Rule of thumb for evaluating the qualifications of an "expert:" the more degrees and less practical application they have in their resume the less capable they are and the less they know.

The motivation for getting the degree is of some relevance and is probably covered by wisdom. One element of wisdom is knowledge but it is balanced by humility. Unsurprisingly that is part of the Christian philosophy and probably most religious philosophies with some variations.

Our institutions of higher learning, at least until meritocracy was eliminated, were good at imparting knowledge. In the past they were also good at exposing people to ethics. The problem is that ethics are part of a broader set of social experiences that in a sense are situational. By that I mean while ethical standards have an element of universality to them we learn them in relation to a cultural backdrop. From a Christian perspective that means that parables, while perhaps universally applicable, were meant to be understood by people with a particular set of cultural experiences.

The universality of ethics, or probably more accurate some of the core elements, speak to experiences that all humans have. They have a form of convergent evolution that must be due to human nature.

Part of liberalism as it is defined by the attitudes and paradigms of people who define themselves as liberal in Western culture is an odd denial of the existence of human nature. At first this causes non "liberals" considerable confusion because modern liberals are materialistic. While Western culture has become steeped in the philosophy of determinism and by extension materialism their primary purpose is to change society. When it suits their purpose, for example in relation to homosexuality, it is a genetic predisposition, at the same time to suggest gender is at least partly a genetic predisposition is rejected by them. The more sophisticated "liberals" will be aware of the contradiction and point out that sex is a biological assignment and gender a social assignment. I would grant that but the issue doesn't go away. From the materialistic perspective sex and gender must have co-evolved if determinism is true. Who decided what form gender would take if it is an evolutionary process and if it is an evolutionary process how can anyone choose to alter it in a deterministic universe? The point I'm trying to make has to do with why liberals deny human nature. If their purpose is to engineer society then the engineers first must have freewill of some sort and the people to be engineered must be malleable.

There are some complicated philosophical arguments that would have to be made to validate the above statement. To make this more readable I think that practically speaking it would be reasonable to agree that the engineers can make chooses and are not strictly bound to a definable set of deterministic rules and that the engineered are not infinitely malleable but are constrained by their genetic history or colloquially "human nature".

Human nature however is obscure to us for reasons I will only go into if someone asks. We don't directly experience it in ourselves or others but see it ad hoc, indirectly, by example, as expressed in behavior. We learn about it through personal and cultural history.

Ethics for the most part are restraints on human nature. That is not to say they are entirely negative imperatives but that they are a disciplining of ourselves and society. One of the more universal ethics is to not be foolish. That hubris is foolishness.

As it relates to this discussion for the wise the more knowledge they have the more they understand how little they know. The fool is characterized by hubris and pride. While academics can be justifiably proud of their knowledge they remain subject to human nature. The instinct to want to rise in social status. Academia has always been highly competitive. Part of the way to accomplish higher status is to conform to social standards that academia holds and develop skill in rationalizing those values while at the same time skill at denigrating those that are out of fashion. Often to rationalize away the inherent cognitive dissonance that less skilled people may have.

Right now academia is highly critical of Western culture. That is as it should be because it is one of the tasks that the wider culture has assigned them. The problem arises when that criticism is so deep that it completely erases cultural experience and reference. Without a cultural backdrop human nature is a mystery or void. Without some sort of situational reference ethics are impossible to formulate. Working entirely in the abstract will not do because our nature does matter. Even a materialist should be able to agree that evolution did not stop at the neck and that determinism has to be qualified.

If your purpose in getting a higher education is simply social status and or technical skills the ethical side of your education is likely to be neglected. The part of the education that would have dealt with hubris.

"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him much." A fact that I have experienced firsthand. And a lesson that I have tried to remember with my mere Bachelor of Science degree in engineering. I need to explain. And if I can't, or there is a better argument, I need to look again.

I went to an engineering school where there were some serious Marxists in the required humanities, and incredibly, a few of my colleagues went over to the dark side. Apparently it is far worse today.

Universities have perfected the indoctrination of educated morons. I have worked with multiple individuals with masters and PHD’s that completely lack common sense. A diploma certainly has no correlation to the worth of the individual, and little correlation to their wisdom and abilities.

My daughter. The result of a university education that reduced her willingness to look at FACTS and to only consider degrees. I consider it one of the failures of MY educating her....

I haven't had people in my own circle of friends and acquaintances pull rank on me with their degrees and certifications, but I personally know several "well-educated" folks I consider to be dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to common sense and critical thinking. Online and in the news I see examples every day. I tell anyone who will listen to take everything with a grain of salt, especially if it comes from the mouth of someone in a position of power, wealth, or influence. Test everything....

In my experience, the value of a degree depends upon things like the particular school where the degree is earned and the character of the person who earned it. I wouldn't give a plug nickel for a degree from some schools, but I also wouldn't give a plug nickel for a degree from an excellent school if gotten by a person who hasn't the wisdom to know what to do with the knowledge he has gained.

I've always told my own children, as well as the many college students I've known over the years, that two marks of a good education are 1) a person has discovered just how much he does not know, and 2) a person has discovered how to learn what he does not know. Those may not be the only two marks of a good education, but they are two essential ones. A person who thinks he knows everything and who is unteachable has not benefited from a good education.