Do you have to attend degree course?

Flattered?, good choice of word Ian

"However, unlike many with degrees, I don't see it as something to brag about or to demand to be treated as 'better' than anyone else. It was just a way to advance in my career."

But isn't that exactly what's going on here? There seems to be no other logical reason for the thread. 

So, returning to the original question - is it necessary to sit in a classroom for usually three years to get a degree, or can you do it based on knowledge and experience? Much in the same way as a lot of people gain their qualifications?

Here's another thing - a lot of people do part-time degrees whilst on day-release from work. How do they manage to do it in one day a week (albeit for maybe more years - but not 5x more years)?

Incidentally, these people are massively more useful to a employer at the end of their degree, because they've also got years of practical experience, as well as the theoretical knowledge from the degree.

Here's another thing - a lot of people do part-time degrees whilst on day-release from work. How do they manage to do it in one day a week (albeit for maybe more years - but not 5x more years)?

But it's not one day a week in reality. You have to add in all the hours outside of work like weekends and evenings that might be devoted to the work involved. Research has to be done for essays and then you have the write it up which all takes time. 

David

I think the main thing is having lots of different ways of learning and gaining meaningful qualifications. The school/college/ uni route doesn't suit everyone, some people start to flourish more when they are out actually working, doing something that hopefully really interests them so that they want to learn and develop more, and they can benefit vastly from having that enthusiasm underpinned by employer based funding. Likewise, something may come along later in life, perhaps not related to employment, that becomes very motivating and can be taken up on a more formally recognised basis.

There are all sorts of factors that come into play in terms of how human beings develop, not least parental enthusiasm, access to a decent education system, getting the right career advice, making informed choices. Some like the more formal based routes, others like to learn at their own pace.

In my experience the chances of anyone knowing everything covered in my degree in advance would have been zero. It was in Biology and was covered a huge width of topics that would not have been studied in the depth required by anyone outside of the course. ALSO there appears to be an underlying assumption that turning up to lectures gives you the required knowledge (apologies if this was not the intention). Once again in my experience you turned up to lectures to be given the skeleton of the information and the key references in order for you to then be able to go away and study the topic to the required depth. 

It is, in my opinion, this ability to be able to independently study that is one of the major things learnt at university. Alongside, in my case, an understanding that there was a hell of a lot we did not know. On one occasion we spent 15 weeks going to lectures following down theories only to learn at the end that all of the results were conflicting and the true answer to the topic was as yet undiscovered. 

I  may  be  well  out  of  touch  with  training  ideas  now,  But  "day  Release"  used  to  be  one  day  a  week  at  Tech College  for  National  Cert  etcetera,  Nat Cert  took  three ( 3 )  years,  Higher N C and  H N D each  took  a  further  2  years  with  a  Fail  on  any  year  meaning  it  had  to  be  repeated  and  often  at  night school  if  the  Firm   did  not  want  to  put  more  cash  into  your  training.  Sandwich  courses  were  something  like  6 Months  at  College,   6 Months  back  on  the  job  over  a  period  of  several  years. 

All  of  these  were  Lecture and / or  Lab work  based  with  the  necessary  research  in  your  own  time.  If  you  did  not  apply  yourself  then  CLANG  !,  but  if  you  did / could  apply  yourself  then  as  long  as  you  needed  to  --  the  chances  were  there  !!

As I  said,  it's  all  a  long  long  time  ago  now 

yes agree with you totally, I was amazed at university to learn why some of the things we did in maths at GCSE and  A level actually worked and I had thought I understood them but looking back I didn't really, I just knew how to use the in  a very unstructured and naive way. I also especially agree with  your second paragraph, you also learn to question and to validate your learning, and looking for errors and contradictions.

Interestingly enough my daughter who read History is now working for Ernst & Young and currently studying for some qualification in money laundering (imagine that!) - I'm sure its not called that but that's the gist of it, and not how to do it but spot it for large companies. I said jokingly that was a along way away from 1066 and all that, but she said no, its the same skills she learnt in checking, analysing and validating historical documents for their authenticity.

If you want to be a dentist your not going to use me during your final exam

Just out of interest, when was such a requirement introduced? I assume it must be a Law Society specific requirement.

Most professional institutions have some form of CPD (Continuing Professional Development) program, often by way of attending conferences/lectures/etc, but it is usually seen as a means of progression within the membership categories rather than a necessity to maintaining ones achieved professional status.