Should people be able to 'test into' college degrees by...

[cdev]

completing a really rigorous test, or performing some very difficult feat in whatever their chosen field, (like making an original discovery?) demonstrating their proficiency in the real world, or should they be required to go to college, first undergraduate study, grad school and more, to get an advanced degree like a PhD? I think society needs to allow other routes to credentials, not only because lots of people cant afford the traditional route, also because its now so fixated on people having not just degrees, advanced degrees before they are allowed to speak with any authority on anything. And its getting worse quickly. Degrees are becoming a costly screen that has the potential to become the equivalent functionally of class warfare. Even as many people graduate with degrees who don't know the basic things about what they say they are studying. Also 'according to experts' a growing number of degrees from some countries in particular, are fake!

Certainly, now, the media is obsessed by credentials.

How important are they really?

Well, suppose the community or some expert user HERE in this very popular perhaps the most popular electronics forum invents some revolutionary ELECTRONIC device and posts the entire plan here, then this community hashes its bugs out and shares it. With that being everybody's intent all along. Isnt that a gain to us all? No, not to all of us, some people are all worked up about things like this, and they frame that kind of thing as a LOSS. To business. Even though no business invented it, people intending to share it from the beginning did.

It seems to me that its now totally legal and in fact encouraged for somebody to patent it and call it their own, because THIS FORUM DOESN'T EXIST IN THAT WORLD and the thief (in my opinion) especially if they are a company, seems to be being given a green light to pillage what should be the public domain in every field of importance, and now is even able to claim they are 'creating value' 'where before there was none'!

SO, this change needs to happen for the academic community to retain its legitimacy in a rapidly democratizing world, otherwise the planet's people need to free ourselves of a closed, socially unaware and restrictive system that denies so many people the franchise to speak, I think.  Soon. Because its not okay for so many people to get no chance or one chance that depends so much on having money for an extended period of time, and then have the door slam shut for the rest of their lives.

[cdev]

I do realize because I don't have that. the degree matters less than the chance to have the formal training. Actually Ive been in two engineering programs and completed substantial amount of credit both times - but something came up and I lost the ability to proceed. The second time it was when my program was cut to allow a huge increase in another unrelated program the first time it was two unexpected financial problems on top of one another. And then both times I had to pay back loans. Which I didn't finish doing until I was able to get a better type of job because the Internet came along. I did fine for a bunch more years then got suddenly really sick and my life fell apart, I managed to get back on my feet and finished paying back this debt which had grown and shrunk along with my fortunes many times. I finished that off around 15 years ago. The principal wasnt a lot of money either. But the interest from the long periods when I only had the crappiest jobs one can imagine for somebody with basic electronics skills but no degree, made it swell. I consider myself really lucky, its a trap for the unwary. But what are people supposed to do. Blueskull, with all due respect, I dont think its that easy. maybe you tell yourself that. When i was applying to colleges I was one of those unusual students who had good test scores but who is really bored in high school. But surprisingly I got into two schools. However I didnt find out about the acceptance from the engineering school until a few years ago when I was back in my old home town, going through my deceased mothers stuff. In a big box along with hundreds of bills calculated literally to the penny, was the acceptance letter, unopened.

[cdev]

I have a friend who until recently had never completed a degree. I shudder to explain here what he's doing now but lets just say he's an academic, not just an academic, he's an important one in an engineering school. And by all accounts he's doing well. He recently got a PhD his first college degree, without getting the intermediate BS and MS. Needless to say he's an incredibly smart guy and a rule breaker too. I hope more people have the guts to do this and that the system makes it possible.

not only because lots of people cant afford the traditional route

You do realize that doing a BS is a must nowadays, as there're few few other ways to actually get the solid math and physics understanding.
Once on top of BS, MS can be earned in only one year, or $10k for in-state, US citizens in a public university.
PhD is free, as long as you don't have the burden to feed kids.

[EEVblog]

completing a really rigorous test, or performing some very difficult feat in whatever their chosen field, (like making an original discovery?) demonstrating their proficiency in the real world, or should they be required to go to college, first undergraduate study, grad school and more, to get an advanced degree like a PhD? I think society needs to allow other routes to credentials

Here in Australia you can get into a university degree as a "mature age" student, you don't need the traditional HSC exam results. It usually needs an interview with the dean though, and for tough courses like engineering, often some form of proof or "vibe" that your math will be up to scratch.
But as far as being able to afford it goes, it costs the same either way. And given that the HSC is effectively free in public schools, if oyu are young you might as well go that route. But handy for those that want to enter later.
AFAIK, you can't enroll in Master of PhD courses without the requisite Bachelors? Which I think is a bit silly. A fresh grad with a Bachelors (who might know jack-all, but got good grades) can enroll in a research based PhD, but someone without a degree or a lessor degree like say an associate degree and 30 years practical industry experience in that field cannot?

[T3sl4co1l]

Where I went, it used to be that way (back in the... 70s?).  Nowadays, the rate of incoming students with aptitude in the field is so small, that they don't bother with it, they don't allow it.  (I don't know what the motivating factor is, if it's ABET certification or administrative.)

And that's why I had to take intro EE (DC, AC steady state).

I feel like I learned... I forget what I used to say this figure was... 20%?  That is, out of all the curriculum subject matter, say 70% I already knew and could transfer or test out of (if not for this imposed limit), 20% was new stuff I actually learned, and that leaves 10% for assuming I missed some things.

Mind, for any new or prospective students watching... this is an exceptional case.  If you know something, really know something, don't be afraid to ask for an old test and give it a try, but don't expect to sail through everything so easily.

Tim

[cdev]

When i was applying to colleges I was one of those unusual students who had good test scores but who is really bored in high school.

For your cut program, I don't understand how can that happen. Universities are not supposed to cut a program without rearranging students to a closed topic program, or wait for the current students to finish.

It was just announced at the end of the semester and we were all left with one option, instead of one year (in a two year program with transferable credit for two years to a university) left, there would be two at half credit. Which would have been impossible for me because I was working and the classes were sprinkled here and there and it just clearly wasnt going to work out for any of us. This is what happens when you have other students taking classes in the hallway.

That was the second time I was studying electronics engineering and the third time I was trying to get a degree. At that point I was already over 30 too and not getting any younger. I was working two jobs, one was in nightclubs on weekends doing lighting, the other was selling consumer electronics and stereo stuff. I also had a third sometime job repairing musical equipment. I had a beaten up old scooter and I would get around on that. I must have painted a strange picture driving along the deserted streets at 3 or 4 in the morning. 

Thank God for the Internet, in my case it was a real life saver. Unfortunately for new people, the big web sites have eliminated the opportunity - unless you are actually successful in supporting onesself with YouTube. It may seem like thats a viable career option but it really isn't for most people, because its likely only a tiny percentage that can make it work. The percentage who can eeke out a living selling stuff on ebay is probably higher.

[CatalinaWOW]

There is merit in this suggestion, but real flaws as well.

Some of the flaws.

1.  One of the major advantages of formal education and degrees is that it forces a broader knowledge base than can easily be achieved outside a formal environment, the tests for evaluation would have to be very broad and complex.  Something like the professional engineering exams in the US and many other countries with added sections on communication skills (writing, reading, etc.) and general humanities.

2.  We all know people who test well and can't do anything.  While these people tend to succeed in university also, the university does weed some of them out.

3.  You would have to create an independent bureaucracy to create and administer the tests.  This bureaucracy would have inherent conflicts of interest because those most capable to staff it would tend to come from the university environments that don't want or need the competition.

Some pluses

1.  We all know and have employed or worked with degreed individuals who are worthless.  Being able to test into positions would reduce the halo for those having degrees.

2.  We all know people who didn't do well in the academic world.  Some because they are too bright.  Some with financial problems.  Some just don't have the matching personality.  At least some of these people can be fine engineers and a way to salvage these valuable human resources is good for everyone.

3.  It provides a salvage plan for folks like the OP who get caught by something totally out of their control.  A war.  A flood.  A bankruptcy of a school.  Or whatever.

I do think that this approach wouldn't be too useful at the PhD level.  First, I can say as a failed PhD student that in addition to academic learning the PhD tests social skills and persistence among other things.  Hard to measure on a test.  And secondly, those whose genius deserves a PhD without a formal program usually have little difficulty in finding outlets for their talent.  Lucrative ones.

[cdev]

I'm afraid to put this in so many words but unless professionals open up professions to more of their countrypeople and the inherently interested from elsewhere WHO HAVE LOTS OF TALENT - at decent wages, a level playing field, that acknowledges the need for people with these difficult skills, they are going to LOSE BIG to something coming totally out of the blue that they dont expect, not even the slightest bit. We have to be fair to everybody, all of whom deserve to make decent wages doing difficult work.

There is pressure, a lot of pressure, to employ a group that I should not be so blunt but basically they are the children of the worlds rich. Almost exclusively. maybe this isnt happening in Australia yet. That is my hope. But its happening here in the US in a big way. Up until now, it seems as if engineering has escaped the worst of it. Bit that wont continue. Its an abusive system that victimizes these young people who are worked really hard and paid very low wages. Its going to get a lot worse, whats happening is a return to a form of indentured servitude, but requiring degrees. Companies will also likely find they have to replace their non-credentialed workers with ones with advanced degrees because thats whats being done, quietly. Read the fine print of these treaties.

--- Let me shift for a minute..  you know, the kinds of clueless people who just hate 'needing' anybody and they hate the sheer usefulness of technology. They really dont want to share the gifts of technology with the planet.  Well, they are currently ascendant.

Look at the explosion of alternative means of learning. All of us, nomatter what we do need to be more flexible and really make an effort to adapt to the times, otherwise professionals will successfully be framed as the bad guys. Not the people behind all this.

Frankly, you, who are professional engineers, should see that engineering is more a state of mind and a way of solving problems using the scientific process and innovation, than a degree.

Seeing it only as a degree is a trap because then more and more of you will be replaced by others with degrees, whomever is the cheapest. Everybody will be trapped into a race to the bottom. And everybody will end up hating their jobs under that set of options.

I'm telling you, you have no idea how far along these changes are. Things are going on that almost nobody expects.

A theft is going on thats seen in some circles as taking candy from babies, I am sure. Because people are being so naive.

Every attempt to exploit greed or advantage will be turned against you. You need allies, you need a constituency you're likely to lose. This is what they're counting on, the thing they are experts at. Diving good people.

There is magic in the air, however, and its the way out. The light at the end of the tunnel though could easily be blown out.

Young people want lives, they want jobs too. Everywhere. They are not learning all these things to then go on to be faced with no opportunity and no jobs. But thats the plan. And by ignoring their futures you'll also lose any chance at preserving a decent future outcome for yourselves.

In practical terms what is planned, snatching virtually all opportunity out of their AND YOUR hands, probably won't work. But that wont stop them from trying it, because the wheels were already set in motion more than 20 years ago. And its so wrong and so stupid it will tear this planet apart.

If our professionals pretend nothing is happening, they will fail at CREATING A CONSTITUENCY AND SUPPORT for the better future we all want, and they are going to be broadsided by one after another another new development which will likely put most of them out of a job, it will look like natural crises but the fact is, its likely all scripted. because thats how they do it.

Thats how con artists work. And 'services liberalization' is a huge con. A con to take democracy away from all of us. Without our realizing its even being done.

But lets accept the cover story and say comparative advantage, global value chains, etc. is okay. Is smart. If it is successfully turned into just being about that, and so far everything indicates so, thats a race that most of us in the developed countries can't win. Because its not about meritocracy, its about funneling the right to exist in society, or at least to be heard and listened to, to just a few 'safe' controllable people. And thank them, reward them with the very least possible, to keep them under control.

And that will really hurt all working professionals because it's at its core a race to the bottom in everything that matters. It will turn these great jobs into really miserable thankless ones in the interests not just of cutting costs to the bone, also this scheme is intended to prevent needed changes and adaptations. To 'future proof' the unknowable, unpredictable future. Which is impossible.

Its being done using fake claims of global economic integration but thats not what it is, its all about capturing cross border money flows and controlling who gets them, skimming off the profit and making people who currently have some job stability fear for their survival like poor people do already.

Its also a giant voter disenfranchisement scheme because lots and lots of people, in order to work will have to exchange places and lose their basic rights, especially the right to vote, as they will be in foreign lands, and will be paid very little. Displacing those who came before them who make decent wages. People who cant move where the jobs go will end up out of work years, maybe even decades decades before they would if it was just automation doing it

Yes its really stupid to throw good jobs away. But its happening. Nobody is asking our opinions or even telling us. Easy money and huge profits are a powerful corrupting influence. Professionals (especially in medicine but also in areas like engineering) also are seen as voices potential opponents "standing in the way" of changes that I would describe as the crapification of everything. 

Maybe this isnt so articulate but a big piece of my logical mind keeps telling me to share this and its for everybody. I don't want to see people in poor countries reduced to having to travel to the other side of the planet and make a fraction of what it costs to live just to get their foot in the door, nor do i want people here to have to go overseas to work. Those are both really bad outcomes. People at that age should be starting families, not struggling to make somebody else rich at their colleagues expense.

Technology should be a global community that strives to make things better.

[tszaboo]

Yes, If you are a professional with a BSC degree, with about 10-15 years of experience, it is bad for you. Basically going to traditional uni. to do a masters degree, it would cost you about 100.000 to 200.000 EUR in lost salary, opportunity cost of going ahead with your career, expenses.
And then there is wife suing you for child support after divorcing you, cause you become "unemployed" and she did not marry someone like that. Or cost of psychiatrist, and other medical expanses, cause university is way more stressful than an actual job. And you "have to" pass classes, that were not designed to be passed.

For master's degree in EE, they ask quantum physics, sport, software design, and digital design with logic gates (again) and mathematics (again). 4 semesters, probably more.
I dont think it makes sense for someone to do a masters degree after leaving uni. And I dont think that they should be handed out to people who did not have the education.

What needs to happen is similar to MBA. We need to have Masters of  Engineering Electronics design, Masters of Engineering Microelectronics, Masters of Engineering Embedded Programmer and so on.

1 years course, after hours. Everyone with (a few years of) relevant experience accepted, with per person consideration and talk. You need to submit what you achieved, not what kind of paper you have.

[CatalinaWOW]

There is merit in this suggestion, but real flaws as well.

Some of the flaws.

1.  One of the major advantages of formal education and degrees is that it forces a broader knowledge base than can easily be achieved outside a formal environment. The tests for evaluation would have to be very broad and complex.  Something like the professional engineering exams in the US and many other countries with added sections on communication skills (writing, reading, etc.) and general humanities.

2.  We all know people who test well and can't do anything.  While these people tend to succeed in university also, the university does weed some of them out.

3.  You would have to create an independent bureaucracy to create and administer the tests.  This bureaucracy would have inherent conflicts of interest because those most capable to staff it would tend to come from the university environments that don't want or need the competition.

Some pluses

1.  We all know and have employed or worked with degreed individuals who are worthless.  Being able to test into positions would reduce the halo for those having degrees.

2.  We all know people who didn't do well in the academic world.  Some because they are too bright.  Some with financial problems.  Some just don't have the matching personality.  At least some of these people can be fine engineers and a way to salvage these valuable human resources is good for everyone.

3.  It provides a salvage plan for folks like the OP who get caught by something totally out of their control.  A war.  A flood.  A bankruptcy of a school.  Or whatever.

I do think that this approach wouldn't be too useful at the PhD level.  First, I can say as a failed PhD student that in addition to academic learning the PhD tests social skills and persistence among other things.  Hard to measure on a test.  And secondly, those whose genius deserves a PhD without a formal program usually have little difficulty in finding outlets for their talent.  Lucrative ones.

[EEVblog]

And then there is wife suing you for child support after divorcing you, cause you become "unemployed" and she did not marry someone like that.

Mrs EEVblog made it very clear that she expected me to bring home engineering level wages before I could do this silly Youtube thing full time 

[windsmurf]

completing a really rigorous test, or performing some very difficult feat in whatever their chosen field, (like making an original discovery?) demonstrating their proficiency in the real world,

I think they already have that with certifications. (Cisco CCIE, etc.)

...lots of people cant afford the traditional route, also because its now so fixated on people having not just degrees, advanced degrees before they are allowed to speak with any authority on anything. And its getting worse quickly. Degrees are becoming a costly screen that has the potential to become the equivalent functionally of class warfare. Even as many people graduate with degrees who don't know the basic things about what they say they are studying. Also 'according to experts' a growing number of degrees from some countries in particular, are fake!

In many countries, college is much more affordable (or free).  In the U.S., its a huge problem. 

[hans]

Yes, If you are a professional with a BSC degree, with about 10-15 years of experience, it is bad for you. Basically going to traditional uni. to do a masters degree, it would cost you about 100.000 to 200.000 EUR in lost salary, opportunity cost of going ahead with your career, expenses.
And then there is wife suing you for child support after divorcing you, cause you become "unemployed" and she did not marry someone like that. Or cost of psychiatrist, and other medical expanses, cause university is way more stressful than an actual job. And you "have to" pass classes, that were not designed to be passed.

For master's degree in EE, they ask quantum physics, sport, software design, and digital design with logic gates (again) and mathematics (again). 4 semesters, probably more.
I dont think it makes sense for someone to do a masters degree after leaving uni. And I dont think that they should be handed out to people who did not have the education.

What needs to happen is similar to MBA. We need to have Masters of  Engineering Electronics design, Masters of Engineering Microelectronics, Masters of Engineering Embedded Programmer and so on.

1 years course, after hours. Everyone with (a few years of) relevant experience accepted, with per person consideration and talk. You need to submit what you achieved, not what kind of paper you have.

I agree. If you're into the industry for "too long", it's hard to justify to get back. Reasons I can think of: you really want to move out of industrial engineering and get into research or academia, or learn a new trade such as RF or chip design which was can be rather  shallow in a typical bachelor programme. Some of these fields can also be a bit of a chicken & egg problem: you can't get much relevant professional design experience anywhere, but you can't easily apply/get accepted for jobs because you lack the relevant skill/experience.

Having finished my masters now, I definitely agree that uni is more stressful than work. But to some degree this is also a major part of learning self care IMO. Typically if you can stay ahead of your deadlines and planning, it's not a big deal. The long hours is a different problem. In addition, getting back into the maths and fundamental ways of thinking, rather than what you see available as finished designs and methodologies, can also be a rather big step.

But above all, I think that there is a conflict of interest between academia and industrial work. If you talk to the professors of  a RF circuit design group, you will more likely receive interest in CMOS based transceiver circuits & chip-level system design, rather than which latest integrated chipset is good for IoT applications, or which LNA/PA/mixer from AD is a good fit for your application. In the embedded systems division, using a microcontroller is almost like cursing because a lot of the interesting novel work is done using FPGAs and ASICs. Doing a course on Information Theory will not teach you what compression algorithm or error correction code performs best, but rather how papers can be read in the field and how the performance measures for various algorithms work.

Master programmes often are only available at research universities, and thus are focused on preparing students to get into a PhDs or atleast get into the habit of reading papers. Before the bachelor-master system, non-technical Dutch universities programmes awarded Doctorandus (drs.) titles, which literally means "he/she who should become a doctor", where the "dr." title has been replaced with the PhD system.

I agree you could argue why there does not exist a more polytechnical engineering degree, perhaps not a Master in Science (MSc) but rather a Master in Engineering (MEng), where you can do or bring along advanced industry projects.

[sokoloff]

It seems to me that its now totally legal and in fact encouraged for somebody to patent it and call it their own, because THIS FORUM DOESN'T EXIST IN THAT WORLD and the thief (in my opinion) especially if they are a company, seems to be being given a green light to pillage what should be the public domain in every field of importance, and now is even able to claim they are 'creating value' 'where before there was none'!

I am not a patent lawyer, but I work with one and socialize with another pretty regularly. I believe that public disclosure on a web forum would count as "prior art" in a patent examination process. I'll check it with the patent attorneys next time I see one of them and report back.