If she lied with impunity and confidence that she would never be found out, clearly she wasn't that *smart* in basic ethics and street savvy, things that they do not necessarily teach one in any school.

Are you kidding us with this sentence?

--> The real news in tonight's announcement that MIT's Admissions Officer has left after it being discovered she didn't actually have any of the degrees she said she did is this: Some people are still surprised that there are smart people who don't go to college.

Education IS worth something. I feel dumber having read this.

I am sure that there are smart people who didn't go to college. But do they have the same knowledge compared to a person who actually has a degree? Maybe if the tasks on the job isn't related, then college degree wouldn't be that necessary.

Back where I come from we have universities, seats of great learning -- where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts -- and with no more brains than you have.... But! They have one thing you haven't got! A diploma!

--- Wizard of OZ

those who can, do.
those who can't, go to college to learn how.

you don't get talent from college.

"Some people are still surprised that there are smart people who don't go to college."

I am always surprised at the number of smart people who get Nobel Prizes each year.

I learned pretty early on that being itelligent and being well educated are two completely different things. The correllation between the two is surprisingly weak.

The problem is that most educated people assume that they are somehow more intelligent as a result their education.

--Chris

Colleges are pricing themselves out of the intelligence market. There will come a tipping point one day when the general public realizes that unaccredited knowledge acquired at a more efficient cost can be more powerfully leveraged than sheepskin.

This happens at different rates in different fields of course, certain preisthoods will always be inviolate.

What struck me at college was how much of the learning was a waste of time. Most degrees could easily be boiled down to 4 semesters or 6 quarters.

(On a side note, in the last 15 years, I've worked with only three fresh or very recent college graduates that weren't worthless; two of them at my most recent job [and one is astonishingly good.])

For those curious, I am self-taught in my current profession. As for my college degree, after attending a major University for three years, I transfered to a college that required you had finished all your general education requirement elsewhere and concentrated solely on the point of your degree--every class had a direct bearing on working in the real world. (It was like a trade school on steroids.)

The question this brings up is just how necessary is a college degree? It wasn't at all important for Marilee Jones. The important point was that people think she had a college degree so that she was able to hold the position she did. Perception matters more than the reality.

I agree with Patrick's point, and let me say that if anyone would like an MIT-styled education, then follow the yellow brick road.

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html

Cheers,
David

I do not think even MIT doubts Ms Jones's ability to do her job (which she did well for a long time) but the whole thing says a lot about governance inside MIT and it is a bad example of poor ethics.

That said, I would not diminish the value of formal education or formal learning of any other kind. Immersion provides a learning experience (as is all too evident to those who have learnt any foreign language to fluency), which cannot always be compared fairly with learning in other contexts and from other sources, incl MIT's own OpenCourseWare.

Interesting reading: The chapter on the Disciplined Mind in Howard Gardner's book 'Five Minds for the Future'.

The internet (and associated technologies) will eventually do to higher learning what photography did to fine art.

An imperfect analogy but one with enough parallels to ponder for a few moments.

We still have fine art and fine artists but they will never again have the influence and status they had up to Victorian times. Many to this day still deny this.

Andi: Point about art and photography is good. However, Tracey Emin's unmade bed ('art' although you could disagree just as I do) still fetches a higher price than Lord Snowdon's photos. Which shows that it is not a perfect substitute framing.

You are confusing price with value.

What is currently known as "fine art" is not priced for its cultural or societal impact. The price paid for "objects" designated as fine art is a status marker and measure of scarcity and has nothing to do with its value to society or culture.

The unveiling of important paintings was once considered an important cultural event society-wide. Wars, social movements and revolutions were inspired by paintings in the past.

Fine art openings are now wine and cheese parties for elitists and wannabes in Soho etc. and are mostly ignored by mainstream culture.

Bringing this around to the original example, I believe that institutions of higher learning in the future will be vectors for social mobility more than for knowledge. Working knowledge will be done better here on the 'net. Ivory towers will become even more isolated from real life and safe-havens for Marxist crackpots.

You'll never hear this argument in school. :)

Oh, today wars and social movements are/will be inspired by YouTube clips.

BTW, my undergrad degree is in literature, I was accepted at UC but attended CSU.

A higher education degree gives you access to a rolodex and a start up key. What you do with it totally is dependent on the individual´s skill and attitudes.
A motivated individual does not really needs the degree.
I have found out after getting a BSc in electronic engineering, a BA in finance, an MBA and then part of a PhD in marketing, that what really gets me through life, work and business is my basic education (K12!). Spent many years in the higher education business as a professor and an administrator thinking that was where I can make a long term impact in society, only to confirm that the place to be is in basic education. Last year I switched to develop a long term basic education project, and already got commitment for 10M usd during the next couple of years.

I believe that there are smart people who don't have a degree that are suited for a certain job than a regular person with a degree. Their potential are just not noticed by companies.

Curiously, the most number of mistakes in grammar and spelling in the comments are to be found in comments made by those opposing formal education. A pedantic point, yes, but one that can make or break the *possibility* of being offered a job where you can demonstrate your skills.

Comment 4: The exclamation mark after 'But' is superfluous. The 'z' in Oz is small, not capital.

Comment 5: Sentences begin with capital letters.

Comment 7: Check spelling - intelligent and correlation. Correction - as a result 'of' their education.

Comment 8: 'Priesthood' not 'preisthood'. 'I' before 'E' except after 'C'.

Comment 19: Perhaps you wanted to say 'better suited... than' so that you could compare with a person with a degree? Their potential 'IS' not 'are' just not noticed.

I rest my case.

Anyone smart enough to use Firefox would not have to worry about spelling. It does not correct grammar though.. :o)
I think that being smart and self-taught is nice but she lied. Unfortunately, that is the only way to get a position like that without a degree. It does not make it right.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I favor formal education.

However, those who administer it these days are debasing it. So much so that many forms of informal education will in time overtake the prestige of hallowed halls in the minds of practical folk. My opinion, an incomplete sentence.

I'd hire the creative rebel, the explosively productive poor speller.

How do you know that all the spelling mistakes were not made by the same person? How do you know that the spelling mistakes were not intentional?