This week I'm thinking about formal vs informal education, that is, comparing the kind of education you can get at college —grounded in theory, going through the traditional curriculum— to just learning as you go —maybe from tutorials, or actual work experience.
Is formal education clearly a superior (or inferior) way of learning?
I think is just an insufficient way of learning. Formal education alone is not enough. But it's an important piece. Is it a must? I don't think so, but is definitely a big plus.
It's hard for many people to separate the cost of formal education from the equation. Going to college here in the U.S. to get a CS degree can leave you with $150,000 - $250,000 in debt.
Very good points about cost, and also opportunity cost, you could be doing something else in that time, and with that money, like running your own business.
I guess I tend to think less in terms of college tuition costs because, you know, education in Cuba is, at least in theory, free (although of course the poorer students who cannot buy a laptop are heavily limited).
Yeah, I know. Here cost weights heavily in the opinion of many.
I think, if college was free, way fewer people would be interested in this discussion.
Regardless, I believe the future of education will look very different to what we have now. I believe it will be more personal and much less institutionalized.
My formal education taught me how to structure, how to conduct research, how to formulate ideas, how to experiment properly, how to work alone and with others, and other basic skills. I believe acquiring these skills elsewhere would be quite challenging. As for the remaining skills, including most of the ones I have utilized in my professional career, they were obtained informally. Furthermore, this learning process never stops and should never stop. Even after retirement, I spend at least half of my time engaging in learning activities simply for the joy of it.
It may also depend on your field. I was trained as a biologist. Out of my year, approximately 5% pursued careers in biology research, 10% in related fields, 40% in education, and the remaining 50% (including myself) ventured into other areas, often IT. If you find yourself in a different field, you have to acquire the necessary skills on the job and through relevant courses.
I have also been involved in hiring IT staff extensively. In general, there is often a distinction between formally trained individuals and autodidacts, particularly in their ability to structure and abstract concepts. Even within the formally trained group, differences can be observed between those with purely engineering backgrounds and those with more academic backgrounds. However, when it comes to the selecting staff, education takes a secondary role, except for entry-level roles. We primarily looked for relevant experience.
Makes sense. Although formal education can serve as a proxy for skill level. I tend to hire for my startup the best graduate students that work at my lab. Good grades and research don't necessarily imply good technical skills or even work ethic but it's a pretty good proxy, especially if they lack experience.
The obvious answer is "it various from person-to-person", but I think it's important to examine why. The monopolisation of our time for work today leaves very little room for education, let alone the energy for tackling complex topics that require structured (if self-guided) learning, even when it's made accessible through the Internet. It's always funny to see people talking about how many books Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates read every week without reflecting on how on earth they have the time! Formal education is great more because it allows you to dedicate your time and energy more completely to learning than because it's inherently better from a pedagogical point of view.
Good point, I was thinking primarily in methodological terms, how formal education could be more efficient because someone thought about the optimal way to pipeline the concepts. But your point is very pragmatic, and it's true, students in the campus are much more likely to focus on education than on their homes with full YouTube and Instagram. Also, parents tend to leave you alone when you're enrolled in formal education, not so much when you're binge watching tutorials online.
I think is just an insufficient way of learning. Formal education alone is not enough. But it's an important piece. Is it a must? I don't think so, but is definitely a big plus.
Ideally: Formal Education + Supplemental Learning.
It's hard for many people to separate the cost of formal education from the equation. Going to college here in the U.S. to get a CS degree can leave you with $150,000 - $250,000 in debt.
Is that worth it?
Very good points about cost, and also opportunity cost, you could be doing something else in that time, and with that money, like running your own business.
I guess I tend to think less in terms of college tuition costs because, you know, education in Cuba is, at least in theory, free (although of course the poorer students who cannot buy a laptop are heavily limited).
Yeah, I know. Here cost weights heavily in the opinion of many.
I think, if college was free, way fewer people would be interested in this discussion.
Regardless, I believe the future of education will look very different to what we have now. I believe it will be more personal and much less institutionalized.
Academia is bound for a revolution, it's been some 2500 years since the last one!
My formal education taught me how to structure, how to conduct research, how to formulate ideas, how to experiment properly, how to work alone and with others, and other basic skills. I believe acquiring these skills elsewhere would be quite challenging. As for the remaining skills, including most of the ones I have utilized in my professional career, they were obtained informally. Furthermore, this learning process never stops and should never stop. Even after retirement, I spend at least half of my time engaging in learning activities simply for the joy of it.
Very interesting insight. This gives weight to the argument of balancing both types of learning.
It may also depend on your field. I was trained as a biologist. Out of my year, approximately 5% pursued careers in biology research, 10% in related fields, 40% in education, and the remaining 50% (including myself) ventured into other areas, often IT. If you find yourself in a different field, you have to acquire the necessary skills on the job and through relevant courses.
I have also been involved in hiring IT staff extensively. In general, there is often a distinction between formally trained individuals and autodidacts, particularly in their ability to structure and abstract concepts. Even within the formally trained group, differences can be observed between those with purely engineering backgrounds and those with more academic backgrounds. However, when it comes to the selecting staff, education takes a secondary role, except for entry-level roles. We primarily looked for relevant experience.
Makes sense. Although formal education can serve as a proxy for skill level. I tend to hire for my startup the best graduate students that work at my lab. Good grades and research don't necessarily imply good technical skills or even work ethic but it's a pretty good proxy, especially if they lack experience.
The obvious answer is "it various from person-to-person", but I think it's important to examine why. The monopolisation of our time for work today leaves very little room for education, let alone the energy for tackling complex topics that require structured (if self-guided) learning, even when it's made accessible through the Internet. It's always funny to see people talking about how many books Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates read every week without reflecting on how on earth they have the time! Formal education is great more because it allows you to dedicate your time and energy more completely to learning than because it's inherently better from a pedagogical point of view.
Good point, I was thinking primarily in methodological terms, how formal education could be more efficient because someone thought about the optimal way to pipeline the concepts. But your point is very pragmatic, and it's true, students in the campus are much more likely to focus on education than on their homes with full YouTube and Instagram. Also, parents tend to leave you alone when you're enrolled in formal education, not so much when you're binge watching tutorials online.