[Aimless]

A couple of years ago, my own dear Mum met Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank. They had tea in his office, and spoke casually of many things. At one point, my mum remarked on the large number of books on the shelves, and wondered if he'd really read all of them. God no, said Dr. Yunus, who has the time?? But people insisted on giving him books so he just put them on the shelves where he thought they looked pretty.

My mum told him, half-jokingly, that her son would have gone through every single one of them from cover to cover in a couple of months. At hearing this, Dr. Yunus chuckled, and said (also half-jokingly!) that her son sounds like he's good for nothing. And then they had a good laugh at my expense.

While I agree with the statement, I'm a little more interested in the point I think he was trying to make, which (I think!) is that theoretical "knowledge" untempered by real-world experience and application is rather useless.

I'm wondering, which is better to acquire first? On the one hand, theoretical knowledge provides us with cognitive tools that we can apply to the real world, eg. in order to make more sense of it. On the other hand, experiences can make it easier to understand and appreciate theoretical knowledge, to acquire those cognitive tools in the first place (by enabling us to retroactively apply them to past experiences). What's more, experience with working in some way can translate to discipline and motivation in one's studies.

Which approach do/would you prefer in your particular field of study/work? I feel that, ideally, theoretical knowledge and practical application of that knowledge in the real world should go hand in hand, for real ultimate learning. But, if that's not possible, then I very often would prefer to see the end first, so to speak. To see the trick before learning the secret.

How 'bout you?

[paladin]

i'll choose experience over textbook knowledge, in a black and white world. employers are gradually seeing that as well, in this day of dime a dozen college graduates(especially the liberal arts, psychology, history variety).

both are forms of education, but one is rather informal and doesnt give you a piece of paper or cost you any money. hands-on learning is really the only way to judge if you are any good at a particular profession.

i dont think that theoretical/textbook knowledge is useless, but i would hire someone with proven results and no degree before someone with a piece of paper saying they're qualified and no experience

[Obdigore]

paladin;235411 said:

i'll choose experience over textbook knowledge, in a black and white world. employers are gradually seeing that as well, in this day of dime a dozen college graduates(especially the liberal arts, psychology, history variety).

both are forms of education, but one is rather informal and doesnt give you a piece of paper or cost you any money. hands-on learning is really the only way to judge if you are any good at a particular profession.

i dont think that theoretical/textbook knowledge is useless, but i would hire someone with proven results and no degree before someone with a piece of paper saying they're qualified and no experience

And yet, are you a hiring manager?

I have 6 years of hands-on knowledge, promoted 3 times, and keep losing jobs to people just out of college.

[Aptorian]

To me this sounds like a discussion about how much you can be taught through a book and how good you can be without knowing any theory.

There's definently a big difference in getting a long education, not just in learning a trade but a general out look on things. Take for example my family which except for a cousin all have standard... "high-school" educations - is probably the word in english.

I've got a much more nuanced way at looking at politics, ethics, humanity than my family - generally I have a very philosofic attitude to things that probably stem from reading too much classical litterature. On the other hand I have friends who are studying to become lawyers or stockbrockers, they have a much more logical outlook and I often see them figuring something out quickly though assessements I just wouldn't do.

If you take a sharp(er) mind and put them in distinct situations along with a guy without a higher education, you might get some interesting results.

[Cougar]

I'm going to have to be a bit of a softy here and say that both have their relative merits.

To have an extensive theoretical knowledge of something is very useful, but untempered by experience of applying it in a real world sitaution can be problematic. This is why companies run internships and graduate schemes to specifically harness the excellent theoretical knowledge of the graduate.

Direct expereince on the otherhand is very useful, however (and not in all cases) it can mean that without the 'thinking outside of the box' which can be provided by a sound theoretical understanding, people hired purely on expereinced can be rather staid and unadventurous in their approach.

I don't want to generalise; you get plenty of grads who aren't up to the job, but also you get lots of super competent guys who have no background understanding beyond direct experience who offer nothing more than solid and unimaginative work without advancing their role.

[paladin]

Obdigore;235424 said:

And yet, are you a hiring manager?

I have 6 years of hands-on knowledge, promoted 3 times, and keep losing jobs to people just out of college.

and that is usually cost cutting.

ive been involved in hiring and ive run personal businesses and done consulting/freelance work. people with experience ask for more money than people looking for that first job, essentially. economics and your position determine when you're too expensive for the company.

currently, im in a career job with a low turnaround and a low chance of downsizing. my division is new within the company and growing with every passing quarter. rather than doing generic IT, as my college education was, I found a job working on proprietary software on a dead operating system(Pick). i got the job on my prior job experience since i do not have a degree, eventhough i have 3 years of college education. with the current economy, if i would have went for that network administrator job rather than what im doing now, id be much more likely to lose my job to the next guy out of college. as it is, a guy out of college isnt going to know jack crap about the Pick operating system or DataBASIC, so i'm fairly safe from them as a replacement.

so, like others have said, experience and formal knowledge both have their merits, and they also both have places where they apply and dont apply.

[D Man]

"Knowledge of reality begins and ends in experience"

Albert Einstien

But then, I read that in a book. So go figure

You have to strike a ballance.

[Lost Marine]

Depends on what you're doing for work, but I think what that guy was saying was that if you had time to read all those books in a couple of months then you must be sitting on your ass alot.

He was remarking on his perception of your work ethic as opposed to your knowledge base.

As for the sharp(er) mind vs the less educated, when exactly has going to college imparted more intelligence? It might give you more knowledge of the classics or whatnot but it doesn't make you more intelligent.

[Cougar]

Lost Marine;235541 said:

when exactly has going to college imparted more intelligence? It might give you more knowledge of the classics or whatnot but it doesn't make you more intelligent.

I think there is a presumption that if you go to University you must by default be more intelligent, which is not always true. Academia hones the mind, if the raw materials aren't there to work with in the first place you may as well try to teach a dog to play the harp.

Conversely there are people of enormous intellect who are never well educated for reasons of social disadvantage etc. My old manager at work left school at 16 with no qualifications, his level of education was low, his English and his knowledge base relatively limited. However, in the field we work in there is not a better negotiator or a sharper reader of situations and I have learned an enormous amount from him. However, without acedemic education the finer points of communication, writing reports etc are a constant struggle.

[stone monkey]

Experience gives you a lot, and that knowledge is harder won and probably more applicable in real-world situations. But academic learning can give you a leg up and is therefore not without merits.

[Urb]

The way I see it, employers want to hire people with a good education because then they have actual proof that you are capable of acquiring the necessary know how to do the job. Then they invest in you by training you for the job.

Then again maybe you guys were talking about people going straight from school into high responsibility jobs without a transitional period. Which is bad practice if you ask me.

As for how I prefer to learn new things, I'd say a nice balance between hands-on and theoretical background. When we do labwork in school, I feel like I get a better understanding for what I'm reading. But at the same time I get a lot more out of the labwork if I've prepared by reading the theory first, because I understand much more of what is going on.

Big fan of the Rosetta Stone language learning tool, but I like to supplement with at least some basic grammar. With a little theory to build on, you learn faster (how much faster is of course relative to what you're trying to learn).

[Dolorous Menhir]

I wasn't going to boast about this, but my mother was talking to a different Nobel Laureate the other day, and they both agreed that I was the bomb.

No shit.

[Lost Marine]

Was it Al Gore? Cause he doesn't count.

[Aptorian]

Dolorous Menhir;235886 said:

I wasn't going to boast about this, but my mother was talking to a different Nobel Laureate the other day, and they both agreed that I was the bomb.

No shit.

Do they know you spend way too much time discussing a fantasy world on a internet board?

[paladin]

your mother talking to a different nobel laureate implies that she is a nobel laureate

[Dolorous Menhir]

Aptorian;235949 said:

Do they know you spend way too much time discussing a fantasy world on a internet board?

It's unlikely.

[pastures]

D Man;235479 said:

"Knowledge of reality begins and ends in experience"

Albert Einstien

But then, I read that in a book. So go figure

You have to strike a ballance.

Well said!

would rep you if i could, but i've given out too much...