It has never made sense to me that a student or a parent should have to go into debt for the sake of a higher education.

Neither is it logical that sitting in a classroom should carry more weight than actual experience, with the knowledge thus gained by action. It happens, by the way, that a new seminary agrees with me.

Would you rather be subjected to a surgeon who has published widely acclaimed papers or one who has successfully performed life-saving procedures hundreds of times? Would you prefer to visit a clergyman who is an expert on theology or one who has a history of helping people heal and grow?

I once knew a young psychologist with very advanced alcoholism. After going through detoxification in a hospital, he objected to being referred to a counselor who had only a high-school education.

The patient reasoned that since he was a doctor of psychology, he could be understood and really helped only by someone at the doctoral level. But when he met Hank, he was told that he needed a friend more than anything.

Hank had been an alcohol counselor for many years, and because of his daily encounters with tough-minded alcoholics, he could read their needs with amazing effectiveness. He got the psychologist sober by having breakfast with him every Saturday morning, and the two became fast friends for twenty years.

When the psychologist reached middle age, he realized that he had learned nothing of real value by obtaining a Ph.D. He became widely known as a gifted healer. Some thought that he had a supernatural ability, and perhaps he did.

His competence, however, did not come from his classroom time; it came from long experience in trying to help people. The more he practiced, the better he got. At age 64 he published a book revealing what he had learned in the real world. It was a much greater contribution to his field than was his doctoral thesis.

Contrary to what I have just stated, knowledge is, of itself, a very valuable commodity. And degrees are of great value in advancing through one's career, whatever field it may be. But an education which is truly valuable in every way is one based on both knowledge and experience.

The problem is that experience has been traditionally undervalued in meeting educational requirements for an academic degree. Institutions of higher learning that give substantial academic credit for life experience have an impossible time trying to get accredited.

Then there is another problem: Accrediting agencies have monopolized the educational community in the United States. Never mind that these approval sources are only commercial businesses, whether they claim non-profit status or not. They are multi-billion-dollar industries that have the entire educational system by the throat.

Their emphasis is on physical facilities, faculty, classroom-based curricula, number of books in the library, and many other items that do not necessarily add up to an educational experience of lasting and practical value.

It is interesting that Harvard would not go along. Perhaps the most prestigious university in the country, its founders and successors saw no need for second-hand approval. They knew what they were doing and how well.

One time a little-known, non-traditional university with heavy emphasis on life experience asked Harvard if their graduates could apply for postgraduate study at Harvard. The official response was to the effect that they were more concerned with the extent of knowledge on the student's part than with how it was obtained.

That is the attitude that should be the real standard for education. As the cliché goes, “Experience is the best teacher.”

--Bishop Ewart