As a 30-year veteran computer programmer/tech etc., I can easily state that all that the existing computer testing/certifications tend to do is test rote learning and memorization.

They do not test problem solving skills, devising creative approaches to defining problems, or anything else that is the sort of thing which produces "success" when confronted with the unexpected and unexplained in the Real World.

This is exemplified by a book -- "A+ Certification for Dummies". The "A+" certificate is essentially bonehead computer knowledge. It tests what is to computers what arithmetic is to mathematics. If you have such a problem learning that basic level of understanding, that you need a "Dummies" book to help you pick it up, then you need to find another professional arena -- computers are not for you.

Certification is inadequate in and of itself, and **any** testing, if it isn't open book and open notes (i.e., bring anything you want to the test, including a computer with internet access), then it's not actually testing your understanding but insteead your memory. Memory doesn't hurt, but knowing where to find what you don't recall is far more valuable, because it also applies to knowing where to find what you don't know.

Classic internship is, or can be, far more effective. An individual will learn far more from a good mentor looking occasionally over their shoulder and asking them questions about what they are doing and why -- the Socratic Method -- than from any book or talking head.

Combine that with some overview coursework in background theory, not necessarily tested and graded (that should effectively occur as a part of the internship), and there lies your model for an effective and efficient educational system.

We might try to revise and revitalize--through good PR, through adequate and more-than-adequate funding--technical and vocational education. Somehow, however, many of us have come to believe that such work is either not honorable or that it precludes intellectual activity. I think there could be nothing further from the truth.

Also: what about apprentice programs? I think Vermont and one or two other states allow such a thing for people interested in law.

Some of Michael Hammer's thoughts on business education are relevant here. (Dr Hammer is a renowned management consultant recognized as the father of business process reengineering.)

Just search for "Latin and computer programming" at my blog.

Grumpy Academic, Vermont does allows people to "read" law, but those people are fundamentally handicapped: even if they take and pass the Vermont Bar Exam, other jurisdictions that otherwise have reciprocity with Vermont, or that generally admit out-of-state attorneys on motion without exam after a few years in good standing, will not admit them because they did not graduate from an ABA-accredited law school.

I'm fairly sure New York has reciprocity with Vermont but not for someone without an ABA-blessed JD. I know for certain that Massachusetts admits attorneys on motion without exam if they've been in good standing elsewhere for five years--again, only if they're graduates of an ABA-accredited law school. (I know this with special interest, as a lawyer born in Boston and licensed only in Florida, for four and a half years and counting).

I don't know what the local rules are to be admitted to practice before the US District Court for the District of Vermont, but it's possible they may also require attorneys to be graduates of ABA-accredited schools, or at least to be law school grads. Either way, unless you plan on either being a state prosecutor your entire career, or being in purely transactional practice without doing any litigation, not being able to appear in federal court would be tremendously limiting.

A similar situation is true of the large number of law schools in California that are accredited by the California Bar but not by the ABA, although being licensed only in California is a tad bit less professionally limiting than being licensed only in Vermont.

There used to be a hilarious website for the "University of Bums on Seats"--if it's still available, you should check it out.

Your remarks about the pomposity of believing that the font-of-wisdom-up-front model is the only model of value and about the denigration of distance learning (repeatedly called 'poor white trash of education' by one of your blog pals and self-described fonts of wisdom...) are spot on.

Thanks, Elaine. I am glad to know I am not the only one who has been wincing at the repeated "poor white trash" analogies.

I have no problem with Murray's basic idea. (Though I can only shake my head at his reductive and simplistic conception of "knowledge.") I remember testing out of several courses; why not let people test out of entire programs? And I'd be happy to see higher ed once again become more about liberal education than professional credentialing. I do think that reading Hamlet and The Republic will in some important ways make one a better CPA--and citizen--but even so I don't think it's fair to deny an accounting career to those who simply don't want a liberal education (and who would probably spend too much class time in Phil 101 texting their friends about how bored they are to learn anything anyway).

But I can't help but be put off when I read hyperbolic statements like that one about "higher ed models...that denigrate alternative models of learning such as distance education; that won't even consider independent, self-directed study as a viable route to professional qualification; and that seek, ultimately, to maintain a status quo that by just about every measure is at once too expensive and too ineffective to justify being maintained...there really ought to be other avenues. And the first step to establishing them is to talk about what they might be."

"There really ought to be other avenues"? "Maintain the status quo"? "Denigrate distance learning"? Talk about your straw-men.... After reading your final paragraph, one would almost think that a wide variety of distance ed programs are not already flourishing at hundreds if not thousands of institutions nationwide. One would almost think that hundreds if not thousands of institutions nationwide do not already award substantial course credit for different kinds of on-the-job experience, which is not the same as the pure certification model proposed by Murray but is a step in that direction.

My own institution, like hundreds if not thousands of others, offers entire programs online. We also send teachers out to rural areas to hold "butts in seats" classes hundreds of miles away from our main campus. We hold tele-classes. We have a master's program that leads to both an MA degree and teacher certification, regardless of undergraduate major--you don't have to major in education. At my institution we experiment like crazy, and we're not alone. That "first step" of talking about what other alternatives might be was taken long ago by hundreds if not thousands of colleges. I mean, where have you been? Why do you make such hyperbolic statements that do so much damage to your credibility? True, we've done nothing as radical as what Murray has proposed--but then again, we're not fantasizing but trying to work within the system as it is, and while our successes are comparatively modest they're also real. They've created real options for students and increased access and opportunity in ways that are real. It's also true that one reason we're engaged in all this reform is because, yes, we do want to keep our jobs, but so what? We are engaged in reform, right here on the ground rather than up in cloudland.

I would also say that this issue cannot rightly be framed as one of higher-ed reform. As I understand it, it is state boards of accountancy that require a bachelors degree of those who take the Uniform CPA Exam. If those boards (and similar ones for other professions) want to pursue Murray's idea, they can do so without the consent of the higher-ed establishment. "Substituting certifications for degrees" doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do, regardless of what higher ed thinks of the idea.

""Substituting certifications for degrees" doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do, regardless of what higher ed thinks of the idea."

In my own field at least, I don't see the state bars in big states ever relaxing anything: barriers to entry only ever get higher, and the relationship between the law schools, the state bars and the ABA's Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is thoroughly incestuous. But I suppose some of the smaller states might experiment with it.

Good point, Dave J. When I said that "Substituting certifications for degrees" does not seem difficult, I meant it in the sense that what is required is basically only a vote (as opposed to other higher-ed reforms, which typically require things like the acquiescence of thousands of independent colleges and universities, the cooperation of tens of thousands of independent-minded tenured faculty, lots of new money, etc.). Reforming a certification requirement seems simple in comparison.

Whether any given board would want to reform their certification is another matter, as you correctly point out. Were I sitting on such a board and the issue came up, I might well argue against Murray's position. I might argue that the certification exam measures one set of desired competencies, and the attainment of the bachelors degree another set [insert basic rationales for liberal arts education here]. But there might be less admirable reasons for keeping barriers high. Maybe the gatekeepers want to drive up prices by keeping supply lower than demand, maybe they're in bed with higher-ed interests, maybe they're just snobs, or whatever.

Eveningsun, you exhaust me. You know very well that I am speaking about attitudes, from academics themselves, that work very hard to discredit and smear online educational efforts. For an example, see the recurring "distance learning is the poor white trash of higher education" posts at University Diaries. There is a new one up, just this morning. The commenters there seem to think this comparison is just fine--for distance learning and for poor white folks. But I find the comparison noxious, snobby, and decidedly not helpful when it comes to using the internet in constructive ways to improve access to education. Perhaps you'd like to turn your annoyance in that direction, where it might be better placed. You certainly have a lot to say--all of it good--about the value of distance education.

Erin, I guess I'm just not plugged into the same circles as you are. I would suggest that blog comments at University Diaries are about as good an indication of academics' attitudes generally as comments at Lucianne.com are about the attitudes of Republicans generally. I try to ignore the fringes. I know many colleagues who are enthusiastic about distance ed, others who are critical of this or that aspect of it (but teach it anyway), but none who are "work[ing] very hard to discredit and smear" it. Absolutely none. (Sometimes I think we live on different planets.) I think that people reading your post will get the impression that academia generally is extremely hostile to distance ed, and the impression that the questions Murray is raising have never been raised before. My own experience tells me both those notions are false. Anyway, why should I express my annoyance about the attitudes of fringe elements that will have absolutely no impact? You're the serious one, the one who is actually having some influence. Ergo I address you.