I got my last provers back in 1967 so I certainly do not remember everything. But I do not remember ever, repeat ever, having to go through an entire textbook. It was always selected sections of a text which constituted the course material. Maybe it was different in liberal arts courses.
So why are there textbooks? Only bits and pieces of them are needed for course work. Why are there not just those sections instead? Why commission a complete text and evaluate the total content when only pieces of it are ever used?
And why do students have to pay for an entire book when at little as a quarter of it will be used? Why not just publish each section separately and sell them separately?
And while we are on the subject when has enough progress been made to warrant revising the entire text? Why not instead keep all the old sections in print and only create only a section or two on what has progressed?
Once having the sacred sheepskin do we ever learn from a textbook again? We read papers instead. If we need to learn a new subject we find material which relates that subject to our specialization not the generalities of a textbook. So why are students deprived of specialized booklets and required to buy entire texts to get the parts needed?
And if done this way how far is each section from public domain material? There are only so many different ways to say a thing. Consider programming languages. Ever tried counting up how many "Getting started in _______" there are for each language? Ever notice they all appear to agree with essentially the same examples for that language? Is there really a need for more than one or two of these for each language? Is there really a need for three or four a year each and every year for each language?
They all say about the same thing. They might as well be public domain. The way they are they give the appearance of being rewritten to avoid copyright infringement not to produce intrinsically better material.
So lets get passed the archaic idea of textbooks and start producing materials which reflect the selected parts of the books which are in fact the only parts taught. That will reduce the costs for students. For some subjects texts that went out of copyright a century ago are still the last word on the subject. Geometry really has not changed much. A 2010 text is going to cover the same material as one from 1910.
I do not remember his name but a few years ago I read a couple articles on how to get an education for free as long as you were not interested in just getting the provers, the sheepskin.
He pointed out the universities have their course offerings online along with the texts and readings. If your city has a university the texts can mostly be found in used book stores near it or try eBay or whatever. You can complete the degree materials on your own. Of course you don't get tests and feedback on papers but you can find papers online after you write yours and see if they measure up. In technical fields there are plenty of answer books for the "even numbered problems" to test yourself against.
While there is some rationale for having the last year of study on campus where the cheats can be weeded from the reals, if you just want the knowledge there is no need to pay an arm and a leg for it.
But there is a field which says your degree is great but you still have to pass a final, the law and you have to pass the bar exam. Granted that is only to practice in court but there is no reason this idea cannot be extended to any degree field.
Is this an unworkable idea? How many of us are actually doing anything we learned in college? I mean you learned several languages but which ones are you using now? How many are addressing problems that existed back in college? In fact in this field there are more who started programming as kids and never got the sheepskin than there have ever been child prodigies in music or any other field. Why should it be different for any other field?
Authored Comments
I got my last provers back in 1967 so I certainly do not remember everything. But I do not remember ever, repeat ever, having to go through an entire textbook. It was always selected sections of a text which constituted the course material. Maybe it was different in liberal arts courses.
So why are there textbooks? Only bits and pieces of them are needed for course work. Why are there not just those sections instead? Why commission a complete text and evaluate the total content when only pieces of it are ever used?
And why do students have to pay for an entire book when at little as a quarter of it will be used? Why not just publish each section separately and sell them separately?
And while we are on the subject when has enough progress been made to warrant revising the entire text? Why not instead keep all the old sections in print and only create only a section or two on what has progressed?
Once having the sacred sheepskin do we ever learn from a textbook again? We read papers instead. If we need to learn a new subject we find material which relates that subject to our specialization not the generalities of a textbook. So why are students deprived of specialized booklets and required to buy entire texts to get the parts needed?
And if done this way how far is each section from public domain material? There are only so many different ways to say a thing. Consider programming languages. Ever tried counting up how many "Getting started in _______" there are for each language? Ever notice they all appear to agree with essentially the same examples for that language? Is there really a need for more than one or two of these for each language? Is there really a need for three or four a year each and every year for each language?
They all say about the same thing. They might as well be public domain. The way they are they give the appearance of being rewritten to avoid copyright infringement not to produce intrinsically better material.
So lets get passed the archaic idea of textbooks and start producing materials which reflect the selected parts of the books which are in fact the only parts taught. That will reduce the costs for students. For some subjects texts that went out of copyright a century ago are still the last word on the subject. Geometry really has not changed much. A 2010 text is going to cover the same material as one from 1910.
I do not remember his name but a few years ago I read a couple articles on how to get an education for free as long as you were not interested in just getting the provers, the sheepskin.
He pointed out the universities have their course offerings online along with the texts and readings. If your city has a university the texts can mostly be found in used book stores near it or try eBay or whatever. You can complete the degree materials on your own. Of course you don't get tests and feedback on papers but you can find papers online after you write yours and see if they measure up. In technical fields there are plenty of answer books for the "even numbered problems" to test yourself against.
While there is some rationale for having the last year of study on campus where the cheats can be weeded from the reals, if you just want the knowledge there is no need to pay an arm and a leg for it.
But there is a field which says your degree is great but you still have to pass a final, the law and you have to pass the bar exam. Granted that is only to practice in court but there is no reason this idea cannot be extended to any degree field.
Is this an unworkable idea? How many of us are actually doing anything we learned in college? I mean you learned several languages but which ones are you using now? How many are addressing problems that existed back in college? In fact in this field there are more who started programming as kids and never got the sheepskin than there have ever been child prodigies in music or any other field. Why should it be different for any other field?