Food for thought

[Peter Crowe]

Don't worry, Father Bill, you're not alone. I'm disturbed by the social backlash I've been seeing in the last few years against education and specialization. I've had this discussion with a lot of people, and it seems that in virtually every instance, those who tend to deride education are those who either (1) do not have an education, or (2) chose a field of study which has no market demand. Their arguments usually center around some personal anecdote about an educated person who was incompetent on a given subject, and so they have made their minds up that this means all education is pointless.

To be fair, institutionalized education has its issues. Even professional certification/licensing programs have their issues. But on the whole, they have value to society and the individuals who participate in them. Western society is rapidly losing its stature in the global economy due to a loss of interest in such programs. And meanwhile, other areas of the world are making huge pushes to educate their children, and we can see their industries and economies rising to the forefront. Coincidence? I think not. It simply boggles my mind that so many otherwise-intelligent people in our society can pooh-pooh education and specialization while watching this happen.

And I'm not really even addressing the comments made here in this thread. It's just more of an overall sense that I get, from talking to people in the real world, discussing issues with other people on the internet, watching popular culture around me, and even seeing it happen in my own profession. (Aside from working as an engineer, I also sit on the advisory board for a well known technical school, and I'm appalled at the careless attitude that the younger generation seems to take towards education.)

I agree with you Tobus and with Father Bill. I have long agreed with the Isaac Asimov quote too! Philosophy means a love of wisdom. It irritates me when supposedly well educated media commentators and journalists speak of an academic education as purely vocational or instrumental, and fail too grasp that such learning has intrinsic value in itself which has life affirming benefits to both the individual and wider society.

[ForresterModern]

Philosophy means a love of wisdom. It irritates me when supposedly well educated media commentators and journalists speak of an academic education as purely vocational or instrumental, and fail too grasp that such learning has intrinsic value in itself which has life affirming benefits to both the individual and wider society.

Not so off topic story that reflects this a bit. During my undergrad years (late 1970s) I took a course in Philosophy, basic entry level, with a "lab" where we had more in depth discussions of the basic topics with a Teaching Assistant (TA), a graduate student from the Philosophy department. At one session we were discussing the concept espoused by a particular philosopher (I cannot recall which by name) that knowledge and educaton were by and of themselves worthy and intrinsically valuable, whether they were ever utilized actively, in short, knowledge is inherently good. When my TA mentioned that he was preparing to defend his PhD thesis later that day, I asked him what he was going to do with his advanced degree in Philosophy, teach at a university, write a book, do consulting, etc... His reply? He was going to go back to his home town and work beside his father in the family automotive repair garage--he had no intent to use his degree, more specifically his education, to make a living. I queried him as to why he had spent so much money and so many years getting his bachelors, masters and PhD degrees, only to not use them in his chosen profession as a mechanic. His reply? Knowledge is inherently good, more knowledge is inherently better, whether it is ever used or not.

So, somewhere in upstate New York today there is a really cool, really smart PhD auto mechanic-----but just how good of an auto mechanic is the guy? Who knows.

[artificer]

Not so off topic story that reflects this a bit. During my undergrad years (late 1970s) I took a course in Philosophy, basic entry level, with a "lab" where we had more in depth discussions of the basic topics with a Teaching Assistant (TA), a graduate student from the Philosophy department. At one session we were discussing the concept espoused by a particular philosopher (I cannot recall which by name) that knowledge and educaton were by and of themselves worthy and intrinsically valuable, whether they were ever utilized actively, in short, knowledge is inherently good. When my TA mentioned that he was preparing to defend his PhD thesis later that day, I asked him what he was going to do with his advanced degree in Philosophy, teach at a university, write a book, do consulting, etc... His reply? He was going to go back to his home town and work beside his father in the family automotive repair garage--he had no intent to use his degree, more specifically his education, to make a living. I queried him as to why he had spent so much money and so many years getting his bachelors, masters and PhD degrees, only to not use them in his chosen profession as a mechanic. His reply? Knowledge is inherently good, more knowledge is inherently better, whether it is ever used or not.

So, somewhere in upstate New York today there is a really cool, really smart PhD auto mechanic-----but just how good of an auto mechanic is the guy? Who knows.

Didn't you ever read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"?

ith:

[David Thorpe]

Great book!

[Mickey]

Quite a bit of wisdom in this thread Tobus hit the nail right on the head with how younger people view education. My son is one of few youngsters I know who not only wants to go to college but also is looking forward to it. Then he thinks he may go for USMC OCS. I'm so very happy and proud that he wants to go to school.

I'm all for education. But the OP here is about who is an expert? When I'm looking for an expert, in any field, I'm not looking for credentials. I'm looking for experience and hopefully, references. If I'm going in for surgery, I want the crusty old guy who's done the procedure a few thousand times, not the intern who I know was taught correctly, and maybe did one or two.

I've done drywall one time. And it came out flawlessly because I studied everything I could find on the subject, and I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I am NOT an expert at drywall. I've watched experts. They KNOW what they are doing. I just went through the motions.

Something I learned many years ago after being across several message boards is that everybody is a genius and an expert when they have access to google. In all message boards, it doesn't take long to figure out who really knows what they are talking about, who regurgitates what they've read or heard, and those that enjoy making others feel stupid.

This is one of the few message boards that I've ever found where nearly everyone actually admits their level of knowledge on the subject, even if asked directly, and generally do not BS folks when asked an honest question. That's why I stick around. This a darn great bunch of people with very little pretense. Not easy to find these days.

[Bugbear]

I've heard this in many different contexts, but it just happened to be pointed out in an introductory social semiotics text book I've been reading; we do not know when something being studied for the sake of learning or knowledge will turn out to be very useful in the future to some other field. I would point out that extends to learning and experiences beyond and outside of the academic setting; I don't understand the need for dismissive attitudes or smugness from either side.

I would want to see the Isaac Asimov quote in it's full context before I throw it in someone's face, by the way: I don't have the 1980, News Week article from which it was taken.

[CDNSushi]

Something I learned many years ago after being across several message boards is that everybody is a genius and an expert when they have access to google.

This is precisely why, as an instructor I use the principles of (Bloom's) taxonomy of knowledge when I teach my students. Not all knowledge is created equal, and there is a distinction between "lower levels" of knowledge and "higher levels." Simple repetition and recall of facts and figures is a basic form of knowledge, whereas the ability to take those facts and figures and not only USE them, but reformulate them in order to produce and create a NEW result is a superior form of knowledge.

Case in point. Last week I taught my (very low-level) ESL students a formula for making a "CLOSED" (yes/no) question in English. I taught them that we can use the form "To do" with a subject and another verb to make the sentence grammatically correct, and we can use "To be" with either a noun or adjective.

I.e. DO + YOU + <verb> ? ARE + YOU + <noun>; ARE + YOU + <adjective>?

E.g. Do you swim? = correct.
Are you swim? = incorrrect.

Do you happy? = incorrect.
Do you a student? = incorrect.
Are you happy? = correct.
Are you a student? = correct.

Then, I asked them comprehension questions. I wrote this on the board:

Fill in the blanks with the correct type of word you need to form the question:

Do + you + _____________ ?
Are + you + i) ___________ ?
Are + you + ii) ___________?

MOST students were able to fill in the blanks appropriately.

Do + you + <verb> ?
Are + you + i) <noun> ?
Are + you + ii) <adjective>?

No problems there, right? But does that mean the students KNOW and UNDERSTAND the material? Well, yes and no. The above question tested their lower level knowledge. But let's see if they possess a higher level of knowledge. I wrote this on the board:

Find and correct the mistake(s) (if any):

a) Is she play baseball?
b) Does Ventforet Kofu have a good team this year?

Result: Very few students were able to answer this because they only knew how to recall and regurgitate the rule -- they did NOT yet know how to USE the rule to apply it in a real-world sense.

Anyway, I digress. An "EXPERT" is somebody who has more than simple, lower-level understanding of a topic. It is someone who can apply ALL the taxonomical levels of knowledge to a topic. Specifically, it is someone who can:

RECALL: define, describe, identify, know, label, list, match, name, outline, recall, recognize, reproduce, select, state.
COMPREHEND: understand, convert, defend, distinguish, estimate, explain, extend, generalize, give an example, infer, interpret, paraphrase, predict, rewrite, summarize, translate.
APPLY: change, compute, construct, demonstrate, discover, manipulate, modify, operate, predict, prepare, produce, relate, show, solve, use.
ANALYZE: break down, compare, contrast, diagram, deconstruct, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, identify, illustrate, infer, outline, relate, select, separate.
SYNTHESIZE: categorize, combine, compile, compose, create, devise, design, explain, generate, modify, organize, plan, rearrange, reconstruct, relate, reorganize, revise, rewrite, summarize, tell, write.
EVALUATE: appraise, compare, conclude, contrast, criticize, critique, defend, describe, discriminate, evaluate, explain, interpret, justify, relate, summarize, support.

That is an expert. Whether or not they have the credentials on paper or by life experience, someone who can do all these things does truly know what they are talking about. Now how we recognize an expert and separate the wheat from the chaff as it were, is a whole other matter!

[opositive]

i deal with a lot of experts, and i always want my experts to explain to me what are the limits-- it is just as important to know what they do not know as it is what they do know. think of the differences between astronomy and astrology--on the surface they look alike--both require a precise knowledge of celestial bodies, movements, subtle influences--but one is science and the other amusing conversation.

[Mickey]

Very well said, Sushi, and I think that sums it up nicely. Knowledge is good. Being able to practically apply that knowledge, and truly understand that knowledge, is something else entirely. That is the beginning of an expert.

[O'Callaghan]

Not so off topic story that reflects this a bit. During my undergrad years (late 1970s) I took a course in Philosophy, basic entry level, with a "lab" where we had more in depth discussions of the basic topics with a Teaching Assistant (TA), a graduate student from the Philosophy department. At one session we were discussing the concept espoused by a particular philosopher (I cannot recall which by name) that knowledge and educaton were by and of themselves worthy and intrinsically valuable, whether they were ever utilized actively, in short, knowledge is inherently good. When my TA mentioned that he was preparing to defend his PhD thesis later that day, I asked him what he was going to do with his advanced degree in Philosophy, teach at a university, write a book, do consulting, etc... His reply? He was going to go back to his home town and work beside his father in the family automotive repair garage--he had no intent to use his degree, more specifically his education, to make a living. I queried him as to why he had spent so much money and so many years getting his bachelors, masters and PhD degrees, only to not use them in his chosen profession as a mechanic. His reply? Knowledge is inherently good, more knowledge is inherently better, whether it is ever used or not.

So, somewhere in upstate New York today there is a really cool, really smart PhD auto mechanic-----but just how good of an auto mechanic is the guy? Who knows.

I was originally an electrical engineer, and once worked in a factory. Whenever anyone had a mathematical problem, we were advised to go and see the guy that ran the foundry, because he was the only person there with a degree in mathematics. I'm pretty sure his job didn't require a degree of any kind. It certainly didn't require a maths degree to measure the right amount of coke.