Why does our society place more value on the degree than the actual learning? With Ivy league and esteemed colleges publishing their courses online, it is plausible to think that one could learn as much or more than a graduate, yet that knowledge would not be valued in the workforce or in the field of knowledge. This can also be seen in high school. Less knowledgeable students who earn the diploma are far greater valued than others who may have superior knowledge but did not complete.

I'd like to supplement Allen Stairs's fine response with two additional points. First, giving significant credence to the possession of degrees isn't merely a time saver. As a society we have largely delegated the measurement of learning to degree granting institutions. At least in theory, possession of a degree is supposed to correspond to the actual possession of knowledge. There aren't a lot of reliable alternatives for judging whether or not someone possesses the knowledge in question (especially if the person trying to gauge another's level of knowledge is not an expert in that area herself). Sure, a prodigy might be able to self-teach and attain more knowledge than the credentialed person, but that is still relatively rare. Second, there is more to the possession of a degree than mere knowledge. It communicates to potential employers (and anyone else who cares) that the person has a level of perseverance and discipline and is able to work within the guidelines of an institutional...

Partially inspired by some responses on this website, I am currently pursuing teaching licensure toward the eventual end of teaching philosophy at the secondary school level. However, a cursory canvass of philosophy professors from the local university and some on the internet via their blogs has left me slightly disheartened about my future career choice. They argue that philosophy cannot (or perhaps should not) be taught to pre-college-aged students because their abstract reasoning faculties are not yet adequately developed. In other words, they claim that philosophy could never be effectively taught at the secondary level because students (for the most part) are not yet biologically ready for philosophy. How do I go about discovering whether this objection is sound or not? And can the panelists specifically share some of their own experiences with teaching pre-college-aged students about philosophy in regards to the aforementioned objection?

I certainly think that high school juniors and seniors can learn the basics of critical thinking, ethics, and philosophy. I have breakfast semi-regularly with a teacher from a private high school who teaches philosophy to his students. He'll be teaching Plato's Republic to his seniors this year. So, I do not doubt that high school students have the capacity to comprehend philosophy. However, it has also been noted as far back as Plato's Republic that older students are better equipped to study philosophy. This claim also seems correct to me. Even most college age students lack the life experience to understand the importance of philosophical issues. In contrast, I once taught an ethics class to 30-40 year old nursing students.... this was an unusually positive teaching experience since they took the course very seriously and understood its relevance. My biggest concern for you would be whether there are any jobs available to teach philosophy at the high school level. It is hard...

If one is not a college student and yet still seeks a deep and professional knowledge in the field of philosophy but lacks methodology, how shall he acquire one !?

I think it is difficult for most people to learn much philosophy without the benefit of some sort of class structure. Your best strategy would probably be to find a mentor or a group of philosophical inclined friends with some grasp of philosophy who would be willing to read and discuss important philosophical texts along with you. I would also recommend auditing a couple of philosophy courses when you get the chance.