? Seriously why would knowing someone had one more class in an area increase your confidence in their abilities?

 

Well you don't know that the person is just one class away from a degree in the area. Not having a degree could mean you're only a few hours away or it could mean you've never pursued it. Whereas having a degree provides an assurance that you did have the required amount of coursework.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Does the presence or absence of a degree influence a hiring manager's decision in the business world? You bet it does. So why shouldn't the same criteria be applied to teachers?

[Bethlehem 7]

Lt Van Roy is right on with that statement. Having found that out, I decided to have my own business. Being a high school drop out I found out it would be my best way to achive my goals.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Does the presence or absence of a degree influence a hiring manager's decision in the business world? You bet it does. So why shouldn't the same criteria be applied to teachers?

 

But it doesn't always matter what degree they have in the business world - and all teachers do have a degree. But some teachers teach their minor instead of their major

 

Whereas having a degree provides an assurance that you did have the required amount of coursework.

 

Required amount of course work for what ?- the point I'm trying to make - where do you draw the line - who says how much you have to have to be qualified in a given field? I think in some fields we rely too much on credit hours and not enough on demonstrated proficiency.

[Bethlehem 7]

TUH you are applying common sense to it, not everyone does.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

But it doesn't always matter what degree they have in the business world - and all teachers do have a degree. But some teachers teach their minor instead of their major

 

You are not going to get an accounting or engineering job with a degree in sociology or "liberal studies". You just aren't.

 

Required amount of course work for what ?- the point I'm trying to make - where do you draw the line - who says how much you have to have to be qualified in a given field? I think in some fields we rely too much on credit hours and not enough on demonstrated proficiency.

 

A busy hiring manager or HR person (or a student / parent picking classes and instructors) is not going to go through someone's college transcripts and interview their professors. They will check with the university listed on the candidate's resume and see if the person has the degree the candidate claims to have. If they do that gives the hiring manager an indication of academic profeciency.

 

All other things being equal, a candidate with a degree relevant to the job they will be doing is a safer bet than a candidate without a degree or a degree in a completely different field.

[ensign_beedrill 0]

Required amount of course work for what ?- the point I'm trying to make - where do you draw the line - who says how much you have to have to be qualified in a given field? I think in some fields we rely too much on credit hours and not enough on demonstrated proficiency.

 

I completely understand. A degree only shows that you took the certain courses required at a certain school. It doesn't say which courses and it doesn't say how well you did in them.

 

I think that's where accreditation comes in. Accreditation verifies that a school's program in a certain area is a good quality program. Schools work hard to get and keep their accreditation, and a degree from an accredited program ensures a certain level of common knowledge in a field. I have a degree from an ABET accredited program, and I know that ABET requires a certain minimum amount of coursework. For instance, my school has an engineering ethics course that used to be an elective. As I am told, very few people took it. But then ABET required engineering ethics, so in order to keep accreditation, the engineering degree plans were changed to require the course. Now everyone takes it and the engineering ethics professors couldn't be more pleased.

 

And I think ABET requirements change as they get feedback about what employers are looking for. The engineering ethics course requirement, for example. I recently received a letter from my old department asking me to fill out a survey to help with their accreditation review. There are questions like "do you feel your coursework is adequate in helping you to accomplish your job" and "which course do you feel was the most applicable to your current job." And they're asking for feedback... what do you wish you had taken, what classes were completely useless, are there classes that we don't offer now but should?

 

So if you're looking for who draws the imaginary line, I'm pretty sure it's the accreditation boards.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

But it doesn't always matter what degree they have in the business world - and all teachers do have a degree. But some teachers teach their minor instead of their major

 

You are not going to get an accounting or engineering job with a degree in sociology or "liberal studies". You just aren't.

 

we agreed earlier that certain technical degrees are different from non-technical degrees. And you said "business" so Sales Managers, Account Reps, HR personnel, fund raisers, non profit directors etc don't necessarily get degrees that say "sales manager etc."

 

Which misses the point of the original question - though I think Ensign Beedrill made a good point - that industry itself can influence what students learn.

 

Still if I remember an undergrad is about 128 semester hours and less than 60 of those have to be in the major field - almost your first two years are elective courses - unless you're going into a technical field that require a lot of pre-reqs.

 

They used to have something called "read law" where a person could study under a member of the bar and sit for the bar when ready - now, you sit through some painfully tedious classes (87 credits I think) to get a degree and maybe half pass the bar. What's a better judge of a good attorney - the number of credits, passing the bar or peer review of performance?

 

 

And it was in graduate school that I started thinking that education had become quite the racket.

 

All other things being equal, a candidate with a degree relevant to the job they will be doing is a safer bet than a candidate without a degree or a degree in a completely different field.

In certain fields - and in a large corporate environment but not everyone lives in mega corporations and in some situations personal stock will serve you well.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

we agreed earlier that certain technical degrees are different from non-technical degrees. And you said "business" so Sales Managers, Account Reps, HR personnel, fund raisers, non profit directors etc don't necessarily get degrees that say "sales manager etc."

 

No, but they will have degrees (or concentrations) in management, marketing, organizational behavior, psychology, etc. that closely relate to these fields.

 

Which misses the point of the original question - though I think Ensign Beedrill made a good point - that industry itself can influence what students learn.

 

This then answers your question of who decides how much (and what kind) of education is enough / relevant. Industry and the market decides based on their involvement in the accredidation process and who gets hired for what position. Many colleges survey recent graduates and the firms that typically hire their graduates to find this information out and adjust their curriculum appropriately.

 

It isn't perfect however. Sometimes the market identifies skills gaps and it takes academia decades to respond. That is the situation the US accounting industry is in now. 20 or 30 years ago the American Accounting Association did a study of how satisfied companies were with their recent accounting graduate hires. The responce they got back was that hires might be well-versed in auditing a company from the outside, but this had nothing to do with the work they were hired to do *inside* the company. In recent decades this situation has gotten worse. The biggest players in the accredidation process for accounting curriculums are the Big 4 CPA firms (When I started college it was the Big 8) and the American Institute of CPAs. CPAs do audits and taxes and that's it. With the accrediting process dominated by the CPA industry it is no surprise that it results in audit-specific curriculums.

 

They used to have something called "read law" where a person could study under a member of the bar and sit for the bar when ready - now, you sit through some painfully tedious classes (87 credits I think) to get a degree and maybe half pass the bar. What's a better judge of a good attorney - the number of credits, passing the bar or peer review of performance?

 

"Attorney" is a profesional licencure. It is maintained by the American Bar Association. They are the judges of who is qualified to hold that license. The same goes for doctors / American Medical Association. They are the ones who decide who is qualified to call themselves "Doctor". With CPAs it is slightly different, as you must be licensed in specific states with slightly different standards, but even then the State Boards of Accountancy determine who is qualified to hold the CPA license. One thing all these certifying bodies have is they hold monopolies on who is allowed to enter the profession.

 

In certain fields - and in a large corporate environment but not everyone lives in mega corporations and in some situations personal stock will serve you well.

Granted, but its the megacorps who involve themselves in the accredidation process - and they generally involve themselves in the industry they are in (KPMG for accounting or Microsoft for information technology for wxample) even though they may employ people in other fields.