The “knowledge factory” exists for a reason. The way our society is constructed, we need structured specialization (pick a course), verification (you’re OK) and rating (you’re the top 5%) — because our entire society expects these things to work and be available.
It sounds like the only difference in your example is that these things exist but are not centrally verified to be identical, because apparently diplomas themselves are the problem.
People need to be able to improve, be excluded when incompetent and rewarded when excellent, because that is how our society works in all other aspects, and the one thing that will always be true about an educational system is that it will mirror society: and if it doesn’t currently it will in a few decades.
You cannot suggest fundamental changes to an educational system without more or less advocating a revolution in society. No wonder most complaints stop at the problem and never continue to proposed solutions.
Yes, exactly.
You are using a diploma as an indicator of knowledge, and you have a diploma-giving machine (university) that gives the diploma to anyone that can pass a test. People cheat the test in order to get the diploma. It will always happen, no matter how intricate you make your tests, because you cannot automate knowledge verification.
It isn't a "problem" - it's an "impossibility". And it's one impossibility software companies have gradually started dealing with - most don't care about diplomas anymore, because the correlation between knowledge and having a diploma gets lesser and lesser the more diplomas are printed artificially.
So, that is a pretty good solution, too. Remove diplomas altogether, and let employers measure knowledge in a way they seem fit. They will have responsibility for the mistakes of an employee, so it makes sense that they make the criteria. That way, educational institutions will have to make their education useful in the real world, or their reputation will crumble.
It's not a "pretty good solution", which shows if you start breaking down how you would attempt to achieve this. How do you, first of all, "remove diplomas"? Do you suggest that we fundamentally overturn how our entire society works just to remove cheating?
A "diploma", "certification" or whatever you want to call it, can be issued by many different entities: a collection of nation-states, a state itself, non- and for-profit organizations, even individuals. These all have varying degrees of value depending on the trust placed in the issuing body, from a certificate of having completed Bob's Weekend Sales Course to a state-issued certificate to perform a specific type of surgery.
First of all, which of these are you saying should be "removed"? Only the ones from universities? All of them?
Secondly, how do you remove them? Do you outlaw them?
Thirdly, what happens when they're all gone? How do you certify a surgeon?
Very simple - just stop giving them to people and let them be forgotten as a concept.
> Do you suggest that we fundamentally overturn how our entire society works just to remove cheating?
Are you suggesting that university diplomas are a fundamental factor of how our society works? If so, would you please explain how?
> First of all, which of these are you saying should be "removed"? Only the ones from universities? All of them?
Only those from the universities. Universities are officially recognized "places to learn" and they should be kept that way. Studying for longer than "appropriate" number of years should not be frowned upon, but encouraged. The whole process of "verification" should be completely independent of learning.
Bundling "learning" and "verification", the way universities do, inevitably leads to hordes of people who want verification, but not learning - i.e. cheaters.
> Secondly, how do you remove them? Do you outlaw them?
Very simple - stop issuing them (I suppose a country-level ban of university diplomas could do, but politics depend on the country so I can't give you a general answer). If you want a certificate authority, make a certificate authority and make it its sole purpose to verify that people have the knowledge. Leave university out of that.
> Thirdly, what happens when they're all gone? How do you certify a surgeon?
A certificate authority (that only verifies surgeons' skills, and doesn't bundle the process with "learning").
Also in Portugal and in Poland there is a thing called national exam which is a nationwide exam at certain check points. It is very useful in showing per school social economic issues as well as grade inflations(school grade VS national exam grade). I honestly do not understand why the verification is not done independently of the teaching in all levels of education. It would also liberate teachers to focus on teaching while having a nationwide benchmark validation on their approach to teaching. Teachers ironically hate to be evaluated.
Another factor that is very hard to handle is that education is an industry that employs a very powerful class, the teachers. More often than not when education is in the news it is for teacher' labor issues. In Portugal recently they held a strike on national exam days. To give you an idea of how important national exams are, they are held in police stations and delivered by police officers to the schools on exam day to avoid leaks and so nobody has unfair advantages.
I will never forget that teachers held students national exams hostage for their negotiations. (they lost and suffered such a public backlash that their bargaining power was neutered for a few years).
Employer verification made sense, you mention they have to deal with it if their hire is dumb. This secondary certificate authority idea undermines your entire argument though. Maybe I’m missing something though and you have a good idea for how the CA will mitigate cheating that a university can’t do.
Because certificate authority will be separated from teaching, its sole purpose would be to prevent cheating, and they will be able to focus on it completely. Currently, universities don't have much incentive to focus on preventing cheating, because of overworked professors, or simply because they must print X diplomas a year or disappear.
Besides, when certificate authority has a sole purpose of verifying knowledge, it will become obvious which certificate authority allows cheating - people certified by it will fail at their jobs, thus ruining its reputation.
> This secondary certificate authority idea undermines your entire argument though. Maybe I’m missing something though and you have a good idea for how the CA will mitigate cheating that a university can’t do.
The difference is subtle but important - currently, universities don't suffer much reputational damage from cheaters, because the testing aspect of university is interleaved with the learning aspect - so if a university has good learning opportunities, nobody cares if a certain percentage of its diploma-holders are cheaters. They are on their own.
With certificate authorities, cheating will be naturally devastating, because the certificate authority will (I assume) serve just as a filter for employers - employers will choose employees which hold certificates from a trusted authority, i.e. the one that doesn't let people cheat. So there will be natural incentive to prevent cheating, and the free market will do its thing.
It seems like you've just moved the cheating problem from one organization to a different organization? How would this new certificate authority measure learning better than universities are currently measuring learning? Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now? Do they also have cheating problems?
While that might seem redundant, keep in mind that most of the cheating happens because responsibility for both teaching and testing falls on the professor of the subject, and there is not much incentive to prevent cheating when the school must print X diplomas a year or disappear. I assume that an organization whose sole purpose is to certificate knowledge can be much more specialized for testing and spend most of their time trying to combat cheating.
> Are there examples of such certificate authorities existing now?
A sibling comment has mentioned pilot schools: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31548177
How do you prevent them from becoming corrupt gatekeepers that maximize their own profits while ignoring learning as much as possible?
"measuring understanding mechanically at scale" is exactly the tool to prevent that.
There could be another organization that specializes in knowledge verification and certification. But that should be completely independent of learning.
Of course, now the question becomes "how do we prevent a verification and certification authority from abusing their power?" - but that question is not particular to this context and can be applied to any human organization of any kind. However, in this particular case, I think that employers would be the verification authorities themselves. They are the ones that need the real-world knowledge, so they should be the ones to measure it.
Let's say this was formalized as follows:
Each student would be encouraged to serve as mentor for up to 3 younger students, starting on year 3 of their studies, and each semester thereafter, and receive some small stipend for each mentee.
At the start of each semester, prospective mentors would be listed and students would be allowed to seek them out. Both parties would be allowed to know the grades of each other, and the mentees would be allowed to reach out to former mentees of the same mentor. Mentors would also be allowed to do some kind of self-promotion where they could "sell" their abilities as mentors.
After each exam, the mentoring would count as having taken a course for the mentor, with the grade equal to the average grade of their students, and it would provide a numbe of "mentoring credits" equal to the number of students passing. This might seem unfair, but the idea is that this would encourage competition among mentors to "catch" the best students, encouraging the mentor to put effort in.
For the next semester/course, new mentor student connections could be set up, or the same as the semester before could be kept, if both sides agreed.
When a student receives their final diploma, all the mentoring results would be listed, both courses, average grade of students, and number of students, as well as total students*courses mentored and the average grade for those.
I can imagine a lot of employers would be highly interested in this information, as it could be extremely predictive for some kinds of positions (in particular positions of leadership or teaching). Students who had repeatedly mentored other students who achieved great results would be likely to, in the future, be able to recruit and keep high quality employees and help maximize the output of a team. In both cases, it might be it would be the very students they had been mentoring that would be potential hires.
Or, if employed by a university, would be likely to attract high quality post-graduate students as well be effective supervisors for them.
Now shy, intravert or people with bad social skills might find this unfair. But I think there would still be room for people who focused exclusively on learning the subjects themselves, and these would have more time available for that. These might also care less about those jobs where mentoring success would be seen as crucial.
The only thing I know from education that does something similar is “Jena-plan” in elementary school and Teaching Assistants in uni. Nothing in our high school.
Trying to create a knowledge factory seems to me a pipe dream. All cheating comes from trying to force learning into a rigid mechanical box.
Solution? My opinion - remove colleges, bring back guilds.
Of course, this is an oversimplification, but the moment you remove the need to print out diplomas, everything does become simpler. The "measuring understanding mechanically at scale" is the hardest problem.