'formal' learning vs 'self-taught'

i have formal qualifications in my chosen field, and as it is an area that deals with peoples health, i think it is necessary to be able to show a 'regulated level of competence' that is established by a governing body. that doesnt mean though, that someone who has had say, 30 years experience in the same field isnt more knowledgeable or 'qualified'.

im kind of answering myself now as i think, but this is really a question that has come about from wondering what would happen if you put a group of people on an island with a selection of books, and no outside influences or prior knowledge of the subjects. maybe some philosophy, some of the classics, some recent authors of fiction, mathematics and physics ( assume these people can understand them ).

ah shit, dont worry im just writing out what im thinking as i think it........obviously got too much time on my hands this morning.

I think Mark S's degree was in maths. Whatever the subject (I may be wrong, or there may be more), wherever it was from, whoever taught him, I have huge respect for his views in loads of areas. This is true of several others here. I believe Josh is a philosophy professor, or some such, but the respect I've built up for him is based on what he says, not any knowledge of his background. I have no idea of the educational background or qualifications of, say, Nabisco, but as I've said before, I am very struck by how much of what he says is right.

That's not to say that qualifications are meaningless. I'd guess that on average people with a degree in art are likely to be more knowledgeable about and interesting on the subject than the average person without such a degree. My pal Andrew L did learn some useful and interesting stuff in his degree. My oldest friend D has a degree in Eng Lit from Cambridge (we started there at the same time, me doing maths - briefly) and is, albeit in strangely limited ways, fascinating and illuminating on books. But I'm not sure how much less interesting they'd be without that teaching. Not a huge difference, I expect. Intelligence and interest in the subject are far more to do with Andrew being worth listening to on, say, movies, than what he studied.

De gustibus non disputandem est.

It is not entirely clear from the original posting whether the sister at uni was arguing in favor of her positions upon an 'appeal to authority' or upon an 'appeal to the facts'. In other words, did she say "so-and-so says X is true, and so-and-so has a degree, so X must be true." Or did she say, "as so-and-so rightly points out, X is true because Y and Z are true and they imply X." This would make an enormous difference to how I evaluated the situation.

It makes no difference to me whether a person is repeating what they have been told, if (a) they understand what they are saying and (b) what they are saying is well-justified by the facts. If this is so, then your ex's retort was an extremely weak rebuttal and no more than an 'appeal to emotion'.

For example, let us imagine that your ex had not yet read a particular book and asked you if it were worth reading. You say it is and add some observations on the meaning, content and style. If your ex, upon reading the book, found your observations to be accurate, would he be required to slight and denigrate his own opinion of the book because it is a repetition of what you told him?

I think they both have their merits. And for a lazy person such as mayself formal education is the only way to learn.

"I never let my schoolin' interfere with my education"

~Mark Twain

martin, I'm not a professor yet! check back in about 4 years.

to answer the question (?), I don't think my formal schooling of the past, say, 5 or 6 years has done much for me. generally all it does is require me to show up (which is sometimes welcome); that is, lots of it has been stuff I could've studied informally, or gained no more benefit than if I had done so.

OK Josh - but despite working in a top uni, I am pretty vague on exactly what a professor is anyway (though a lot of emails pass through my hands (for someone else to correct the data) where someone is pointing out that the web directory refers to them as Ms when it should be Dr or Prof or something).

a clue - professor in US is v different to professor in the UK.

Given that I don't understand either, it's not much of a clue!

Is Professor X of the X-Men a real professor, in either country?

If you can get where you want to be either's all right.

The reason I like formal education in, say, English when I can read novels perfectly well on my own is that I hear completely different perspectives than I would think of, points and interpretations that just didn't occur to me. (Also one of the reasons I like ILE.) I like having that extra matter to think about. Being taught other people's interpretations doesn't mean you can't make your own judgments and conclusions taking that extra information into account. But I respect being self-taught because it takes a lot of motivation (and it's also better sometimes because you can learn according to your own style and at your own pace).

My degree's in archeology. I can remember chunks of useless information about British prehistory, but as a practical archaeologist I'd be useless. I'm not sure why I decided to do archaeology, other than thinking: "oh, that sounds interesting" when I was filling in my application forms.

My current job, on the other hand, is with computers. I don't have any qualifications, I'm completely self-taught, but I know enough to survive; and more importantly, I know enough to be able to research myself out of tricky corners. I've been teaching myself about computers as far back as I can remember (literally - I was typing in code listings from magazines before I started school), but when I was 17 I decided I didn't want to study it, because I didn't think I'd find formally taught CS interesting enough.

(plus, I was geeky enough already. Going to university to do CS would have just been *too* geeky).

I've been too negative about teaching on this thread. If I had to grasp the shape of, say, literature with no help, get an idea of what happened in what order, how different writers might be associated or sequenced, and particularly this century what was going on with what we group together as Modernism, I'd have had a lifetime's task. I've been able to take that from others in a way that lies somewhere between the two poles here, in that I've not worked out Modernism and Post-Modernism and Magic Relism and metafiction and all that all on my own, but I haven't studied it as part of a degree either. (I toyed with doing a lit degree, but didn't fancy having to spend a term on The Faerie Queen or some such.) Much the same is true of my bit of understanding of art, physics, philosophy and loads of other subjects. I am a little resistant to someone organising it too insistently for me, allowing me only their paths through the vast amount of material out there. I'm happy enough to read an article or two about Russian literature, but it's another thing to be told that I must now read Anna Karenina then Crime And Punishment then Dead Souls the The Cherry Orchard then... In fact I have read all of these, and obviously more, but when I felt so inclined. That'll do me - I'm sure there are huge lacunae in my education in all of these areas, but that's okay, I'll fill in where my interest is great enough, and I don't plan to stop learning any time soon, so there better be gaps to fill.

Ah, the old 'while you were composing' thing...

Hello Caitlin: I have a degree in Computer Science. It was the other way around for me there: I decided I wanted a career that needed computer expertise and qualifications to get me into it, and anyway I wasn't interested in computers enough to motivate myself on my own, and started from almost total ignorance (this was going back to uni aged 36). Mainly though, I needed the piece of paper at the end of it.

i wonder whether some of you might be underestimating the degree to which formal study has informed your thought-process (or at least your writing), regardless of your chosen field. i've had very little formal education beyond highschool and i find it increasingly difficult to learn on my own - i hit brick walls almost daily and can feel the gulf between what i'd like to learn and my ability to learn it widening more and more. maria's right about ILE - maybe i'll start aiming for a bachelor's degree by ilx-osmosis.

Yes, my ability to read, to reason, to learn, to find the things I'm after, to organise and link ideas, all these things obviously owe colossal amounts to my schooling. I think none of us could argue against that (haha someone will) but I think we are talking on this thread (from its opening) about what is known as higher education, i.e. university and the like, rather than school. I can't imagine many would think that leaving children to entirely manage their own education with no teachers of any kind would be a fabulous and successful idea.

i was meant higher education too martin, i guess i just didn't put it very well (haha see?)

was (SEE??)

i was quite upset when my dad told me that in college he hit his barrier of mathematical understanding at [insert gibberish-to-me name here] and couldn't get any further, because he's well-educated in a particular subject but he's also the most self-taught and brilliant person i know in whatever he decides to do. the idea that he could have something that was just at the end of his understanding is very disturbing because that makes it sound like there's an actual limit. is that what you're talking about, jones? has anyone else experienced that? it worries me.

that's partly what i mean maria - although more in the sense of stumbling blocks than an absolute "end of the line" (i've never studied one subject intensively enough to have such a thing). i've tried typing this four times now and i can't do it without gritting my teeth and using phrases like "my potential", so maybe i'd better just stop here. very simply put: i feel stupid most of the time, and "i never went to university" is both an out and a crutch.

I think about this all the time. Right now I am studying electrical enginnering, but I am an artist at heart. I wanted to do what I was worse at so, I picked this major because I thought I was developed more creatively, and I wanted to develop my analytical and logical skills. I totally agree with jones. This is helping me much in these areas. I am not too interested in learning about electricity. I am much more interested in learning how to learn about electricity so I can apply that to other areas. (actually, I specifically picked EE because it is the most difficult and most interesting to me of the sciences offered.)

I do not totally agree with Cy Twombly or Harry Partch who said things like "The best thing to do for an artist is to kick them out of art school," but I am against training in art. It "corrupts" the artist.
Art is something that you can pretty much master with no training. (Although, one plus of studying art is access to materials.) Science is different. It is based on fact and one would need to formally study it to learn it, and there is no such thing as an independent researcher. Its just too expensive and science is a continuation of so many other peoples ideas and research.

Another area of study that I think can not be "corrupted" at all and would benefit a lot from training are languages. If I was not doing EE I would have majored in foriegn language.

Also, Mark Twain is OTM (as always)

Maria, I know what you father is saying. I think I may have hit my math barrier recently. I've gone from fulling understand a class to not understanding the next class at all. I think there must be certain analytical comprehension limits to some peoples way of thought.

Hopefully this barrier of mine is just a stumbling block or I will have some difficulty passing some of my classes.

"""""Another area of study that I think can not be "corrupted" at all and would benefit a lot from training are languages.""""

I disagree. I had extensive training in language, by very qualified people, and while it helped slightly, I only gained fluency after I had taken it into my own hands.

""""The best thing to do for an artist is to kick them out of art school," but I am against training in art. It "corrupts" the artist.""""

The first assignment in an art class I've taken was 3 sketches of your hands and feet. I brought three sketches of my hands and feet, complete with value and shading detail. I was told to "Tone it down a bit, this is a little advanced for now. Let me teach you how from the beginning." I love how 'art teachers' believe that their way is the only way, and you must draw, paint, etc, in the manner that they do. Seems kind of ironic to me.

Self taught is good and well if you're doing it for "Personal Development" reasons, but if you're expecting any recognition for your self taught knowledge then it's important to get it formally recognised!

I think this is okay but I think it should be easier to do.

Everyone craps on so much about "Competency Based Standards" but without even realising what that means - it means that if you can prove your competent, you meet the standards! Therefore self-taught is, theoretically, recognised. Damn hard to find anyone whole declare you competent though. Grrr.

I do think when you go far enough in a subject you realise that you have limits, probably in every area. I never found mine in maths, but I think in some areas of computing I was starting to feel them by the end of my degree, and when I read the incisive critical commentary on music, say, from some people here (I've used the same person as an example of a superior mind here too often, so I'll mention Tom here) I know that I am seeing a mind at work beyond the territories that I can reach, however much I read and study.