|
|
|
|
|
|
by ziddoap
449 days ago
|
|
|
>Test doctors and judges and hair stylists alike based on whether they can do the job This is exactly what the piece of paper shows when you get it from an accredited and reputable institution. What is your proposal? Do surgery until you stop killing people to prove that you can do them now? |
|
|
Accreditation is an incredibly low bar; all it tells you is that the institution has the right number and type of courses. All a degree tells you is that the student passed some of those classes. But grades in classes do not tell you much about actual ability. And reputation just means that the school has good advertising. It’s not like you can sample a bunch of schools to find out which is actually the best.
Doctors still need to be trained before treating patients but there’s no reason we have to require them to attend so many years of school. If we use our imaginations we can probably come up with alternatives that still achieve that goal. Some of those alternatives would have fewer drawbacks than the system we use today.
For example, our existing schools have the drawback that the school itself decides whether the student was successfully educated. Just as when police departments investigate themselves after a complaint tend to determine that their officers did nothing wrong, schools that investigate themselves tend to find that their professors did all that was necessary and that their students are all perfectly educated. Accreditation was an attempt to solve that kind of problem but it is much too weak to be effective.
Notice also that schools mostly make their students pay up front before success or failure has even been determined. You wouldn’t pay a contractor up front to fix your roof because they’d be tempted to take your money and disappear. You might pay half up front if you’re feeling generous, but even that still has some risk.