5 ms·

The point of an undergraduate university degree is to represent to others that the holder has some level of knowledge and skill in a particular subject. The va

by __d 4y ago

The point of an undergraduate university degree is to represent to others that the holder has some level of knowledge and skill in a particular subject. The value to the student is as a key to further opportunities: academic, social, commercial. The value to the institution is almost entirely financial. My proposal is that the degree-granting institutions be separated from educational institutions. To get a degree, you submit a request for examination. That will be an intensive two or three week long process of written, practical, and interview assessments conducted by a team of people who attempt to satisfy themselves that you meet the requirements of the degree. The cost (and difficulty) will vary, depending on the institution you select. You pay for the assessment, regardless of the result. The institution's motivation is to ensure that its graduates actually meet the degree criteria. If it issues degrees for sub-par applicants, its degrees become worth less (and ultimately, worthless), and fewer people will bother to acquire one. Educational institutions can then be separate. They can be exam-prep, cramming specialists with experience in getting students past a particular degree-granting institution's assessment, or they can be a genuine, broad-based, learning facility that students can attend to learn whatever they want, for however long they want, subject to continuing to pay for that tuition. If you want to teach yourself off YouTube, go ahead, and then test for the degree. If you want to be a well-rounded, educated person, maybe spend some time at a learning facility.

rhco 4y ago
I think this idea has some serious merit, but I do wonder what the roll-out would look like - how could it be implemented practically, considering the reputation-base value of degrees. For example, the value of a degree from MIT is not just the degree itself, but also quality and depth of the course work. We assume that if a student passed with A+ grades, they have a solid understanding. But we also know that, i.e., MIT teaches CS in a way that's very applicable to the CS industry, including many bits of non-standard knowledge that are not tested in the exam. Imagine that MIT decides to become a degree-granting institution, and I obtain an "MIT CS Degree". How would an employer know whether I learned at a top-quality education provider and gained deep knowledge that covers more than the exam ever could -- or if I self-taught and scraped through the exam with the bare minimum knowledge. I guess MIT could structure their exams so that they cover the subject deeply, but to cover 2 years worth of intense learning, surely they would need a very long (maybe impractically long) exam period? Maybe I'm over-thinking this - I guess an MIT student would list on their CV "2 years studying at MIT". Anyway, I think this is a fantastic idea and I'm very interested to see what other HN users think!
- __d 4y ago
  I envisage the examination process being very thorough, with a combination of practical tests, in person cross-examination by a team of interviewers, essays, etc. MIT could absolutely ask you any sort of question they would expect you to know, or ask you to do anything you’re expected to know how to do. I envisage it being a multi-week process. I think for undergrad CS, maybe two weeks is enough? But it’s be up to the degree-granting institution how long they take and how it works. I can easily see it taking a variable amount of time too, depending on the applicant. A one-day multiple-choice vs a two-week hands-on assessment would mean the degrees would have quite different value.
- em-bee 4y ago
  i think the idea would be the opposite, that none of the schools are granting any degrees, but that degrees are granted by a new independent government funded institution. then you can go to MIT to study, take tests and pass courses, but to get the actual degree you have to go elsewhere. the school can provide transcripts of the classes you attended and any projects and tests you did. if the company cares they can look at that, or maybe they are satisfied with a proof that you were enrolled at MIT for 4 years. for a company that wants MIT graduates, the only risk would be that someone paid for being at MIT but not actually study there. i don't know, maybe that's possible if you live in boston already and pay only for one class per term, but again, they could find out through the transcript. isn't that exactly what happens with the bar exam? you can study wherever you want, but in order to work as a lawyer you have to pass a state bar exam. later when people are interested in a lawyers credentials, they don't ask where you passed the exam, but where you studied.
  - __d 4y ago
    I agree, that'd probably be the best model for most of the world, but it's unlikely to fly in the US. But that's ok: they can have commercial certifying entities, and otherwise, it could be a government function.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      but that's the odd part, most of the rest of the world doesn't need that because they have government funded universities without a profit motive. the problem that this system adresses is the conflict of interest of for-profit schools. and that problem is most prevalent in the US and a few other countries where private universities dominate. essentially it is a system that should be used for any private schools to ensure their quality
__d 4y ago
I’d be pretty tempted to legislate that the two types of institutions be prohibited from having any commercial relationship as well. There cannot be any incentive to grant degrees that aren’t earned.

by __d 4y ago

rhco 4y ago

I think this idea has some serious merit, but I do wonder what the roll-out would look like - how could it be implemented practically, considering the reputation-base value of degrees. For example, the value of a degree from MIT is not just the degree itself, but also quality and depth of the course work. We assume that if a student passed with A+ grades, they have a solid understanding. But we also know that, i.e., MIT teaches CS in a way that's very applicable to the CS industry, including many bits of non-standard knowledge that are not tested in the exam. Imagine that MIT decides to become a degree-granting institution, and I obtain an "MIT CS Degree". How would an employer know whether I learned at a top-quality education provider and gained deep knowledge that covers more than the exam ever could -- or if I self-taught and scraped through the exam with the bare minimum knowledge. I guess MIT could structure their exams so that they cover the subject deeply, but to cover 2 years worth of intense learning, surely they would need a very long (maybe impractically long) exam period? Maybe I'm over-thinking this - I guess an MIT student would list on their CV "2 years studying at MIT". Anyway, I think this is a fantastic idea and I'm very interested to see what other HN users think!

__d 4y ago
I envisage the examination process being very thorough, with a combination of practical tests, in person cross-examination by a team of interviewers, essays, etc. MIT could absolutely ask you any sort of question they would expect you to know, or ask you to do anything you’re expected to know how to do. I envisage it being a multi-week process. I think for undergrad CS, maybe two weeks is enough? But it’s be up to the degree-granting institution how long they take and how it works. I can easily see it taking a variable amount of time too, depending on the applicant. A one-day multiple-choice vs a two-week hands-on assessment would mean the degrees would have quite different value.
em-bee 4y ago
i think the idea would be the opposite, that none of the schools are granting any degrees, but that degrees are granted by a new independent government funded institution. then you can go to MIT to study, take tests and pass courses, but to get the actual degree you have to go elsewhere. the school can provide transcripts of the classes you attended and any projects and tests you did. if the company cares they can look at that, or maybe they are satisfied with a proof that you were enrolled at MIT for 4 years. for a company that wants MIT graduates, the only risk would be that someone paid for being at MIT but not actually study there. i don't know, maybe that's possible if you live in boston already and pay only for one class per term, but again, they could find out through the transcript. isn't that exactly what happens with the bar exam? you can study wherever you want, but in order to work as a lawyer you have to pass a state bar exam. later when people are interested in a lawyers credentials, they don't ask where you passed the exam, but where you studied.
- __d 4y ago
  I agree, that'd probably be the best model for most of the world, but it's unlikely to fly in the US. But that's ok: they can have commercial certifying entities, and otherwise, it could be a government function.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    but that's the odd part, most of the rest of the world doesn't need that because they have government funded universities without a profit motive. the problem that this system adresses is the conflict of interest of for-profit schools. and that problem is most prevalent in the US and a few other countries where private universities dominate. essentially it is a system that should be used for any private schools to ensure their quality

__d 4y ago

I’d be pretty tempted to legislate that the two types of institutions be prohibited from having any commercial relationship as well. There cannot be any incentive to grant degrees that aren’t earned.