Questions on Formal Education's Impact

Nameless; when the rest of the un- Civilized world was alternately dancing forward and back on the power and weakness of hereditary government, and hereditary wealth and power generally, the catholic church without marriage was the only route out of general poverty for the dispossessed children of nobles, and of all with talent and ability...Considering the contempt of the morals of the church that was very often an issue, pehaps the genes of more intelligent people were spread more by celebacy than by marriage...In any event, the church made constant gains until the enlightenment stripped them of much of their property... They owned perhaps, a fifth to a third of Europe...Wealth helped.. Connections helped; but generally the church was a place where ability mattered more than in the whole rest of society combined...This was perhaps under the influence of Plato who was the darling of the church until they discovered- The Philosopher- Aristotle...

""Natural ability without education has more often raised a man to glory and virtue than education without natural ability." - Marcus Aurelius"

I think one of the things that is being neglect here is interests in the subject being learned.

A drop out typically succeeds because they end up doing something they enjoy or like in a particular subject. Where they might completely fail in any other mode if they were placed in it.

A person with formal education might be confined to the methods or subject they learned witch prevents them from transcending the subject but they might develop the ability to use adaptation to suit their career. So they might be able to succeed in many different careers where as the drop out might only excel at one.

If you can find something you are absolutely passionate about, you will learn, study and completely deduce the subject matter to all ends. Even without a single class on the subject you might know more about it then the "professionals"

So my long point here is that you can't compare drop outs with formal education as one being better than the other. It really comes down to ambition and passion.

The ability to 'rise' to power in the Catholic church is historically dependent on politics, intrigue, murder! Check history. If 'ability' means the mastery of the aforementioned 'politics, intrigue and murder', then it is indeed a 'meritocracy' based on said 'ability'.

There were a few born, or made cardinals.. The great majority worked their way up from clerics or priests... If you look a Medieval philosophers, as per DE Wulf, the way he describes it many, including Abalard were the sons of Cheveliers, or what ever, spelling... There was a lot of corruption...I wish I could remember that quote about some of the worst men making the best popes; but, the thing had to function, and it was not nearly as corrupt as its ignoble individuals would make it seem...

I guess that I could dredge up the Medici's, and the pile of evidence that I see of papal corruption and dishonor, but I can accept that what we have here are two Perspectives of the same pile of 'history'.
There is evidence in support of both Perspectives. But, I'm sorry, if you were knowledgeable in the entire papal history, considering all the corruption and politics, you couldn't, other than sarcastically, call it a 'meritocracy', unless you consider a successful assassin, for instance, as being 'meritorious'...

You know, as I would quote as I said; That good men did not make good Popes as often as bad men...If you look at some outrage like the Spanish Inquisition, people often appealed to the pope for relief, which was given, but the priests behind it prevailed upon the King to tell the Pope that it was his country after all...It was not ever about religion as much as it was about money, and until the church set about its huge building projects it was not hurt all that bad for money...Their property was inalienable after all, so even while people might seek to be pope for the power, it is hard to corrupt a person with wealth that is inalienable...In many respects, what brought about the great changes of that time had much more to do with disease than doctrine... In the late thirteenth century the black death scoured the land; but it also freed up a lot of capital, and much of that went into the church and to the nobles whence to the budding capitalists... That wealth was the beginnning of world conquest, scientific advances, the advance of reason generally, nationalism, The beginning of capitalism as we know it, and the beginning of protestantism as we know it... As in Spain, the absolutism of monarchs was becoming general, and this is true of the popes as well...If you are concerned with the corruption of the church, then what was the effect??? For those who believe I trust the effect was small...It is like the joke of the Priest coming out of the whore house: There must be some one sick in there....
What killed Catholicism was nationalism, primarily...Realistic men hated to see their national capital exported to Rome from where it would never return...It was not uncommon in Germany to pay 30% interest if the need was extreme... Think of the Spanish conquests of the new world which effectively doubled the gold supply of Europe, and saw four fifths of the value fall out of silver...

Thank you for the conversation, but i fear that we have strayed far enough from the OP.
Peace

Agreed...The church is just a form, and inevitably, the form teaches itself...

I have no clue what you are talking about with the "form" jargon. But, if you are refering to Plato's 'forms', I reject the notion as nonsense and unsupported fantasy and refute it scientifically and logically. But thats for another day.

For me, it is not really very much of an option. I want to be a mathematician. I want to be able to interact with other mathematicians and I need to be able to present my ideas in such a way that they are taken seriously by other mathematicians so that they might bear some fruit.

In order for this to really be possible, I need to enter the world of academia. Some of my specific interests are such that they may or may not be of direct value to a company(I have a greater interest in theory than application, but theory has to come before application), though I have an interest in certain areas of applied math.

In order to achieve my goals, I realized I needed to do certain things, one of them being making myself as knowledgable about math as I could; so I did, and continue to do, just that. I have studied and gone from basic high school algebra when I was a senior in high school, to being the only sophomore in the upper level abstract algebra class, to taking independent study classes this fall as a junior, and soon will be taking graduate level classes(in the winter). I read mathematics texts in my free time. I am currently reading up on Category theory, commutative algebra and mathematical logic, all graduate level material.

Why can I do this? I'm 19 and I'm pretty good at math. I'm passionate about my studies. I have a strong desire to know more. All of these play large roles, but mostly its because I live with my parents who have money so I don't need to provide for myself. My focus can be entirely on academics, so I can stay a safe distance ahead of the curve on math and still pursue my other academic interests and still have time to hang out with friends. I have no real responsibilities, beyond doing well enough as an undergrad to secure a position as a TA so I don't have to pay for grad school.

Now, I could have been like the fellow who lived with his mom in her car during high school, worked hard and got a perfect score on his SAT and a full scholarship to Harvard had I been in that situation. In fact, one reason why I did not put forth much effort during high school was because I knew if I kept up a decent gpa(I was a B student) I could still go to college, because I did not need a scholarship to afford it. I have always had my academic passions, but they were never addressed in my schooling; hence I always viewed school as a distraction from my efforts towards self improvment, even as an undergrad. The main difference now there are exceptions to the rule, there are some truly interesting classes, and I can deal with the few silly Gen eds.

This is my position. I have strong natural abilities, combined with resources, and a desire to pursue a field that generally has both of those as prerequisites. I was lucky, I have a passions and talents (in art and music as well as mathematics) and I can pursue them freely. I take full advantage of my situation, but I recognize and accomplish what I need to do to get to where I want to be. A high level of formal education is a prerequisite to getting to where I want to be. So is making connections with my professors so that I can get good letters of reccomendation for grad school, and not to mention get their insight on any mathematical quandries I might run into. These are all part of the path I need to take to get to my desired destination.

Don't become disillusioned and become a unibomber...Just become disillusioned...See though the form, and do not let the form blind you...