> The cost of hiring this employee goes way up. The cost of hiring an employee would be offset from the employee to the prospective employer. By requiring a d

> The cost of hiring this employee goes way up. The cost of hiring an employee would be offset from the employee to the prospective employer. By requiring a degree as certification, the financial burden is put on the employee before they can accrue capital to pay for it. This leaves millions in serious debt before they can even start making money. The notion that all qualified persons became qualified in the same manner ignores the rest of us who learned and gained experience with other methods. Those other methods are abundant, freely available, and comparable in quality and result to academia. > The difference is that a student who is 100% dedicated to self learning could do it all on their own, which is a net win, but I suspect that for the majority, things would not change too much. That is exactly the attitude that got us into this mess. The only reason "the majority" considers academia as an integral part of their career paths is that it is by virtue of employers using degrees as accreditation! I disagree with your notion that accreditation would [d]evolve into academia. Academia demands much more of a student than accreditation: homework, time, structure, etc. It also demands a more strict learning path. If a diverse group of people relied on a test for accreditation, the test would be better applied to that group's diverse learning paths.