It's true that the formal academic training in Meteorology isn't always a necessity to do a good weathercast, but in times of tough calls and, in particular, fast moving severe weather outbreaks, the advantages of formal training in addition to the irreplaceable depth of needed experience are inseparable. In the sciences, any of us who have been paying attention to what we've learned becomes acutely aware of how much we DON'T know.
The author of this letter hasn't got a clue of the stark limits of his knowledge. For a communications grad ( who hasn't yet taken any courses) to judge who is and who isn't a Meteorologist is arrogant and ignorant. Try taking a COMET module course without any training, buddy. Try making head or tail out of storm relative velocity displays on the 88-D. Try interpreting satellite imagery and judging the significance of approaching jet streaks. You can't learn it all from watching Jim Cantore.
You're right about the need for love and passion to do good work. But first, you've got to DO some work. And that includes being taught by meteorologists. All of us who are any good have absorbed vast amounts of knowledge through our own desire and ambition, as you've described your own determination. But to be a Meteorologist, there has to be some formal foundation of learning with imposed standards of minimum knowledge.
If you're as ambitious as you've described, you'll probably gain much from the MSU correspondence program. But if you think that program is the equivalent of a 4 year degree from a place such as FSU, you've got a LONG, LONG way to go.
Don Paul
WIVB, Buffalo