One, students cheat. You keep the same question bank year after year and those answers will soon be online. Rewriting questions cost money and educated people to rewrite them. Then you may need to change the course content to match the questions being asked, which again is another cost.
Two, lower course numbers (101, 201) are designed for students who are new to topics and need to be able to ask questions if they have them. If the basics of a topic are not understood, you can’t expect them to succeed in higher level courses.
Three, the ability to get free education is already available to anyone who wants it. You can go teach yourself physics if you’re motivated enough to. But does that mean you’ll get a job as a physicist? Who knows, maybe. Someone test it out and find out for us.
That’s kind of my point though if you care about learning for your personal skills and knowledge you don’t need tests. Now if you want accreditation or something on your resume from a reputable institution then yeah you want to have testing where people can’t cheat for that sake. But also, the idea is conservative business owners and decision makers can look past reputable degrees and certifications and find ways to measure someone’s potential by other means. For example hiring someone who designed and built something through self learning over an MIT grad with no pragmatic experience. It’s basically the opposite of bureaucratic cookie cutter HR
Sure, I’m all for it. I think that happens today IF you can prove yourself enough and get noticed for your work.
I also agree too many businesses look for a degree for a job these days. This really weeds out anyone who may have made themselves another way. That’s why a lot people who have the initiative to teach themselves without schooling start their own business.
The real solution here is to remove professors that don’t teach students how to think but WHAT to think on certain opinions. That shit needs to stop.
Even the subject is hard.
One, students cheat. You keep the same question bank year after year and those answers will soon be online. Rewriting questions cost money and educated people to rewrite them. Then you may need to change the course content to match the questions being asked, which again is another cost.
Two, lower course numbers (101, 201) are designed for students who are new to topics and need to be able to ask questions if they have them. If the basics of a topic are not understood, you can’t expect them to succeed in higher level courses.
Three, the ability to get free education is already available to anyone who wants it. You can go teach yourself physics if you’re motivated enough to. But does that mean you’ll get a job as a physicist? Who knows, maybe. Someone test it out and find out for us.
That’s kind of my point though if you care about learning for your personal skills and knowledge you don’t need tests. Now if you want accreditation or something on your resume from a reputable institution then yeah you want to have testing where people can’t cheat for that sake. But also, the idea is conservative business owners and decision makers can look past reputable degrees and certifications and find ways to measure someone’s potential by other means. For example hiring someone who designed and built something through self learning over an MIT grad with no pragmatic experience. It’s basically the opposite of bureaucratic cookie cutter HR
Sure, I’m all for it. I think that happens today IF you can prove yourself enough and get noticed for your work.
I also agree too many businesses look for a degree for a job these days. This really weeds out anyone who may have made themselves another way. That’s why a lot people who have the initiative to teach themselves without schooling start their own business.
The real solution here is to remove professors that don’t teach students how to think but WHAT to think on certain opinions. That shit needs to stop.
That’s why GEOTUS removed college requirements from federal civil service jobs