Animal Planet Presents: When Sisters Attack!

Okay, the title is completely tongue in cheek.  My sisters are neither animalistic, nor have they attacked anything.  However, both had a very strong and contrary opinion about my Certificate of Conformity post.  My sister Shayla was so adamant in her response that she wrote a week's worth of blog content just as a response.  While I can't hope to refute even half of what was said, if for no other reason than these are subjective opinions on both sides, I still wanted to recognize the other side of things.  So tonight I'm going to post the highlights of the rebuttal to college degrees being first and foremost a certificate of conformity.

Steph said:

I learned about many subjects I never would have studied on my own, had they not fulfilled a graduation requirement. I'm better informed and more curious about the world around me because I graduated from college.

Last, given the current economy, it's better to have that piece of paper than not. If an employer can choose between two job candidates with equal experience, one degreed and one not, he or she will probably pick the one who learned to be a conformist.

Then, responding to my remark that I could have learned more working for a few years and reading books, Steph said:

My experience in the workplace was that after 8-10 hours in a uniform and nametag, earning $2.10 an hour plus tips serving meals with every element measured down to the ounce, I was too tired to be curious about anything much besides a shower and some sleep.  My only choice, really, was how much to flirt with the customers so I could earn more tips.

Shay made the point that in her field, she actually had to know stuff:

I had to know my subject. Could I have earned an A in microbiology without learning to culture bacteria? Could I have passed Organic Chemistry without understanding molecular chirality? Would I have had a chance in Mammalogy if I had been unable to recognize dentition patterns? In most of my upper-division science classes, I would have failed miserably if I couldn't conduct a research review and synthesize appropriate conclusions.

Sure, I learned to operate under the imposed deadlines. There was some busy work. In the few cases where intensive study failed, and I could not grasp I concept, I learned to accept the "conventional answer" and move on.

However, the skills and knowledge that I obtained in college were in no way secondary to jumping through the hoops. I learned a great deal of information, and developed the skills necessary to interpret it and apply it in new ways. I performed undergraduate research, which required me to think beyond the textbook-regurgitation level.

And while I too had to know stuff, and did research, I felt that this was all secondary to conformity.  Especially since neither of us could work in our field without a graduate degree.

Then Shay started talking about intelligence and said:

As you are the one who turned me on to Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, I have to quote the passage that this statement brought to mind. Regarding IQ:

"A score of 100 is average; you probably need to be just above that mark to be able to handle college. To get into and succeed in a reasonably competitive graduate program, meanwhile, you probably need an IQ of at least 115. In general, the higher your score, the more education you'll get..."

Now, I didn't minor in statistics or anything, but according to that statement, college graduates ARE smarter, on AVERAGE. (Assuming you accept IQ as a measure of intelligence). Does that mean I'm smarter than the high school drop-out next to me, because I graduated from college? No. First, college didn't make me smarter; I had to be at a certain level of intelligence to succeed. Second, this is just a generality. But job recruiters find generalities very useful.

Well, responding to this section deserves its very own full post (and it will get one), but for now I'll just say that having a high IQ and doing well in graduate school is metaphorically identical to professional soccer players doing well on tests of ability to kick balls.  It's kinda a given, and the test isn't really a fair measure.  But that's as far I can go for now due to time.

Then Shay talked about learning things that she wouldn't have otherwise, and being grateful that she was made to do so:

I understand your point that education should be restricted to preparing you for a vocation, not conforming you to the mold of an ideal citizen. However, I don't think I learned any less in my core science classes because I was also required to take African American Literature. Personally, I'm grateful to have an improved understanding of the history of slavery in the U.S. I would never have paid to take that class on my own time. If this class hammered off any nonconformist hard edges, they were the type I'm glad to be rid of.

Fair enough.  But I would point out that you were probably not allowed to form your own conclusions to any great extent.  You were probably given a perspective.  Maybe not, but that's frequently the case.

Then Shay talked about how her program actually teaches skills, and does not impose a strict hierarchy with the faculty being supreme overlords:

1)The program is designed to allow students of disparate fields to share expertise. Students do not strictly concede to the authority of the professor. 2)Professionals in the field see some added benefit to furthering their education. Work experience is not enough.

As a whole, I have had far more contact with, and learned more from my fellow students than I have my professors. It is impossible for a professor in any of my classes to have the level of knowledge that the class contains as a whole, a fact openly and gladly accepted by the instructors. "Conventional" graduate programs do not follow this model, but many do. Plenty of MBA programs primarily accept working professionals.

Again, fair enough.  But I would argue that this is a trade school model of education and not a classical university model.  Many universities run trade school-style programs because they are more efficient and thus more attractive for people with work experience. 

Shay moved on to speculate on the nature of my frustration concerning my own program:

Perhaps your frustration with the conventionality of your education has stemmed from the focus on research. Of course, many theories (in any field) are merely conventions, which change over time. (Freud would be an excellent example). When a program is heavily mired in research, not practice, convention can trump application. Theories crop up that are not useful, and often incorrect. Research for the sake of research. And you're expected to learn and perpetuate it.

In this particular case, the speculation is inaccurate.  My program has a major focus on clinical skills.  And they do a good job of teaching them.  The point I was trying to make is that the world in general doesn't care whether or not my program effectively teaches skills. That's why two layers of certification exist beyond the Ph.D.  This shows that the world in general does not see a Ph.D. as being proof of expertise in a field.  They see it as me completing another set of hoop jumps that qualifies me to prove finally that I might know something.

Shay talked some more about how gaining knowledge is useless without the ability to share it and use it:

My point is, reading is great and all, but it leaves gaps. Without an expert in the field (read: instructor) giving you comprehensive coverage of the subject, you learn only what is interesting to you. You don't get the whole picture, though you might think you do. You don't know what you don't know.

Additionally, you're never required to use your knowledge. Discussing new knowledge with fellow students and teachers is invaluable, as is applying it to new purposes.

Yes, but a non-university model that allows such back and forth without an "expert" saying how it really works is the Unitarian church.  Everyone's got an opinion, nobody's is the best.  If universities were serious about education and not indoctrination, they'd make sure every class was taught by experts with opposing views on a subject, who then slugged it out intellectually over the course of a semester.  Coming from a paid teacher, believe me, my students leave my course with my point of view or nothing.  They may not like me, or my viewpoints, but there's no way they're coming out agreeing with all the counterpoints to my views - mostly because they'll never know what those counterpoints are.

Ultimately, Shay's overall point was that:

Cliche as it sounds, college has provided the kind of environment in which I can participate in "free thinking and exploration." This is both within the classroom and through the jobs for which I am now qualified. Aaaaand, I don't accept that I am simply an exception to the rule.

And my response is the same one I gave Steph.  I think that people who choose to make the most of college can use it to learn and grow far beyond what they may have been without college.  However, I don't think that is a requirement, and I don't think that even the majority of people have that experience.  I think that most people learn a ton of stuff that they would rather not, and then proceed to have a massive information dump once they no longer need that information to pass a class.

I'm happy that for a great many people (but not a majority), that scenario is dead wrong.  But it's what I saw most people doing when I was an undergrad, and it's what I see most of my undergrad students doing.  For anyone who does more - congratulations.  You are overachievers in the most literal sense.