Is an academic institute necessary for high end education?

[Anonymous No.3538463]

Hello /sci/.
Is solitary autodidactism even feasible when approaching the most high end education?
Does a university student have significantly higher chances of reaching a PhD level of understanding than a self-learned?
Anecdotal evidence is allowed, and even encouraged.
some disclosure: I'm a university graduate, but I want to pick up some knowledge that I haven't had the opportunity to study when I was a student.

[Anonymous No.3538500]

That post was a clusterfuck, And I apologize.

[Anonymous No.3538505]

>>3538463
Undergrad education (in the UK, anyway) is not about erudition. It's about having the credentials in order to get a job. It's as simple as that.

It depends on how much of an autodidact you are. Everyone's different.

[Anonymous No.3538512]

>>3538505

I like you, sir.

[Anonymous No.3538521]

>a PhD level of understanding

if you think this is a real thing, you will never achieve anything of intellectual value to anyone.

[Anonymous No.3538532]

To be a 'proper intellectual' you need other proper intellectuals to bicker with. Some kind of dialectic process. And for subjects like chemistry, biology, engineering, etc. you also need to be able to partake in actual practice, you can't get by on just theory.

[Anonymous No.3538536]

>>3538521
There's no harm in simplifying stuff. It's decent to convey what I mean by 'high end'.
I'm perfectly aware of what the degree contains (and more importantly, doesn't) so calm your tits.
>>3538512
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.3538560]

>>3538532
Do you think it's possible to make a studygroup or take similar measures to overcome that?

[Anonymous No.3538582]

depends on the profession

good luck autodidacting your way into a surgeon

philosophy, history, learning yourself to design, code and program to such levels of expertise that you can easily develop and transform an idea into a company, sites, projects etc. with a potential for success are fine candidates though

[Anonymous No.3538591]

One does not go to a university to acquire knowledge, but to learn how to use a certain knowledge in a socially useful/acceptable way.

So yes, one can reach that level on one's own, but won't be able to use it cause one lacks, not the knowledge itself, but the "code" to make it work.

If you expect to get a job or to make money out of your degree then you need the diploma, if it is just for your sake then going to the university is actually gonna block you.

[Anonymous No.3538621]

>>3538560
sure but you're missing out on prescribed texts, lectures, and practice in research and writing

[Anonymous No.3538631]

>>3538463
every kind of knowledge,except maybe the medical one,are available to those willing and capable of understanding and absorbing it.
if you want a job though,you might need a piece of paper that says that you know enough.
/thread

[Anonymous No.3538632]

>>3538463
>Is solitary autodidactism even feasible when approaching the most high end education?
Why wouldn't it be?

All most teachers ever do is repeat things that you can read in books. The autodidact just cuts out the middle man.

[Anonymous No.3538641]

>>3538631
Well, there's other ways to get credibility. like writing something for a science journal, or just getting any theory through peer review.

[Anonymous No.3538649]

>>3538641
>credibility

Getting credibility without the legitimate path that leads to it is like saying you dont need to work because you might win the lottery.

[Anonymous No.3538648]

>>3538641
yeah,that's true.

[Anonymous No.3538653]

>>3538649
i think it's about proving that you know what you are talking about.that's some bad analogy btw.

[Anonymous No.3538656]

>>3538512
>sir
fuck off.
>>3538591
>One does not go to a university to acquire knowledge, but to learn how to use a certain knowledge in a socially useful/acceptable way.
i don't know about you, but none of the english literature I'm studying in school at the moment is being learned in such a way that I could apply my knowledge in the real world.
You could argue that we're learning to write for the real world but that is certainly not the principal focus of my coursework

[Anonymous No.3538662]

>>3538653
>proving that

>he believes in merit.

c'mon, that "proof" is gonna work only if the situation for it to work is built.

[Anonymous No.3538671]

>>3538591
>socially useful
>socially
laughinggirls.gif

[Anonymous No.3538674]

>>3538662
i know,but i don't like it.

[Anonymous No.3538677]

>>3538656
>the real world.
>focus

I did not mean that the "use" is explicitly taught. Of course the classes are about the knowledge itself, but the way this knowledge is presented teaches you its use, or the way it is intended to be (socially) used.

Try to read between the lines. Maybe the fact that you think that you are not learning "a way to use it in the real world" is (also) what you learned in the class.

Let me put it like this: when you learn to add, you are not being taught addition, but you are being taught what mathematics is.

[Anonymous No.3538683]

>>3538641
Can you even get stuff peer reviewed or published if you aren't affiliated with any academic institute?
If so, how? just call up a research department and ask them to get to it? seems unlikely.

[Anonymous No.3538689]

>>3538632
you'd need to read a lot of books though. teachers cut out that middleman

[Anonymous No.3538706]

>>3538532
What this anon is referring to is the 'Socratic' discursive method of attaining knowledge.

His assertion that in order to 'properly' attain knowledge one must incorporate this methodology into one's studying is groundless.

Research on the psychology of learning shows the the 'Socratic' method does help with learning and improves one's understanding of a subject at a faster rate than self-studying.

However, one does not necessarily need to incorporate this method for one to achieve 'high-end' levels of knowledge. This method simply facilitates the process.

In my opinion, the most important factor for achieving 'mastery of a topic' is determination. No matter what method of learning (or combination of methods) one uses to attain knowledge, one will inevitably encounter obstacles/pitfalls/traps/wasted time/&c.. It depends on one's determination to overcome these difficulties that determines whether one advances or not.

tl;dr, knowledge is not simply handed to you, you must earn it. Some ways of 'earning it' are 'easier' than others, but what matters the most is one's resiliency.

[Anonymous No.3538714]

>>3538649
>Getting credibility without the legitimate path that leads to it is like saying you dont need to work because you might win the lottery.

No. This is a false analogy.

[Anonymous No.3538726]

>>3538714
Analogies are not mean to be true.

[Anonymous No.3538733]

>>3538726
It isn't apt. It isn't good. It isn't close to the same. It isn't analogous. . .

[Anonymous No.3538775]

>>3538733
What I meant is that being recognized based purely on merit and without its conventional "proof" (the degree), though it might happen, is an extremely rare event and therefore it is not a valid argument to justify autodidactism.

So, even if winning the lottery might happen, that is not a valid justification to avoid work.

If you dont like images: the exception cant be made a rule.

[Anonymous No.3540653]

>>3538775
>being recognized based purely on merit and without its conventional "proof" (the degree), though it might happen, is an extremely rare event and therefore it is not a valid argument to justify autodidactism.


Autodidactism itself is an extremely rare event. It is not unreasonable for an exceptional individual to accomplish something rare. Even if it is not through the 'beaten path'

[None !Rrxa7zePwI No.3541131]

in the arts it might be a different story, but for anything with accumulated body of knowledge, tehre is no autodidacting or any amount of brilliance that can replace the value of the academic community.

[Anonymous No.3541194]

>>3541131
>shameless dogmatic barf of a negligible tripfag

[None !Rrxa7zePwI No.3541211]

>>3541194
this is the year 2013, not the renaissance. silly

[Anonymous No.3541226]

all teaching should be confined to ways of learning and techniques. we live in schools and churches for too long.

[Anonymous No.3541232]

>>3541211
>this is the year 2013
meaning? ...your impotence of aesthetics?

spit it out, faggot

[None !Rrxa7zePwI No.3541235]

>>3541232
as i've said, if you are doing some kind of artistic thing, you can do that without university or whatever.

[Anonymous No.3541238]

>>3541235

You can learn any of the sciences at a library that's stocked well enough.

[None !Rrxa7zePwI No.3541241]

>>3541238
the best stocked libraries are in universities. if you are good enough, why not work with other people in your field.

you probably have some brilliant revolutionary idea that'll prove everyone wrong though so yea i uess you don't have to!

[Anonymous No.3541245]

>>3541241

>why not

For any reason.

[Anonymous No.3541261]

>>3541235
good luck in attempting to draw a fine bust of a greek god without the intervention of academic knowledge, you delusional fuck

[Anonymous No.3541268]

>>3541241
cuz i dont want to fucking pay an arm and a leg.

[None !Rrxa7zePwI No.3541273]

>>3541261
maybe the artist guy doesn't want to draw that bust. maybe he wants to jerk off on some tissue paper and call it art, and the art world approves of it as art. voila

[Anonymous No.3541276]

>>3541273

>the art world approves

What is this monolithic entity known as the 'art world' ?

[Anonymous No.3541278]

>>3541273
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IisRfR9mCw

[Anonymous No.3541279]

> phd level of understanding

You mean, passing through the motions for long enough and publishing stuff that's currently in vogue?

Some can manage to stay intelligent all the way towards a PHD, but not all.

Geniuses in the humanities tend to have only as much education as an Undergrad degree (actually, they usually only have 3/4 of that) whereas geniuses in the sciences tend to need to study for a lot longer because they need to take into account more knowledge.

tl;dr having a phd =/= having something to say

[None !Rrxa7zePwI No.3541290]

>>3541276
>>3541278
you two should argue against each other, re: whether art has any academic content

[Anonymous No.3541306]

>>3541290

>academic content

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.3541307]

>>3541290
you should watch your tongue more often though

[None !Rrxa7zePwI No.3541316]

>>3541306
i've no idea what you art guys are on about. if you think it's not necessary to go to school to become art master, then whatever. i don't mind. if you think it's necessary, i don't care either.

[Anonymous No.3541320]

>>3541316

You're the one who brought it up, cowboy.

[None !Rrxa7zePwI No.3541331]

>>3541316
okay. using my definition, if you need to draw on an accumulated body of knowledge, then there's academic content in the art. i made space for art without this though. don't see a problemm here

[Anonymous No.3542341]

I know many people on 4chan have insisted that you can learn anything on the internet, but there's a lot of basic stuff I've learned in my classes that's nowhere to be found on Google. Getting textbooks is kind of expensive. Reading journals is probably the path towards a post-graduate level of experience in a topic, but those cost money too.

But even with some barriers, it's still very possible to learn all that stuff. The real problem comes in why you into graduate school in the first place: doing research. You don't have any mentors to look over what you're doing, you don't have as many resources, etc. Realize that many, many people over the past hundred years have been searching for the answers to the same questions you're asking, and with much better opportunities and capital than you, and they still all came up short.