Educated and Not Learned!

Are you thinking that there is no difference between the two? This article will
try to give some difference between them!
I believe we all know the meaning of these two words, but have we ever try to
seek for their indept meanings!
1. You are educated but not learned if you can quote your lecturers word for
word but you cannot apply the principles!
2. You are educated and not learned if you are totally confused when a little
thing is changed from the sentence you know and suddenly you don’t
understand again!
3. You are educated and not learned if all you can show after your years of
program in the higher institution is only the certificate!
4. You are educated but not learned if you pass through school but school
don’t pass through you!
5. You are educated but not learned if you continue with that course you are
not happy studying and you continue with it without changing your attitude
about it!
6. You are educated but not learned if you think God has nothing to do with
your academics, life and future!

Therefore, from what we have mentioned so far we can deduce that anybody
can be educated but not learned, it does not depend on the kind of grade you
finish with, not on the kind of family background, not on the kind of school
you are studying but on you as an individual! But we can say someone may not
be learned except he/she is educated because schooling is a vital part in
becoming learned individual!

You can also add does things you think can make someone educated but not
learned.
As adjectives the difference between educated and learned
is that educated is having attained a level of higher education, such as a college degree
while learned is having much learning, knowledgeable, erudite; highly educated
or learned can be derived from experience; acquired by learning.

As verbs the difference between educated and learned

is that educated is (educate) while learned is (learn): taught or learned can be (learn).
ot knowing the larger context in which this question was asked makes it harder to guess
what your professor was wanting you to think about. I agree some with other responders.

An educated person is someone who has been formally taught. A learned person is
someone who has learned - implies self-taught and experienced. I would go so far as to say
that a learned person may be wiser and have more practical knowledge and skills than
many educated persons. Have you ever met a doctor who seemed to know very little
outside his/her specialty? Some people are smart enough to achieve academic success
and get a degree or maybe two, but are not wise and savvy enough to keep learning and
updating their knowledge on their own once they are out of school.

DEGREE

EDUCATED

SMART
“Education” and “learning” seem to be used as synonymous in many instances. One
would hear phrases such as “Higher Education institutions” for universities and
“Learning Centers” for places in those institutions where people supposedly are involved
in acquiring some required knowledge, or one would hear sentences such as “You go to
school to learn “ and “I teach them to learn mathematics.” If they are not used
synonymously, one word often seems to involve the other. Nevertheless, as I go through
their etymology, it appears to me that to settle on a clear distinction between them
might not be a straightforward task.

A Latin word for the verb form of learning is accipere meaning to take, to receive, to
accept with the senses or with the mind. This has been the meaning I have expected as
learning seems to be about this moment of absorbing and processing new information
where both the senses and the mind are involved. For instance, one reads a proof
to understand a theory, or one strikes the keyboard, listens to sounds, and reads notes
to play the piano. Another Latin word that connects learning with the idea of acquiring
something is percipere meaning to collect, to take in with the senses or the mind.
For “education,” I was somewhat surprised since the verb form educere, meaning to
rear, to raise, to bring up, does not seem to have anything to do with learning. Of the
same family are ducere, meaning to lead, and docere, meaning to teach, which might
explain its association with learning. Then, educere might suggest the need for a
knowledgeable guide who supposedly is qualified to rear or guide others, who might
view this guide as an authority figure. Indeed, doctus, meaning learned, well-informed,
from which I guess we get “doctor”, seems to confirm this interpretation. Other
ramifications of docere further elucidate this association of education to the idea of
power relation: its meaning of “to instruct” and words such as doctrina, meaning
teaching, instruction, and, more explicitly, disciplina, with link to “military training,”
are suggestive examples. Docere also reminds me of the Greek word δοξα (doxa)
meaning opinion, and “to opine” comes from the Greek word νομιζειν (nomizein) from
which comes νομος (nomos), meaning “law.” Now, this idea of a doctus guide leading
other people by making them observe some rules designed with some intention seems to
call for the idea of an institution, which could be seen as some complex constructed
environment where this authority is practiced.
So, what would that say about education? While the act of “educating” appears to
involve some learning in the sense that an authority figure gives instructions to other
people who “take in” these rules, the act of learning does not seem to necessarily call for
any guide. For example, George Boole is reported to not have had a “formal” university
education yet has significantly contributed to mathematical logic. Furthermore, there is
some kind of informality that seems to benefit learning while education, on the contrary,
seems to call for a set of defined rules that may or may not encourage learning: think of
our modern edifice of codes associated with education, such as fixed semesters,
standard exams, constant data collection and reports, and letter grades. Could this level
of informality imply that learning is independent or could be free from any institution?
Or to put it differently: does one need to subscribe to any formal institution to learn
anything? Furthermore, does education, seen as a set of rules with intended goals from
some authorities, necessarily encourage learning at all?
In the context of mathematics, similar questions could be asked. Could activities
considered as part of mathematics education be seen as encouraging learning
mathematics? In what sense to want a large group of people to uniformly take exams
under several constraints in order to gather data could be seen as an effort to make
these people learn mathematics? Ultimately, does “to teach mathematics,” as a set of
rules and computations considered as useful by some people, necessarily intends to
make people learn mathematics?

So, what do you think?

 “Educated” and “learned” seem to be synonymous terms and can be used
interchangeably. In many instances, these two words are taken to mean the same. They
seem to have no difference at all except for their spelling. But are they really the same?
We speak of an educated person as someone who was formally taught. He was able
to attain a higher level of education. He is a person who has finished a degree course or
even higher. Doctors, lawyers, engineers and teachers are considered educated people.
They were able acquire knowledge from some higher educational institutions. A learned
person is someone who has learned through self-taught and experience. In other words, he
is a street smart kind of person. A learned person may be wiser and have more practical
knowledge and skills than many educated persons. Have you ever met a someone who is
well-educated in his chosen field but seemed to know very little outside his/her specialty?
Some people are smart enough to achieve academic success and get a degree or maybe
two, but are not wise and savvy enough to keep learning and updating their knowledge on
their own once they are out of school. Others would say that you are educated but not learned
if you have achieved academic excellence but is an ill-mannered person. A person whose
values and attitude does not reflect his high academic achievement.
So what would I rather be, an educated or learned person? I say maybe I can be
both. I will strive hard to finish my education but at the same time learn to acquire more
practical skills to back up my degree.

A Latin word for the verb form of learning is accipere meaning to take, to receive, to
accept with the senses or with the mind. This has been the meaning I have expected as
learning seems to be about this moment of absorbing and processing new information
where both the senses and the mind are involved. For instance, one reads a proof
to understand a theory, or one strikes the keyboard, listens to sounds, and reads notes to
play the piano. Another Latin word that connects learning with the idea of acquiring
something is percipere meaning to collect, to take in with the senses or the mind.

For “education,” I was somewhat surprised since the verb form educere, meaning to
rear, to raise, to bring up, does not seem to have anything to do with learning. Of the
same family are ducere, meaning to lead, and docere, meaning to teach, which might
explain its association with learning. Then, educere might suggest the need for a
knowledgeable guide who supposedly is qualified to rear or guide others, who might
view this guide as an authority figure. Indeed, doctus, meaning learned, well-informed,
from which I guess we get “doctor”, seems to confirm this interpretation. Other
ramifications of docere further elucidate this association of education to the idea of
power relation: its meaning of “to instruct” and words such as doctrina, meaning
teaching, instruction, and, more explicitly, disciplina, with link to “military training,”
are suggestive examples. Docere also reminds me of the Greek word δοξα (doxa)
meaning opinion, and “to opine” comes from the Greek word νομιζειν (nomizein) from
which comes νομος (nomos), meaning “law.” Now, this idea of a doctus guide leading
other people by making them observe some rules designed with some intention seems to
call for the idea of an institution, which could be seen as some complex constructed
environment where this authority is practiced.
So, what would that say about education? While the act of “educating” appears to
involve some learning in the sense that an authority figure gives instructions to other
people who “take in” these rules, the act of learning does not seem to necessarily call for
any guide. For example, George Boole is reported to not have had a “formal” university
education yet has significantly contributed to mathematical logic. Furthermore, there is
some kind of informality that seems to benefit learning while education, on the contrary,
seems to call for a set of defined rules that may or may not encourage learning: think of
our modern edifice of codes associated with education, such as fixed semesters,
standard exams, constant data collection and reports, and letter grades. Could this level
of informality imply that learning is independent or could be free from any institution?
Or to put it differently: does one need to subscribe to any formal institution to learn
anything? Furthermore, does education, seen as a set of rules with intended goals from
some authorities, necessarily encourage learning at all?

In the context of mathematics, similar questions could be asked. Could activities

considered as part of mathematics education be seen as encouraging learning
mathematics? In what sense to want a large group of people to uniformly take exams
under several constraints in order to gather data could be seen as an effort to make
these people learn mathematics? Ultimately, does “to teach mathematics,” as a set of
rules and computations considered as useful by some people, necessarily intends to
make people learn mathematics?

So, what do you think?

The Philippines may be known for its breathtaking beach destinations but besides the tourist
spots and culinary surprises, our country is best recognized for one thing — our uniquely
Filipino values. In fact, a lot of travelers from all over the globe have raved about the warm
welcome from our smiling locals the moment they step out of the plane and into our airport.

So if you want to feel proud for being a Filipino, here are som positive traits we Pinoys are
known for:

1. Hospitality

If there is one word that perfectly describes us Filipinos, it’s that we are hospitable. We are a
friendly nation, often showing no hesitation when it comes to helping strangers and even going
out of our way to make sure we can make every person we meet feel at ease and at home. And
welcoming faces just add to the quaint charm of our beautiful islands.

2. Bayanihan-spirited

Unity, also known as “bayanihan” in Filipino, is a trait we’ve been associated with for decades.
More than the hospitality we show strangers, our spirit of generosity and bayanihan is something
homegrown. Feasts, festivals, and fiestas are the perfect events where this trait is evident with
neighbors helping each other out and opening their doors for visitors.

3. Family – Oriented

Filipinos are also known for being very family – oriented. We’re the kind of people who would
be more than willing to go to great lengths just for the sake of our loved ones. Parents are known
to do everything they can, to sacrifice hours of hard work just to make sure their children are
promised a better future; in return, Filipino children do their best to study hard and make their
parents proud.

4. Brave

American five-star general Douglas MacArthur once said “Give me ten thousand Filipino
soldiers and I will conquer the world.” This is a testament to the bravery of Filipinos who, from
then ’til now, have shown exemplary courage in times when daunting challenges present itself —
be it in something as simple as defending a loved one in the face of danger or something as grand
as dying for the freedom of the country.

5. Cheerful

Did you know that Filipinos ranked 5th in the world’s happiest citizens on a poll released by
Gallup’s Positive Experience Index last year? That’s no surprise especially when you see how
we usually show up all smiles no matter what happens. We’re a country used to looking at the
silver lining of every situation. Even in the middle of the worst typhoons, you can still see
Filipinos smiling and waving at the camera from the roofs of their homes as the media covers
natural disasters.

In a country that continues to struggle with an image problem, we must not forget to cherish and
preserve these good and positive Filipino traits that have embodied who we are as a people, as a
community, and as a nation since the time of our ancestors. In a way, it has become part of our
heritage and in turn - our national identity which allows every Filipino around the world to
identify with and gives us our sense of #PinoyPride
1. 2. Values are integral part of every culture. With worldview and personality, theygenerate behavior. Being
part of a culture that shares a common core set of valuescreates expectations and predictability without
which a culture would disintegrate andits member would lose their personal identity and sense of worth.
Values tell peoplewhat is good, beneficial important, useful, beautiful, desirable, constructive, etc.
Theyanswer the question of why people do what they do. Values help people solvecommon problems for
survival. Over time, they become the roots of traditions thatgroups of people find important in their day-to-
day lives.Filipino values may be attributed into many influences. These can be from itsancestors or
influenced fro its colonizers. Some values are bipolar, meaning it can bepositive or negative.
2. 3. Positive Filipino Values
3. 4. 1. Bayanihan system or spirit of kinship and camaraderie- A Filipino community spirit and cooperation
wherein a group of individuals extends a helping hand without expecting any remuneration. It is
characterized by communal work towards one goal exemplified in carrying a nipa house or pushing a
passenger jeepney.
4. 5. 2. Damayan system- sympathy for people who lost their love ones. In case of death of a certain member
of the community, the whole community sympathizes with the bereaved family. Neighbors, friends, and
relatives of the deceased usually give certain amount of money as their way of showing sympathy.
5. 6. 3. Familism or close family relations- a Filipino trait of giving highest importance to family above other
thing. A trait wherein familymembers should be taken care and supported regardless of whether he/she did
somethingwrong, a family member must given attention and should not be abandoned.
6. 7. 4. Fun-loving trait- a trait found in most Filipinos, a trait that makes them unique that even in time
ofcalamities and other challenges in life, they always have something to be happy about, a reason to
celebrate.
7. 8. 5. Hospitality- a Filipino trait of being receptive and generous to guests.
8. 9. 6. Compassionate- a Filipino trait of being sympathetic to others evenif the person is a stranger. An
example of this is giving alms to beggar. This is observed when we hear Filipinos saying “kawawa naman
or nakakaawanaman.
9. 10. 7. Regionalism- a Filipino trait of giving more priority or preference in giving favors to his
provincemate before others.7. Friendly- a trait found in most Filipinos. They aresincere, loyal, kind and
sociable person.
10. 11. 9. Flexible or magaling makabagay- the ability of Filipinos to ride on or adjust to thenorms of other
group jut to attain smooth andharmonious relationship.Example: OFW
11. 12. 10. Religious- most Filipinos possess strong conformance oftheir religious belief in action and in
words.
12. 13. 11. Respect to elders- a Filipino trait of being courteous both inwords and in actions to the people of
olderpeople.
13. 14. 12. Remedyo attitude- a Filipino trait of being creative and resourceful. The ability to dothings that are
next to impossible. Example in fixing appliances thatlook impossible to repair.13. Matiyaga- Filipinos re
known for their tenacity and strong determination inevery undertaking.14. Utang na loob- a feeling of
 obligation to repay someone who extended assistanceto another which may take place in undetermined
time and inwhatever way.
14. 15. Negative Filipino Values
15. 16. 1. Bahala na atitude- a Filipino trait characterized by retreating or withdrawal fromcertain undertaking
and leaving everything to God to interfereand determine the outcome of his deeds.2. Colonial complex or
blue-seal mentality- a Filipino value of showing high admiration and preference toforeign produced goods
over local ones.3. Crab mentality- a Filipino attitude characterized by an attempt to “pull down”someone
who has achieved success beyond the others. This Idone out of jealousy and insecurity.
16. 17. 4. Euphemism- a Filipino way of substituting a word or phrase that is thoughtto be offensive or harsh
with a mild and acceptable one inorder to not offend or hurt another person.5.Filipino time- in reality, it
means “always late”, a Filipino attitude ofimpreciseness towards time.6. Gaya-gaya attitude- a Filipino
attitude of imitating or copying other culturespecifically in mode of dressing, language, fashion or
evenhaircut.
17. 18. 7. Jackpot mentality- a “get rich quick” mentality of some Filipinos who would ratherengage in fast
ways of acquiring money than through hardwork andsacrifice by getting in lottery, joining raffle draws and
other.8. Kapalaran values- a Filipino trait of accepting his fate by believing that everything iswritten in his
palm. Such traits contributes to lack initiative andperseverance among Filipinos.9. Mañana habit- delaying
or setting aside a certain task assigned on the next dayalthough it can be done today.
18. 19. 10. Ningas-cogon- being enthusiastic only during the start of new undertakingbut ends dismally in
accomplishing nothing. A commonpractice observed in some politicians who are visible onlyduring the
start of certain endeavor.11. Oversensitive- Filipinos have the tendency to be irritated easily or hurtupon
hearing some criticisms or comment.12. Lack of sportmanship- not accepting defeat in competitions but
rather putting theblame either to their opponents or to the sport officials.
19. 20. 13. Pakikisama- submitting oneself to the will of the group for the sakeof camaraderie and unity.
Failure to comply with thegroup demand, the person will be called “walangpakikisama or selfish”. The
adherence to group demandshave taught our young to engage in bad habits likesmoking, alcoholism and
even drug addiction.14. Tsamba lang attitude- simplicity by declaring that his/her accomplishmentsare
results of luck and not from perseverance and ability.