<p>Now, colleges are trusted because they assign each individual with grades. What do grades measure? Progress on (1) tests and (2) projects/essays. All of those can be done by homeschoolers. Research can (and is almost always) done independently of class. Research projects are considered to be the most reliable projects. Homeschoolers must still take tests to track their knowledge. Tests are, at least, far less costly in terms of both time and money than lectures are. </p>
<p>Now, the person who pursues a career outside of getting high grades in college must prove his ability by such tests or projects/essays independently of college. Projects and essays are, of course, mostly independent of college. The main problem is the monopoly that the educational institution holds over tests. While the CollegeBoard has some leverage over the testing process (with GREs), the influence of the GRE is very limited (according to many people who have gone through graduat admissions). One can prove his knowledge via tests independently of going to lecture - but the person still has to go through class and pay $$$$$. This $$$$, sadly enough, is huge. </p>
<p>I think that tests are necessary in determing whether a person has the knowledge and aptitude in order to succeed in a career. This assumes that reliable testing accomodations can be provided for those who need more time. The skills needed to do well on tests are little different than the skills needed for the professions that such tests are based upon (I'm assuming that the professions are academic professions - where one needs more knowledge than what one learns in high school). Such tests are no more culturally biased than the skills needed for the profession (and knowledge tests can give a fair indicator of one's level of aptitude as well - if one can do well enough in a knowledge test about the jargon of the profession, then one is probably intelligent enough to do well in such profession). </p>
<p>Most professions often rely on the performance of their employees and set statistical correlations between employee entrance "stats" and employee performance to determine which "stats" are most highly correlated with employee performance. Post-collegial institutions trust college grades more so than many other indicators of performance, due to the lack of other indicators of performance that are available for students. Because they have have to deal with relatively few applications from the non-college crowd, and many from that non-college crowd are not relatively well off, they do not trust applications from the non-college crowd. But that can be corrected - with a change in the number of students who decide to self-study instead of go to college. With more students who pursue such a route, it will open institutions up to accepting applications from people who don't go to college. Unfortunately, few students are currently willing to take such a route - and since such a route will only work if many students pursue it, individual students will not pursue it independently of the actions of others. This effectively ensures that more will waste $$$$ on colleges. </p>
<p>Tests can be distributed by the professions themselves (at more specialized levels), and by an agency like the CollegeBoard (at less specialized levels). The CollegeBoard's tests are not exactly perfect, yet for some reason, AMC/AIME and USAMO scores are highly trusted by Caltech and MIT. Moreover, all international competitions are based on tests. Certainly, there is validity to tests (just not aptitude tests, which are the most heavily criticized of all tests, and with much reason to support that criticism, due to the low correlations between aptitude tests and life performance. And that's life performance in a game that relies heavily on tests!). For those who want to measure talent beyond tests - they should do projects. The Internet makes searching for information needed to start and finish these projects so much easier. </p>
<p>For informational based professions that do not require creativity (read, much white-collar work), there is nothing better than a test. That does not require college. </p>
<p>The other issue, of course, is that colleges set textbook monopolies by requiring students to purchase textbooks (and discouraging them from seeking textbooks/curricular that they may prefer). Moreover, a certain number of people may have the ability to self-study - but they decide not to self-study, because they don't have much motivation to do it when they are already in a system that works for them (but is very expensive and unnecessary).</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>My arguments for unschooling seem to make it seem that the Internet is necessary for such a thing. It isn't, as in the case of many scientists who came before mass schooling. Rather, it is that it makes it possible for MANY people to decide to pursue knowledge on their own accords. </p>
<p>Arguments can come in two forms. (a) the proposal is theoretically possible, i.e. possible for a few people who are neurologically exceptional, and (b) that it is practically possible, that is, people are more likely to approach the proposal under some conditions than others</p>