I have a Degree, in Physics. I obtained it by the thinnest possible margin. I was not a good Mathematics student, especially before I went to college. I remember being distinctly unimpressed by the rote-memorization of formulas, employed to teach things like statistics and economics (in my experience, it was practically a math class) and chemistry. I remember some (certainly not all!) of my teachers "phoning it in." They knew we didn't care, weren't learning, and weren't going to learn the material -- and they couldn't care anymore, either. So I memorized enough formulas that I didn't understand to pass, and then promptly disgorged them. Lacking an understanding of where & how to apply them, they were useless and confusing to me. I assume most of my classmates did the same, only moreso. After all, most of them didn't go on to college. That would seem to imply that they "got" still less than I did.
I have to wonder, given those experiences, if large numbers of Americans assume that college is simply more of the same. That is -- climatologists, geologists, epidemiologists, evolutionary biologists, etc. are just people who went on to memorize greater amounts of meaningless crap that they don't really understand, can't actually employ, and use to bamboozle the rest of the public. It would explain a lot.
For example, if a climatologist's education is meaningless, then my opinion about whether or not the world's getting warmer is just as valid as his. I have an outside thermometer feeding a high-tech digital display in my living room. I can check the temperature just as easily as he. If epidemiology is just a bunch of buzzwords tossed around by people who work for the medical & pharmaceutical industry, then it's much-easier for me to accept the emotional appeals of mothers with autistic children. Look at all the money those doctors make by forcing every parent to needlessly vaccinate their children! And those moms gain nothing by testifying. Clearly, those troubled parents and their unfairly burdened children are the more credible witnesses.
I have to wonder, given those experiences, if large numbers of Americans assume that college is simply more of the same. That is -- climatologists, geologists, epidemiologists, evolutionary biologists, etc. are just people who went on to memorize greater amounts of meaningless crap that they don't really understand, can't actually employ, and use to bamboozle the rest of the public. It would explain a lot.
For example, if a climatologist's education is meaningless, then my opinion about whether or not the world's getting warmer is just as valid as his. I have an outside thermometer feeding a high-tech digital display in my living room. I can check the temperature just as easily as he. If epidemiology is just a bunch of buzzwords tossed around by people who work for the medical & pharmaceutical industry, then it's much-easier for me to accept the emotional appeals of mothers with autistic children. Look at all the money those doctors make by forcing every parent to needlessly vaccinate their children! And those moms gain nothing by testifying. Clearly, those troubled parents and their unfairly burdened children are the more credible witnesses.
I would say, that for a lot of people, college really is 'more of the same'.
On the other hand, in any workplace, people come into contact with 'experts' of some sort or another who have valuable knowledge - so even if you don't have respect for someone's degree, you may have respect for people who are experts in a field.
I would guess that the overriding reason that there are global warming skeptics in the general population would be because of the large coordinated campaign by industry to make people think that there isn't scientific consensus (and that people who say that there is consensus are just lying).
College is the new high school. I have a feeling that a majority of young students go because it has become the new societal norm, not because they have a true grasp of what they want to do or a desire to pursue a lifelong career path. So what do they do? Flounder through the steps, working at grasping what they can, when they can- on their way to that magical 136th credit that validates them as employable individuals. From where do I base my opinions? I taught bowling and archery at a state university, for crying out loud! Tell my what business an accounting student has earning credits towards a degree by shooting arrows 20 yards at 8am.
But now we've watered down the pool of "educated" professionals to the point that graduate-level work has taken the place of what undergraduate degrees used to signify, and we might as well go ahead and make college into grades 13-17. I'd be interested to see what would happen if the credit system was scrapped in favor of a... lacking better description... "prove it" system. Show me you know the stuff, how it applies to the world and what benefit you will bring to the subject environment before you are granted a degree. It takes as long as it takes- for one particularly focused and genuinely interested individual, maybe it takes 2 years; for others who haven't yet found their calling, maybe it takes 10. I think we would see fewer wandering spirits in the post-high school education system, less time wasted on students that really don't care about the material, and those deemed worthy of a degree would be of greater value to the public they serve as professionals. Employers would have a stronger hiring pool and subsequently raise the bar on expectations from what universities are producing at this time.
As for global warming, I don't know the first thing about it. I studied PR specifically to avoid math and science :)
I agree that people who directly encounter expertise recognize it. I don't think that carries-over to recognition of indirectly encountered expertise.
An understanding that experts exist in any given field (be it Autism research, climatology, or any other) doesn't confer the ability to recognize an expert. Educational credentials are supposed to fill that need. If people don't respect the credentials, it becomes much easier to discredit the experts and sow false-experts. I'm not suggesting that the "more of the same" assumption is responsible for things like global warming skeptics in the general population. I'm suggesting that it contributes to an environment in which disinformation campaigns flourish.
"College is the new High School." Amen, brother!
I've pondered the "prove it" system, myself. I think it would fail for the same reasons as the current higher-ed system. Too many instructors are have too much incentive to ensure most of their students pass. From an economic standpoint, most colleges want it to be hard-enough that students have to retake a few courses and the curriculum is credible; but not so hard that mediocre students won't apply.
We watered-down our educations so far that they're becoming worth less than the income they produce. An engineering degree from a U.S. college will still get you a job in the U.S. But it won't get you anything like the income it commanded even 15 years ago. Which means that soon there won't be so many people who can afford to get said degrees. Which will lead to fewer colleges, and more rigorous courses at the remaining institutions. Which will fix the problem we started-out discussing.
There's also the argument, and I agree with it, that an education -- especially a University education -- is not job-training. In a democracy, at least, the idea is to create a class of citizens that is capable of rational evaluation, aware of history, and able to self-educate into adulthood.