[Wikiversity-l] free online degrees?

[Ray Saintonge]

Teemu Leinonen wrote:

>I pretty much agree with all the others in the list, but would still  
>like to open up a bit the concept of "degree", and think how  
>Wikiversity could respond it its own way? 
><- Reading instructions: in academy, popular education and free  
>schools there are "recognitions" which the community awards for its  
>community members. No degrees, nor certifications, nor accreditation.
>
When looking at the concept of the Wikiversity one needs to begin by 
looking at education as a goal in its own right.  You learn something 
because learning is a value in its own right.  There is a personal sense 
of fulfillment to having progressed in a field of knowledge, rather than 
in the illusory belief that there is a pot of gold at the end of the 
rainbow.

>So, then back to the concept of "degree". Here are some questions:
>
>Why are there degrees?
>
>1) To guarantee for the employers that the degree holders can do a  
>certain job
>2) To guarantee for the educational institutions goods with a value  
>in the markets
>
Why should Wikiversity be a servant of the employers?  If the employers 
want to maximize the value of their enterprise.  By providing such 
guarantees for employers Wikiversity would adopt the values of the 
employers, and become caught up in their partucular yuppie rat-race.

Your second point subsumes that Wikiversity is a player in the market 
place, and that it is somehow in competition with similar institutions.  
The essence of free knowledge is its ability to be shared by all.  If 
someone else can educate another person in his chosen field better than 
we can we should not need to engage in a tug-of-war about who can teach 
the learner better.

>In addition to these there are jobs for what you need a license to  
>practice (in most parts of the world): medical doctors and other  
>medical professionals, lawyers, teachers teaching children,  
>policemen, military etc. I assume that it is not realistic to aim to  
>give "degree programs" on these topics in the Wikiversity, *but there  
>are many other topics we may include to the Wikiversity offering and  
>even give recognitions to each other when someone has made a good job  
>in some course*.
>
If the "teacher" of a subject wants to give his students a gold star 
upon completion of a course why would Wikiversity need to prevent that.  
If a student wants to use what he has learned through Wikiversity as 
information for challenging the examinations of an accrediting body he 
should be entirely free to do so.  What he learns is more important than 
who he learns it from.  Much of what passes as professional 
accreditation has more to do with "paying one's dues", and conforming to 
the values of the professional body without regard to whether by doing 
so one provides any benefits to society.  To be sure there are 
exceptional individuals who do great work despite being professionals, 
but many depend on a wall of mythic bricks held together by the mortar 
of arrogance to separate them from society.

>Summary: I would like to see some kind of "recognition" system /  
>practice in the Wikiversity. It could be a simple list of Wikiversity  
>course each user has took with links to the course pages and course  
>work. This way people could use their "Wikiversity portfolio / CV"  
>also when they are looking for a job. The employer / person hiring  
>may then decide what value she gives for the "Wikiversity courses".
>
Even if it were to concede that as a good thing, who would accept the 
responsibility of all the administrivia that it involves?  I doubt that 
it would be an enlightening use of volunteer time.  If we pay someone to 
do this the entire character of the project would change.

>As a person also hiring people once in a while, I would actually  
>right now value pretty high "Wikiversity courses" in someone's CV.  
>For me they (at the moment) tell that the person is into new things,  
>active, capable and willing to learn new things etc.
>
For some employers beiing into new things would suggest someone who is 
chronically unable to focus on the task at hand, and thus not a 
productive employee.  There are jobs where innovation is an asset, but 
they are a minority.

Ec