SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
If you ever need to strike up a conversation with a group of academics, a surefire way to get them talking is to ask about their graduate training. Where did they train, in what methods, in which lab, under what mentor? People will speak with great pride about their training as an economist, historian, chemist, philosopher, or classicist. If, on the other hand, you need to make a quick exit, try sharing the opinion that undergraduate education should include a lot more vocational training. You'll soon find yourself standing alone or responding to accusations of classism and questions about your commitment to social and racial equality. You might even hear that "training is for dogs," a common refrain in higher education that carries the unpleasant implication that skills-based education is the equivalent of teaching students to sit, stay, and shake hands.
For reasons that are not entirely clear, in the United States training is widely understood to be the end, not the beginning, of an educational journey that leads to a particular job or career. Undergraduates are supposed to get a general education that will prepare them for training, which they will presumably get once they land a job or go to graduate school. Any training that happens before then just doesn't count.
It is because of this belief that general-education requirements are the center of the bachelor's degree and are concentrated in the first two years of a four-year program. The general-education core is what distinguishes the B.A. from a vocational program and makes it more than "just training." It is designed to ensure that all degree holders graduate with a breadth of knowledge in addition to an in-depth understanding of a particular subject area. Students are exposed to a broad range of disciplines and are pushed to think critically about the social, cultural, and historical context in which they live. It is supposed to guarantee that all graduates can write, have a basic understanding of the scientific method, have heard of the Marshall Plan and Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and know that iambic pentameter has something to do with poetry.
While few would challenge the importance of general education, both to students and to a well-functioning democracy, there is good reason to question why it has to come at the beginning of a B.A.—and just how general and theoretical it needs to be. The pyramid structure of the bachelor's degree, which requires that students start with the broad base of general requirements before they specialize, is what makes college unappealing to so many young people.
It doesn't have to be this way. There is no iron law of learning dictating that students must master general theories or be fully versed in a particular historical or cultural context before learning how to do things. Some students will do well under this approach, but there is solid evidence that some students learn better through experience. For these students, theory does not make sense until it is connected to action. Putting a lot of general or theoretical courses on the front end just leaves them disengaged or, even worse, discouraged. They will do better if they start by learning how to master certain tasks or behaviors and then explore the more abstract concepts behind the actions.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:05PM (29 children)
First two years are torture in most STEM degrees. Dealing with bull you have 0 interest in only to get that nice algorithms class years after suffering Composition I and II.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:26PM (23 children)
I for one think people need to be educated in a wide range of subjects, otherwise they make poor citizens in a democracy. Of course, this shouldn't mean you can't get any courses first year you're actually interested in.
I find many engineer types completely ignorant of how the world actually works and yet having a political opinion, based on what who knows.
I was a big STEM lover for a long time but since I've taken a wider outlook since my 30s.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:07PM (3 children)
otherwise they make poor citizens in a democracy
Considering that the majority of US citizens will not complete a college degree, it seems that general education during college is much too late. Also, I wouldn't assume that general education requirements are actually sufficient to produce adequate "citizens in a democracy".
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:14PM (2 children)
They might not be quite sufficient, but they're a lot better than doing nothing at all. Yes, it is a little bit too late, but not that much (most college students start at age ~18, right when they start voting). It is a bit of a Band-Aid for our horrible public education system in high school, but there's not much that can be done about that because that's up to local control; we tried some stuff at the Federal level with NCLB and Common Core and look where that got us. So, the best we can really do is try to push state college as a way to make up for our lousy secondary school systems and try to get kids of up speed there; I know personally my knowledge and ability to think critically was massively improved by the college experience, and most of it was really in those first 2 years of general-ed classes.
Personally, I think it'd help to break up the high schools and follow the German model, where kids are split apart into separate schools based on their scholastic abilities. Having the dumb troublemakers sharing space with the college-bound and AP students doesn't work.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday March 16 2017, @11:07PM (1 child)
I take it you were in school back when they tolerated free speech and dissenting viewpoints, and encouraged healthy debate and shunned professional victimhood?
Fortunately, I was too until the last year or so, when I did my internship. We were required to do a community-service themed internship (shit like building websites for charities, or teaching tech to poor minorities like I did), which was also an opportunity to have the bullshit concepts of White Privilege and Social Justice down our throats.
The most infuriating part was having to read a piece about White Privilege written by a Harvard-educated Jew who'd more likely than not never experienced poverty or other hardship (as I did through much of my childhood and some of my adulthood) or even set foot outside her gated community*. Then there was the reading about Blacks in Silicon Valley, and I pointed out in a discussion that it was only about exploiting Blacks' ideas to sell more shit to more people rather than being about true diversity. Indeed, Blacks are still severely underrepresented in Tech and the few who are there are mostly tokens to look good for the camera.
Unlike others here, I'm not one of those elitists who looks down on those who choose to study art, or social sciences, or any other non-STEM field -- even if they are mostly liberals -- I think we need good teachers and scholars in those fields. The problem is that American education, thanks to their anti-dissent stances and professional victimhood they've adopted, is preventing both students and instructors alike from exercising true critical-thinking skills required to form their own educated opinions. In short, it's just one righteous circle-jerk and, worst of all, students can be sanctioned for voicing opinions ever-so-slightly outside the party line.
It's ironic that the students fought for free speech at Berkeley decades ago, now they fight against it, with faculty egging them on. Those fuckers need to be pulled out by the roots. Federal funding should be withheld from any university which does not tolerate free speech or fosters intimidation of those who express alternative viewpoints.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @03:08PM
Its OK EF, soylentnews provides you a "safe space" so you can stop whining so much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:20PM (8 children)
people need to be educated in a wide range of subjects, otherwise they make poor citizens in a democracy
Assuming that you can teach people how to be good: if citizens have to be educated to be good citizens, why does college cost money? Isn't it in the state's interest to maximize the number of good citizens by providing free education to all? Doesn't tuition exclude a large swath of humanity from becoming better human beings?
I suspect that poor people today often take the position that paying for education does not make one a better citizen. After all, the poor and uneducated do not voluntarily surrender the right to vote or participate in "democracy" (if that's what you want to call a system of electing an oligarchic legislature and magistrates). If the uneducated agreed with you that they cannot be good citizens without a formal education, would they not want to exclude themselves from the decision making process?
On the other hand, if virtue cannot be taught (or, if hearing lectures on basketweaving and gender studies does not, in and of itself, make you a better human being), your proposition simply does not hold. One might look to the well-educated CEOs and bankers and politicians and media demagogues who could, if education resulted in civic virtue, claim to be the best of citizens -- do the people running the world (and dodging their taxes) really seem like the best citizens to you?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:44PM (4 children)
Isn't it in the state's interest to maximize the number of good citizens by providing free education to all? Doesn't tuition exclude a large swath of humanity from becoming better human beings?
The US already provides free K-12 education. And that free education is in large part inadequate for the effort put into it. How many more years should we expect people to go to school for free, and get little out?
As to tuition, how does that prevent people from becoming better human beings?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:00PM (1 child)
People with (non-BS) college degrees typically pay their education back in taxes, and then a lot more. High schoolers have lower odds. people who don't finish high school are highly likely to cost more in assistance (and/or policing) than they pay in taxes.
That's why many countries have low or free college tuition. It's an investment which typically pays off big time.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:50PM
People with (non-BS) college degrees typically pay their education back in taxes, and then a lot more. High schoolers have lower odds. people who don't finish high school are highly likely to cost more in assistance (and/or policing) than they pay in taxes.
People who don't finish high school aren't ready for college. So one of your three groups are irrelevant to the decision whether or not to fund college educations with public funds. Second, you didn't speak of the US's ineffective education at the K-12 level. Publicly funded education is already strongly inadequate. How would making college education similarly inadequate help?
Finally, what is the supposed value of luring people who don't currently go to college? My view is that they're the group least able to benefit from college. That (not money!) is why they don't go in the first place. We would spend public funds poorly to encourage a large number of people to flunk out of college rather than get jobs right away and do something productive with their time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @03:11PM (1 child)
There is an entire country of evidence against you. Do other countries do better? Yes. Is our education worthless? No.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 17 2017, @04:08PM
There is an entire country of evidence against you. Do other countries do better? Yes. Is our education worthless? No.
Two things to note. They have far less variety of higher education than the US does. Second, the paying of tuition has little to do with the actual problems of US education. As I noted already, K-12 sucks, but it's public and free to the student, just like those other countries that are "doing better". Second, the enormous cost of higher education has to do with government interference for the past forty years. It would not be remotely as high as it currently is without those subsidies and special legal treatment (eg, non-dischargeable debt in bankruptcy) for student loans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:08PM (2 children)
I never meant that education would make people behave morally (although that could be hoped for but as you say there is plenty of evidence to the contrary) but just that education gives people facts so they at least can make rational decisions, evil aside.
Hailing from a Scandinavian country where all education is free, I find the concept of tuition very strange and discriminating. Here you pay nothing for elementary, primary, secondary and university level studies. The state in fact pays students benefits so they can study instead of having to work!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @07:36PM (1 child)
i would have liked to live in Scandinavia but those are socialist indoctrination centers as much as schools. That is why some Scandinavian or European countries are currently being invaded by Muslims (FFS!) and standing idly by while their children/teenagers are being sexually assaulted and their elderly being beaten/robbed by these jihadists. Too brainwashed/scared of being called racist to even protect yourselves. I would much rather see any country move to highly competitive private schools and neighborhood/home schooling. Families and neighborhoods can decide what is important to them instead of international banksters via governments. It's fairer now that even impoverished people can afford the internet (in certain localities). There's no excuse for not educating your kids, assuming the thieves/authoritarians could be eliminated from decent society. The state is the enemy of humanity! State schools are slave factories. Even in more successful socialist countries the price of giving away your individual sovereignty has only been deferred and hidden. One day you will have to pay the piper. The socialist way is to do it slowly so that you don't notice until it's too late. No thanks!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @01:55AM
Despite the fact that most USAians would like USA to be more like e.g. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [commondreams.org] what northern Europe has is NOT Socialism.
What northern Europe has is Liberal Democracy, AKA Social Democracy, AKA Christian Democracy.
(There's still plenty of Oligarchy there.) [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wsws.org]
...and when Sweden came up with a plan for "Socialism" in 1981, the electorate said NO.
We should note that their "Socialist" plan was still a top-down system.
"Socialist" plan in Sweden would gradually take over private industry [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [csmonitor.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:53PM
I find many humanities and social science types completely ignorant of how the world actually works and yet having a political opinion as well. I usually tell them to add a little more whipped cream to my mocha.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:21PM (7 children)
Yeah, that's the usual BS answer. I didn't give a sh*t about your "well-rounded" student nonsense. I wanted a degree to get a job and stop the struggle of being poor. Because of that I had suffer through soft sciences, history, etc. UGH. You can take that crap and shove it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:37PM (6 children)
The easy counter to this statement is "If you truly want to end the struggle, you need to climb the social/corporate ladder -- to do that you need all the soft-shit so you can not sound like a complete fuck-tard when you open your mouth." The piece of paper itself is really almost worthless, all it does it open a few doors. If you don't exploit that, or say "fuck the man, just give me a job", you're really not going to any better off.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday March 16 2017, @11:18PM
Well, you gotta keep in mind it's a cash-cow, and I believe that we should have not only stronger vocational programs (such as our high-school ROP which had programs in agriculture, welding, CAD drawing, and landscaping) but a degree track where you learn only what you have to for your major.
American universities are more businesses than they are institutions of learning. Teaching credentials, advanced degrees in education, that annoying extra degree requirement about diversity added at the last minute (as what happened to me) -- they say it is so that you will be more well-rounded, but in the autodidactic age of the internet, people are more than capable of learning things outside their major, and on their own terms. I learned much more about psychology, politics, and human nature reading classic literature than I did having to write bullshit papers in my non-STEM classes.
The "piece of paper" is and isn't worthless in the sense that it is the new high-school diploma in industry and every serious corporation (with increasingly few exceptions) requires one for salaried positions. I work with no less than 4 recent engineering grads working as technicians well below their ability -- and not because it's Boston Dynamics, but because there is a glut of STEM grads. As I've pointed out in a previous discussion, you don't hear much ("we have a shortage of qualified workers") from big tech anymore, because they know that we know that line is bullshit. And this is coming from a guy who spent 12 years getting a 4-year degree.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:38AM (4 children)
you need all the soft-shit so you can not sound like a complete fuck-tard when you open your mouth
More Soylentils need to read the comments made by e.g. aristarchus.
They also need to note how many of the references he makes go over their heads.
People with a proper, broad-based education tend to climb higher on the ladder.
When The Suits use metaphors which refer to things which happened centuries ago, it's important that you know what to say in response so that they recognize you as someone who belongs in their rarefied ranks.
...and knowing what mistakes have already been made may keep you from repeating those and looking like a fool.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --George Santayana
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday March 17 2017, @04:07AM
Oh noes, you did not just do that, gweg_?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --George Santayana
Santayana, fair to middling American philosopher. What I like to add to his profound saying is that those who remember the past are condemned to repeat it, too, but at least they will know what the hell is going on! Weimar Republic, my dear Drumpfkins? Oh, and for extra credit, look up "beyond the Pale" and "hoist by your own petard", and never say "begs the question" for "raises the question", and be cognizant of what a "shibboleth" is. You will go far, young IT guy, if only you pursue learning for learning's sake, Ars gratia artis, rather than being a lowly mercenary slave to some corporate master. Better to die in your mind than sleep on your knees.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 17 2017, @01:59PM (2 children)
More Soylentils need to read the comments made by e.g. aristarchus. They also need to note how many of the references he makes go over their heads.
No, I would advise them to avoid that bullshit. Among other things, aristarchus has a habit of wasting peoples' time (particularly, my time!) with dishonest, fallacy-laden argument. Just look at his reply to your post. We all need yet another clueless, word-salad rant comparing Trump to Hitler because there aren't enough of those already anywhere you look. And starting with a brief snide remark about Santana just to segue into the Trumphitlerness looks to me to be one of his typical red herrings.
When The Suits use metaphors which refer to things which happened centuries ago, it's important that you know what to say in response so that they recognize you as someone who belongs in their rarefied ranks.
Just like aristarchus uses metaphors? Is he a member of your tribe? I guess my opinion here is that if there's something you despise in other people, such as using special knowledge to exclude or marginalize outsiders, then don't engage in it yourself.
I think aristarchus is a completely fake persona (erm, beyond the basic act of pretending to be a two millennia old philosopher). I still lean towards the interpretation that aristarchus and Ethanol-Fueled are the same person. You never see them in the same room together except of course, when they jointly announce [soylentnews.org] that they're going to take a three month break. Seriously, EF should be an enormous pile of red meat for someone like aristarchus, but I've only managed to find a couple of half-hearted attacks [soylentnews.org] despite some googling on the matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2017, @08:57PM (1 child)
[...]And starting with a brief snide remark about Santana just to segue[...]
Different person. He's the one with the guitar. I've never heard of the other guy.
[...]I still lean towards the interpretation that aristarchus and Ethanol-Fueled are the same person.[...]
Maybe they are. Why does it bother you? Giving names to aspects of his/her personality may well help to control them both prior to, perhaps, sublimation or subsumption into the main.
You right-wing wankers are all for freedom of speech, aren't you? Who's holding a gun to your head to make you read it? Just don't fucking read it. Go back to your rightard safe space where you can talk shit about foreigners without the grown-ups hearing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 19 2017, @05:35AM
You right-wing wankers are all for freedom of speech, aren't you? Who's holding a gun to your head to make you read it? Just don't fucking read it.
I have discovered that the "foe" option allows me to do just that. It can act as a crude killfile, modding people on my foe list, who just so happens to contain aristarchus now, to -1. But the problem here is that I normally like reading OriginalOwner's stuff. It's just very annoying that he chooses to laud a huge dick like aristarchus.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @01:59AM
This: "yet having a political opinion, based on what who knows"
...is so wrong in so many ways. The alternative is what, some professor pushing communism? Communism which will obviously work, because "real" communism has never been tried, despite the fact that various governments have self-identified as communist and despite the fact that the opportunities to try it have been numerous?
These professors claim to support public schools, yet send their children to private schools. They want to have open borders, yet they live in gated communities. They support a "living wage", but think we need dirt-cheap Mexican labor. They claim to hate bigots, but actively discriminate against Christian peers in hiring and tenure decisions. They say they support LGBT, but welcome immigrants who think LGBT must die. They tell us that rape culture is bad, then welcome actual no-joke serious for-real rape culture (Pakistan, South Africa...) into our country.
Enough already! We don't need fake Americans teaching us to hate ourselves, our culture, and our country.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:54PM (4 children)
What has always bothered me is that the STEM degrees have to take a ton of liberal arts classes, and if they are a good school a good mix of science and math outside of their major, but the liberal arts students have to take very little in the way of science and math. So to graduate I needed:
2 classes of composition at the minimum level acceptable for an English, or creative writing major
2 speech classes at the minimum acceptable level for a communication major
1 course at the minimum acceptable level for a *Studies or poly-sci major
2 history courses at the minimum acceptable level for a history major
1 literature class at the minimum acceptable level for an English or lit major
1 art class also at the minimum acceptable level for an art major
1 philosophy class also at the minimum acceptable level for a philosophy major
1 physical education class
By minimum acceptable level these are courses that would be the lowest level courses that would actually count towards one of those majors, unlike say taking college algebra and expecting it to count towards something other than total credit count for a math major. Yet to fulfill most most math or science requirements in a liberal arts degree you can take courses like college algebra, or introduction to astronomy which wouldn't count towards a math or astronomy major. Additionally as part of my BS in CS degree I had to take a full year of chemistry or physics, 2 other first year science classes, and also one senior (400 level) science class not in my major. Technology classes are the worst because a CS or EE gets those out of the way with ease and most of the time physics, ME, and astronomy students have it covered by a programming course they end up having to taking, but for others you can take intro to MS word or what ever the fuck it is which is a fucking joke of a class and would be akin to taking a class called intro to swinging a hammer where you learn how to pick-up, hold, and swing a 16oz Stanly claw hammer but don't bother to learn how to use the claws for pulling nails because that is an advanced feature and don't even bring up using a different brand of hammer.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:12PM (3 children)
These so-called "useless" classes are precisely designed to keep you big-brained STEM'ers from making beyond-stupid comments like this [twitter.com].
You don't know everything because you can do linear algebra while toking a bong. And you aren't better than me because you think reading music is a useless relic of the past because you have an iPod or the internet. Stop belittling things you think are worthless and try to, instead, figure out why they might be useful. The key word in "Humanities" is "human." It might be wise of you to reflect on why that is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:57PM
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday March 16 2017, @07:07PM
If you notice I did not disparage the additional classes but pointed out the disparity between STEM and non STEM general education requirements. One who gets a BS degree has a far more rounded education than someone who gets a BA degree as the sciences and math are severely lacking in a BA yet the arts and humanities are plentiful in a BS degree. Also I do know how to read music, speak a couple of foreign languages (not fluent but trying), and have a very detailed knowledge of art and history beyond what was taught in even my college courses. It is truly a wonderful thing when you are in a Paris for work and you are able to go with your coworkers to the Louvre on the weekend and be able to tell them about not only the major pieces but also the lesser known and even obscure ones as well as being able to tell them artistically why the Virgin of the Rocks is my favorite piece there but that I like the one in London better.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @08:26PM
Good luck with that, the derision against anything but hard science seems to run very very deep.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:10PM (42 children)
Precisely what does any of the above have to do with working in IT (if you have to go into a long explanation you lose the argument by default)? Nothing? Why should people be forced to pay for it to learn what they need to know to get a job in IT then?
Yeah, yeah... College isn't for getting a job. Bullshit. That's the primary thing it is for or you'd see enrollment drop like a lead balloon.
General Ed requirements are bullshit designed to fill pockets perpetuate a culture of elitism. Nothing else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by canopic jug on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:17PM (9 children)
General education is supposed to take place in high school so that higher education can focus on advanced principles or skills. What I see in the US is a pushing back of this basic education higher and higher up the chain. I knew people that tried teaching in less famous colleges in the US but spent so much of their time with remedial education that they could not cover the material ostensibly offered by the degree program. If they can't get students with adequate knowledge or skill to help with their research and at the same time can't teach beyond high-school, they leave. The US has been losing ground in this area for decades and has been enjoying such a monumental head start due to WWII and the initial space programs, especially Apollo, that it can look like it is still ahead. It is losing the network effect it once had, that was basically all bonus.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:46PM (8 children)
...is a holdover from the privileged classes of the 19th century.
A bachelor of science (note that last word) should specifically educate you in a scientific or technical field. A bachelor of arts, correspondingly, in a non-scientific/non-technical field. The way you teach a civil engineer to build a bridge does not involve him or her actually going out and pouring concrete. Education takes place (excepting the odd practicum) on an abstract level.
Vocational education is completely different. It is primarily a practical education (excepting the odd theory course). A carpenter learns to do good carpentry by measuring, cutting, sawing and constructing. An electrician learns the basic ideas, and then gets lots of practice running cables, connecting fixtures, etc..
The US has two problems:
- General education through high school has been watered down by programs like NCLB. Everyone gets an 'A', there are no consequences to failing to learn, we wouldn't want to hurt anyones feelings.
- Probably as a consequence of the first problem: people push their kids to go to college. Vocational education has lost all respect, even though that's where lots of really essential jobs are.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:58PM
I don't like NCLB at all but it sure as hell doesn't make teachers give undeserving As. Unless you live in a very abnormal area you have no idea about education and are just playing keyword bingo.
Vocational training should come back, right now lots of people suffer through standardized (bastardized) education then have to pay for another 1-2 year program.
Standardized testing is the worst.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:33PM (2 children)
The "liberal arts" were, in the ancient world (long before the nineteenth century) said to be "liberal" in the sense that they were fit for people free (liber=free)... free from the duties of work. The unfree were those who had to till their fields for a living or grind grain or in other ways dedicate their time to the banausic tasks that sustained life. Those with sufficient resources to avoid work were able to cultivate astronomy, arithmetic, geometry, music, and so forth. Note that sciences (astronomy) and math (arithmetic and geometry) together with what people now consider "art" (music) were all parts of the original "liberal arts": they aren't manual labor, which only requires training.
Today's separation of STEM from the rest of the liberal arts is a sham to those too poor to attend college. An uneducated pauper sees no difference between the hipster coder who graduated from an engineering program, the UX designer who pines for social justice, and the museum director who has a PhD in Tibetian calligraphy: they're all far richer than the pauper will ever be, they all complain about things the pauper sees as pointless, and they're all assholes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:27PM
Y'know what they say when you are seeing assholes everywhere....
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday March 16 2017, @07:54PM
Today's separation of STEM from the rest of the liberal arts is a sham to those too poor to attend college.
And we should care why? Should I consult the opinion of family pets as well?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:53PM
Please provide sources for this silly claim. Kids arent being given A's for failing math. The more likely scenario is they pass kids with D's just to get them out of the school. That practice is nothing new.
In my parents (Boomers) day, College was the big ticket out. That mentality stuck. They looked towards the upper classes and how none of their kids were truckers, welders, electricians, garbage men or landscapers. Those were jobs for dummies and smart kids will get paid more than them. Meanwhile, they were good jobs, paid good, and didn't require taking on debt to qualify for them. Though, my parents never put down those jobs, they just pushed college as the way to make more money than those careers could offer. They want what's best.
But that was during a time when you could make big money with a degree. Now you have graduates with a 4 year degree working for 40-50k year with 100+k in debt when the garbage man makes 60+k with a pension and benefits. I know a guy working for Con Edison making 140k/yr in substations which consists of him sitting on his ass all day long waiting for something to break. His education? A GED. I know union truck drivers making 100+k/yr and non union drivers making 10-15/hr, 20 if you're really lucky. I know union electricians making $50+/hr and bridge painters making $90+/hr (super dangerous job though).
Bottom line is the boomers push for higher education as the only means of getting a good paying job is a dead end for many people. And it also doesn't help that manufacturing jobs have nearly disappeared from the US eliminating a lot of basic jobs for people who aren't cut out for higher education or vocational jobs. I'm sure the stigma with low skill and vocational jobs is there on purpose. Cant have people making too much money now can we?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Kromagv0 on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:10PM (2 children)
Vocational education has lost all respect, even though that's where lots of really essential jobs are.
Even people who are going for a vocational education don't really understand the difference and view it as a joke. Last year I finished taking a series of 3 classes to expand my skill set at the local Vo-Tech (a good quality one that ins't like ITT, DeVry, etc.) and in each class my fellow students would eventually find out that I already had a BS in CS. This would confuse them as the highest degree offered there was an AAS in software engineering or networking so why would I take a class there when I already have a better degree. I would then explain to them that in my degree I took only 2 classes where I learned how to program. While a number of my classes had a programming aspect to them the programming was to learn and work with other concepts that the class was about. Often times we weren't limited to a programming language and could use any one we wanted (the exception was my AI class where everyone got to suffer through LISP). I then tell them that a BS in CS is very much focused on theory so things like actually setting up and configuring network devices, doing forensic analysis on computer, are not covered. The biggest thing that makes the difference clear is the OS course I took and the OS course they took. In mine I learned about the different kernel styles, how OS manage memory and other resources at the low level, they learned how to work with the tool sets in a Windows and Linux environment so that they could work with and install them as sys admins.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday March 16 2017, @11:23PM (1 child)
The sad truth is that an A.S. from a good community college is the same education as what you'd receive at ITT/DeVry at a fraction of the cost. I've talked to some ITT grads recently and was horrified to find out that they didn't even have SpecAns as part of their education.
The strength of places like ITT and DeVry is in their job-placement programs and I've found ITT grads everywhere I work around here. Unfortunately, ITT just shut down out of nowhere and those who haven't yet finished their degrees are left high and dry, having to either test out at community college or go through school all over again.
There is none of that risk at a decent community college.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday March 17 2017, @03:16PM
Here in Minnesota there is a difference between the public community colleges and the public vocational and technical colleges. The community colleges while they may offer AA, AS, or AAS degrees still don't to the vocational training and as you said don't have job placement services. On the other hand the vo-techs do only vocational and practical skill courses and do have job placement services. So if you want to try out college you go to the community college and get 2 years of a 4 year degree on the cheap and maybe get and associates of arts in your prospective major done and then finish with a BA or BS in it at a 4 year school. If instead you want to become a machinist, electrician, networking technician, mechanic, plumber, general contractor, beautician, graphic designer, etc you go off to the vo-tech and get a certificate or up maybe to an AAS depending on the course. For example here is the offerings at the nearby community college [normandale.edu] for programs while here is the offerings at the nearby vo-tech [dctc.edu] so you end up with very different educations depending on where you go.
Personally I think this is a good thing and while high school teachers and administrators all push the you need a BA or BS because a high school diploma doesn't cut it they are only half right. Not everyone needs BA or BS and most people should not be getting them, but what they do need is an AA, AS, AAS, AFA, or certificate program once they finish high school as a high school diploma basically meas you managed to show up reasonably consistently to some place for the last 13 or so years. What high schools should be doing more of is expanding post secondary programs like what my school had when I was in. If students wanted they could go up to Normandale community college and take classes that would transfer to a 4 year college or go to Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) and start learning a trade. I had a few friends who went to DCTC for the bulk of the junior and senior years and learned a trade like welding, being an electrician, or a mechanic, yet very few people went to Normandale even if they were planning on going to a 4 year school afterwards. It was strange as none of the very top GPA kids went there yet the 3 of us in my senior class (of over 600) who did got a far better education and entered our 4 year schools with junior standing instead of as 0 credit freshmen. The best part was that the school district would pay for you to take summer classes too, which is what you would need to do to enter college as a junior after exiting high school.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:35PM
Other countries (Europe mainly) have general education up to high/secondary school. Passing the final exams would get you a (pre-uni, under-graduate) baccalaureate degree [wikipedia.org].
If you hold a baccalaureate degree, it's a sign that all you have is a general education base, but no actual skills - nobody will employ you based on that.
You go to Uni, first 2 years you'll "eat" all the basics (e.g. for STEM algebraic structures, PDE, complex analysis, etc) that are very likely necessary for the following 2-4 years specialization. One cannot graduate a Uni with less than 4 years of study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:35PM (7 children)
Can't agree, TMB.
Can you imagine an illiterate engineer? An engineer who DOES NOT understand the scientific method? Alright, so maybe he doesn't really need poetry. On the other hand, any supposedly educated person who knows nothing of poetry is probably a terribly boring shit when you get him away from the job. (Even I like certain flavors of poetry, though I am very discriminating.) Same with the Marshall Plan, and Maslow. The American engineer who knows absolutely nothing about US history is probably as boring as the engineer who has never recited a poem. And, the heirarchy? Well - maybe he can do without that silly pyramid. Who needs food, water, warmth, or rest, when there are interesting projects to work on? Work til you drop, dude!! Stroke (or heart attack) at age 30?
I'm certainly not advocating a liberal arts degree (whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean) but people should have a little more education than just physics and math. If they don't, then they are just some kind of idiot savant or something like that.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:49PM (6 children)
Depends on the kind of engineering. A chemical engineer is definitely going to need the SM but a bridge builder is not; they need math. Teaching people to not be boring is not worth tens of thousands of dollars and it should never be a job requirement.
The above is assuming you're correct in your assumption that non-formally-educated people are boring, which is incorrect. You should get out and meet more people. I know plenty who are damned interesting and can think as deeply as anyone with a degree; many of whom never finished highschool. With the added benefit of they probably won't regurgitate the inane garbage they were taught but actually have to think about things at least a little bit to form an opinion on them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:03PM (2 children)
Sounds like you just have a chip on your shoulder. People shouldn't be so judgmental about lack of a college degree, but you shouldn't go the opposite route and say most of it is worthless. There is more to life... Sounds more like you're annoyed by the average human.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:04PM (1 child)
You think the average human has a college degree? Interesting...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:33PM
As usual you aren't thinking very critically...
won't regurgitate the inane garbage they were taught but actually have to think about things at least a little bit to form an opinion on them
The average human regurgitates what they've been told to various degrees. Not many humans think critically about much of anything, they learn about the world through various methods and then stick to what they learned mostly. College or no college this seems to hold true, and it would require education to focus on critical thinking and teach it from the start. However, that isn't what the leaders want, they just want good workers. They've pushed from STEM because that is what they need in their workforce, it has nothing to do with making better citizens.
Anyway, for every example of college educated shitheads I can pull up an example of an uneducated shithead. Get the chip off your shoulder son.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:04PM (1 child)
Well, there's nothing to argue with, there. I'm completely in agreement that a formal education isn't necessary for a person to be interesting. But, an education is necessary. Father in law, for instance. His formal education ended at the 6th grade. But, he pursued his education all of his life. The old man knew stuff that I never did figure out. I'm half sure that I've mentioned him here, before. If you could state any mathematical problem to him, he would give you the solution, faster than anyone nearby could punch it into a calculator. Not just simple sums, but any algebra or geometry problem. I don't think he grasped Einstein's physics math, but I can't say for sure. All that was required, was that YOU were both smart and fluent enough to state the problem correctly.
The old man knew a butt-load of poetry, he knew his Bible, he knew agriculture, trees, and animal husbandry. He dabbled in just about everything that I could imagine.
No, a formal education isn't essential, but an education is.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:31PM
My dad is a retired mechanical engineer and electrical engineer with about 50/50 military and medical engineering experience. I learned more from him growing up than I ever did in school. I got a two year aas in machine tool technology for dirt cheap, and have been able to be the sole breadwinner for my family the whole time.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:15PM
Teaching people how to properly express themselves and communicate is critical in highly technical environments too.
I've read enough datasheets and product descriptions, heard enough tech presentations, to know how some people can be great at coding or designing while requiring an english-to-english translator (providing both interpretation and censorship) to function in a team.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Soylentbob on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:34PM (10 children)
Having a high technical education lends power to a person. With enough technical skill, one can make a difference in the world far beyond his/her area of expertise.
With great power <strike>comes</strike> should come great responsibility, and someone who might work on e.g. auto-piloting war-heads, drone-control-stations, etc. therefore should have a little background in history, philosophy and ethics to be able to understand the moral implications of his doing.
(ok, I'd agree to dismiss the iambic pentameter from the mandatory-list, but am quite happy to live in a society which can afford the luxury to educate its population in these topics as well.)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:08PM (5 children)
You think we can afford this? I believe you might be in need of an economics class. Putting a large chunk of your population in debt for the first decade or so of their working life is other than brilliant policy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:35PM (3 children)
Good point, education should be socialized. While we're at it lets throw in healthcare too!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:41PM (2 children)
Good thing the Republicans swept every branch of government last election; we came dangerously close to some real progress there.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @06:50PM (1 child)
Why do you think that is? If people genuinely believed it was Republican's fault as the media strongly states that it is, why would the public vote all control over to the Republican party and pull it from the hands of the Democrats? This is saying nothing of the ridiculous partisanship of the whole US scene. People should be voted in on their individual abilities, not what club they belong to.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 17 2017, @07:33PM
why would the public vote all control over to the Republican party and pull it from the hands of the Democrats?
If you ask some people, because Hillary was a career politician slimeball too good at playing the game, and the actually likable guy (Bernie) got thrown under the bus. So in a race between The Establishment Weasel and The Crazy Outsider Buffoon, Trump is the middle finger to the establishment.
People should be voted in on their individual abilities, not what club they belong to.
Yeah, that's what George Washington said, too. Unfortunately politicians seem naturally inclined to organize themselves into parties, not just in the U.S. but everywhere. Cf. "The Era of Good Feelings" for some interesting reading.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Soylentbob on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:00PM
Yes, you can. First of all, I don't think it is a money problem in the first place, it requires a cultural shift. Education should be something to be proud of, not something to be ashamed of or ridiculed for as a nerd or something. Science is not a matter of believe or opinion. Religious believe is not comparable to "believe" in evolution "theory", even though it is still called a "theory". Open your minds, not your bible.
Second, maybe the way money is distributed should be re-thought. Maybe a little less investment in weapons and bad-banks could be done in favour of a bit more investment into the educational system (if there actually is a money problem).
I'm still looking for a quote I heard some years ago. I think it was from some nordic country along the lines "We are poor, therefore we cannot afford to be stupid as well"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:21PM (3 children)
a little background in history, philosophy and ethics to be able to understand the moral implications of his doing
If scientists and engineers are relying on GEs teaching them ethics and morals, then we would be in a lot more trouble than we already are. My school didn't require ethics or philosophy as part of its GEs.
I also fail to see how education in the humanities makes someone more responsible or less likely to misunderstand the moral implications of one's actions. Aren't most politicians non-STEM degree holders? They don't even need to consider the moral implications of auto-piloting war-heads because they're already fully able to ignore them in reguards to conventional weapons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:37PM (1 child)
Just because some people make unethical decisions doesn't mean we shouldn't educate people about ethics. What about the children of unethical people? They'll grow up learning that it is ok to screw people over, but maybe some education will open their eyes and let them see their parents for the assholes they are. The education doesn't MAKE someone ethical, but it at least gives them some perspective so that they are better able to evaluate their own decisions or the orders coming from the top.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @10:35PM
Ethics should be required during elementary, middle, and high school. Basic ethics should not be necessary at the college level (field-specific ethics are a different story).
My GE requirements (California State University) did not cover Ethics at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @09:03AM
I also fail to see how education in the humanities makes someone more responsible or less likely to misunderstand the moral implications of one's actions. Aren't most politicians non-STEM degree holders?
Yep, that's it right there. Total inability to understand quantitative analysis that is the hallmark of the under-education of these alleged STEM types. Not only do they not understand language and ethics, they cannot do logic or math. As the Donald would say, so sad. Sick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:38PM
Why should people be forced to pay for it to learn what they need to know to get a job in IT then?
Mighty Buzzard, Universal IT Soldier! You could be the IT version of Claude van Damme!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mechanicjay on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:19PM (5 children)
Here's my take. A "Liberal Arts" education concerns itself with educating the whole person. In a limited sense this means that the writers should still have a basic understanding of how sciencey stuff works, the science guys should be able to analyse a text and put together a coherent sentence. Even in this simplistic example, this theoretically gives either student a leg up over someone who didn't have that extra dimension of education thrown at them in the workplace. "Hey you're a great scientist, but when you communicate with management sound like you're impaired", and that person is stuck as a low-level lab tech in their career. Or, "I'd love to put you on that Science story, but the last time I put you on the Science beat, you tried to claim that dogs laid eggs" -- and that person is stuck writing fluff for the lifestyles section.
These are just a couple dumb examples to try and illustrate the point. A slightly more abstract idea comes falls out this -- the idea of interdisciplinary studies where you're able to apply ideas or concepts from a different field into your own work. Maybe it works maybe it doesn't, but after 4 years of of this type of intellectual "training", you end up with people how (theoretically) know how to find answers and solutions to problems, in short you're training generalists who know how to think. I'm not saying every student is a success case, but what I've outlined is the end goal. If you look at the numbers of recent grads who are finding work, the folks coming out of strong Liberal Art schools are actually doing quite well compared to those who have taken up a highly specialized major.
As far as your proclamation that You don't need any of that to hold an IT job, that's absolutely strictly true and as general IT continues to become commoditized and trends towards a vocation, it'll be needed even less. I don't know your educational background, but it's clear that you have a logical mind and know how to think. Lots of people don't have either of those two advantages, college really can help folks there. A 4-year degree isn't about teaching you to know, it's about teaching you how to think -- it's the give a fish/teach to fish idea on a bigger scale. That said the Gen Ed stuff pissed me off at the time I was taking them -- in retrospect I really appreciate the perspective they gave to me in some areas, though it wasn't obvious to me at the time.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:34PM (4 children)
the folks coming out of strong Liberal Art schools are actually doing quite well
You don't think that there are any other confounding socio-economic variables of comparing elite private liberal art schools to run-of-the-mill STEM graduates?
I'm happy that you received some value out of the GEs that you took, but that is not true for everyone. We don't need a NCLB for college and there is already enough hand-holding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:40PM (1 child)
Maybe you just don't appreciate the value of the GEs you took. It is difficult to quantify such exposure. That said there definitely are worthless classes, so do your research and try and avoid things which will give you no value. If the college level course is beneath your highschool education then complain! Write some reviews, let people know the college course is crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:11PM
I did my research and choose my GEs based on interest and which ones would fulfill the most requirements (e.g. diversity, international, American institutions). Despite any hidden value, there was an opportunity cost associated with being forced to take worthless classes.
(Score: 2) by mechanicjay on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)
You don't think that there are any other confounding socio-economic variables of comparing elite private liberal art schools to run-of-the-mill STEM graduates?
Are you talking about the "good 'ol boys club" that gets bandied about in relation to most 'prestigious' institutions? Once you drop off from the top-top-tier schools, there's little advantage post-degree. There are a ton of very good mid-tier schools, with those outcomes I spoke of that are accessible to almost anyone and indeed who's undergrad ranks are full of first generation college students. Not saying that aren't a ton of issues there because there certainly are, just that the process has a level-the-playing field effect.
I'm happy that you received some value out of the GEs that you took, but that is not true for everyone.
I'm sorry you didn't get any value of the GEs that you took, but that is not true for everyone.
We don't need a NCLB for college and there is already enough hand-holding.
I have no idea what you mean here. NCLB for college -- that doesn't even make sense.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:51PM
the process has a level-the-playing field effect
There will be a selection bias associated with college students that can afford the expensive tuition of private liberal arts schools. I don't doubt that there is value in a liberal arts education, but comparing liberal arts graduates out of "strong" schools to the typical STEM graduate isn't a fair demonstration of its relative value.
Regardless of the perceived value of GEs, they are required and this is the hand-holding that I was referring to. Forcing students to take particular classes to bring everyone to the same level is what reminded me of NCLB.
I am not opposed to competency requirements in certain subjects (e.g. writing, mathematics, and speech), but I disagree with requiring a particular type of "well-rounded" education.
(Score: 2) by julian on Thursday March 16 2017, @07:57PM (4 children)
College isn't for getting a job, but you're free to hold an incorrect and unfounded opinion to the contrary. In fact, people being mislead to believe college is for getting a job are one of the primary drivers behind the dysfunction in higher education.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:31PM (2 children)
College isn't for getting a job, but you're free to hold an incorrect and unfounded opinion to the contrary. In fact, people being mislead to believe college is for getting a job are one of the primary drivers behind the dysfunction in higher education.
Attending college and paying tuition is an investment of time and money, it's reasonable to expect a net positive return on that investment. People with this mindset choose to attend programs whose outcomes are valued by society and rewarded with high-paying jobs (CS, Engineering, Agriculture, Law, Medicine, etc). People who go to college and choose majors that don't result in a well-paying profession at the end are either (a) engaging in a display of conspicuous consumption supported by others or (b) committing themselves to a lifetime of debt/poverty.
People who believe that every college degree is equally suitable for supporting themselves after college are among the primary symptoms of the dysfunction in higher education.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by julian on Friday March 17 2017, @03:37AM (1 child)
it's reasonable to expect a net positive return on that investment.
I have no disagreement. It's a useful, perhaps even inevitable, side effect under our current economic paradigm; but it's still not the primary purpose of higher education.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @04:15AM
it's reasonable to expect a net positive return on that investment.
I have no disagreement. It's a useful, perhaps even inevitable, side effect under our current economic paradigm;
Fuquing Ferengi and their damned "Rules of Acquistion". No wonder they have no art or literature, or philosophy, to speak of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:21AM
If college were not for getting a job, then we'd need to mostly force it to shut down due to the financial harm. People with a net worth of less than about $20 million would need to be kept out. It could be something for the idle rich. If you have no need to earn a living, go right ahead!
It's not like that.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:11PM (4 children)
<rant>
It is foolish to eliminate the bachelors' degree or try to morph it into a vocational degree. Yet, we've heard that whine from capitalists for a long time now. Despite the need, trade schools have been eliminated and, when not eliminated, looked down upon and denigrated. In other words there is still a need for vocational training and stop the push to eliminate them while at the same time trying to make academic degrees into vocational degrees.
The situation in the States is still far better than post-Bologna agreement [europa.eu] Europe. That agreement has seen more or less the elimination of regular degrees an their replacement with sloppy 3-year jobs that are closer to an Associates' degree than a Bachelors' Sadly and dishonestly the 3-year degrees are not able to cover material either in depth or breadth, either for vocational professions or academic lines. It's been going on long enough that the uneducated are feeding back into the system as they are selecting each other.
Even the PhD work after Bologna is more of a joke than it once was and is often completed with little oversight in a casual three-year effort. Some researchers are actually conscientious but even those that are find themselves constrained by the new system. So the new European PhD can be more readily compared to a Masters' degree or PhD prelims in the States.
The same sloppiness is hitting the vocational training. Some will learn in spite of the system but not because of it. However, the general drift is to that of unskilled workers in over their heads, whether in a job requiring vocational skills or academic theory.
</rant>
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Magneto on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:01PM (1 child)
It's interesting you say that. I've heard the opposite from people in the UK. There is an idea that a degree from the US is too general and lags behind the more focussed equivalents available in European countries. A bachelors student from the US may have had an equal amount (or more) time to study but as it's spread across a larger area they won't be as good in their chosen field as someone who's spent that time studying one area exclusively. Anecdotally I've got the impression that a minor subject in the US is roughly equivalent to an AS level in the UK, which is a pre-university qualification here. That's going off talks I've had with american colleagues who have minor-ed in my subject.
As for PhD's there's an impression that PhD students in the US are largely used as cheap labour rather than as researchers. Sure you may spend 7 years where we spend 4, but half of that is spent doing non-research activities (such as teaching) which are a very minor part of a PhD in most of Europe.
I don't know how true the above is but that's the general feeling I've picked up as a PhD student in one of the sciences in the UK.
P.S. Anyone who calls doing a PhD in the UK "casual" is almost certainly talking complete bullshit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 16 2017, @08:17PM
As for PhD's there's an impression that PhD students in the US are largely used as cheap labour rather than as researchers. Sure you may spend 7 years where we spend 4, but half of that is spent doing non-research activities (such as teaching) which are a very minor part of a PhD in most of Europe.
OTOH, it pays for the education without requiring public funds. I'm not proud of it, but I did pay for 12 years of graduate school in this way.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tibman on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:03PM
We've been seeing more people career jump into software engineering by attending a "Code Academy" or "Code Guild". Near a year ago we hired a guy who's only previous experience was working at walmart for six years. We hired him over the other people with degree's because he could actually program.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:39PM
As a European, I can't make heads or tails of what you are saying. Please explain what you think has changed in (a) engineering, and (b) science degrees at both the university [now: scientific master's] and 'trade school' [now: professional master's] level. If anything, achieving these degrees tends to take longer in comparison to the past, or at least that's my impression. While theoretically PhD's may take anything from 3 to 6 years, or so I read, I do not know anyone who has received one earlier than in the bog standard 4 years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:30PM
Taking 4 GE classes right now as a comp science major, can confirm I hate it lol. I did things backwards though, finished all my technical classes already. Now I just need to pass these last 4 GE classes (that I've been putting off) and I graduate. Yay!!!
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:33PM (7 children)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump [fivethirtyeight.com]
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:39PM (3 children)
That is interesting, dude. The impotent, neutered elite voted for Hillary. Not to worry - most of them aren't smart enough to feed themselves. When they can't hire some menial to prepare their meals, they'll all starve to death. Good riddance.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:52PM
Listen to the callousness in your words. WWJD? Not wish for someone else's death, even if they "deserved it." If there's judgement after death, you've just incriminated yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:07PM
QED? LOL
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @11:12PM
You forget about us early retired fucks capitalized on how wealth is accumulated in this country and are sitting on considerable investments and are more than smart enough to feed ourselves, and still have a social conscious. What is interesting about that fact is that I did it on probably less than your current salary. But people don't want to know how to do it, just bitch that they don't have it. I know, because I try to tell younger folks about it and hear how they can't afford it while talking on their iPhone 7 and drinking a Starbucks. And I was a Bernie supporter and I voted for Hillary. And I paid off student loans and put kids through college, and I didn't have dime one when I started. I was unemployed, working ManPower gigs so I decided to go to uni (and continued the ManPower work) and I got a Liberal Arts degree in Music Performance and I still made out well. Stop bitching about the worthlessness of a degree and start investing $20-25 bucks a week, and up it as you can. Find a decent broker to help you out. Get a second job and put the money into investments. It worked for me; it will work for you if you are a consistent and disciplined investor. Just over 50% of Americans have investment programs. 1 in 3 have no plan at all other than SSI and Medicare/Medicaid. What's your impotent, neutered, non-elite plan?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @03:44AM (2 children)
Note that "college degree" doesn't always mean something sane.
This counts: gender studies, political science, black studies, latinx studies, sociology, art history, modern dance, flute, ethanomusicology, anthropology...
You're counting people who actually tolerate courses that are just marxism, anti-white racism, anti-male sexism, and more. Lots of them, including an example from the article, end up in retail and food service jobs. These people are not educated. They are merely indoctrinated, despite any "degree" they may have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @04:18AM (1 child)
You're counting people who actually tolerate courses that are just marxism, anti-white racism, anti-male sexism, and more. Lots of them, including an example from the article, end up in retail and food service jobs. These people are not educated. They are merely indoctrinated, despite any "degree" they may have.
So, let me guess, you flunked out because the readings were too difficult? No wonder you have no idea what you are talking about. Loser.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @04:57AM
That "too difficult" isn't clear enough. It could mean "unable to read" or "can not stomach complete bullshit".
In any case, no. The University of Massachusetts goofed. They let me count "History of Western Music" as a history course, so I didn't need to "learn" why America is a pox on the Earth that I should be ashamed of. They let me count a pair of economics classes to satisfy requirements that were more-or-less doubleplusgoodthink related to stuff like hating white people and thinking that there are 57 different genders.
I'm old. I'm sure they've "corrected" the requirements by now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:41PM (9 children)
I had a teacher once tell us that the undergrad is essentially a license to think. Seems fairly reasonable. Vocational training is vocational training. These are two different things to prepare the individual for specific career paths. Yes, those are generally different paths. What exactly is the issue?
(Score: 1, Redundant) by c0lo on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:51PM
And the first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club [xkcd.com].
The issue? Why oh why can't I have a training in philosophy if this would be my vocation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:37PM
That doesn't sound right. The stuff coming out of college students currently suggests to me that they're not really on a track to possessing a license to think, or at least, not one that they've come about honestly. I might be getting a little "old school", but crybaby breakdowns alternating with shouting people out of a room isn't quite the hallmark of thoughtful discourse.
Perhaps they should spend less time establishing who is sanctioned to be doing the thinking, and spend more on teaching them how to do the thinking. After all, a license to drive isn't very useful if one has no concept of how to actually drive a vehicle. Why would a license to think be different?
ac at work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:38PM
People need a license to think? That should be the motto of academic elitism. If you're not allowed to think without paying for a formal education, taking courses that indoctrinate you in the right way to think, and receiving approval from people already licensed to think, are you really free to think for yourself?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:01PM (5 children)
The issue is that a degree is insanely required for consideration for most white-collar jobs and quite a lot of blue-collar jobs nowadays. No sane person goes to college to expand their mind. They do it to make better money after they get out and general ed courses are utterly worthless to that end.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:45PM (4 children)
The focus in life shouldn't just be money, a university degree should increase more than the job skills of the student. It is meant to make people better and more well rounded. It is clear from how you approach life and treat others that you could have benefited from some of the GE classes that are offered. Spiritual development isn't just for church anymore! Of course, like church there is no guarantee that attendees will actually learn and become better people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @07:46PM (3 children)
Is that to which you refer the classes where the self-righteous outrage gets taught? Or is this spirituality learned in the classes where the students focus their cultural bubbles so completely inward that they come out turning into a four year old when faced when attitudes and opinions outside it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)
Yadda yadda sjw cuck MAGA! Speaking of bubbles...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @04:21AM
Ethics class: So is it alright to punch a Nazi in the face?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @11:08PM
I'll address your question seriously even though your approach doesn't merit one. I refer to spirituality in the broadest sense, you could call it self-improvement if you want. Taking only STEM classes and ignoring history, literature, art, music, and philosophy is a good way to create a narrow minded population capable of doing anything to attain an objective. With history and philosophy people learn more what being human is all about, and they have can gain a worldly perspective that few were capable of just 100 years ago.
These wild SJW courses are probably as prevalent as the cross burning conservative, and pretty doubtful that they are requirements anyway. Research your professors and your courses, take what appeals to you. Where is the personal responsibility meme on those counts?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:12PM
Sure, that label is subjective. But real smarts do involve grasping concepts outside your specialty.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:15PM (11 children)
My degree (doctor of medicine) required thousands of hours of "on the job training" yet I constantly hear from academic types that "It's not a REAL doctorate"...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:45PM (3 children)
Medicine is an art, and you'll still be practicing at it until you're worn out and thrown away. The doctor who cut my belly open is 19 years my senior, and he's still practicing. If he ever gets good at it, he can stop practicing.
As for the assholes with the elitest attitudes? Fek 'em. You already know that few of them could keep up with you. None of them had such demanding training, few if any have such demanding jobs. Just fek 'em. And, when they come to your office, you can prank them by sewing their assholes shut!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:09PM (1 child)
Ever bother to look up the word practice in a dictionary? Moron...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:25PM
Fuck off and die, idiot - gp merely posted an old joke, that was probably a tired joke when Hippocrates was learning medicine. The doctor to whom gp was responding undoubtadly recognized the joke, and grimaced at seeing it tossed at him one more time. And, you entirely missed gp's words of encouragement to the doctor in the following paragraph. Illiteracy - it's everywhere!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:32PM
> As for the assholes with the elitest attitudes?
In my experience, that would be surgeons. Something about having the confidence to cut people open and believe that it will make them better also seems to select for assholes. As in, basically every surgeon I've ever met.
One friend recommends surgeons with a reverse correlation -- "He's the worst asshole, but the best heart surgeon in the area." A little research turned up that this particular surgeon lost his license for a year when he was younger, for cursing his nurse in the OR and spraying her with blood!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:53PM
As someone who got a PhD, I'd like to say that I admire your dedication and patience, and I know I could never have gotten a medical degree.
I personally consider an MD to be harder to get and more valuable than a PhD, and I'll do my best to point this out to other PhDs when it comes up.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:56PM (4 children)
An MD isn't equivalent to a PhD because the goals of the two programs and their outputs are different. The former takes a high-capacity brain and turns it into an effective pattern-matching system that can work with an enormous number of inputs and possibilities and complexities (symptoms -> diagnosis -> treatment in context of environment). The latter program takes a medium-to-high capacity brain and turns it into a system to expand the body of knowledge by first learning what is, identifying gaps in the BoK, and either filling in those gaps, or defining or building what's next in the body of knowledge.
MDs spend more time learning than PhDs, but the two are clearly different. PhDs resent the "recent" historical appropriation of the term "Doctor" by MDs because the goals of the two programs are different, and the length of education doesn't make them equivalent.
You should go get a PhD, you clearly have the capacity :-)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 16 2017, @05:27PM (3 children)
It seems to me the primary skill you'd want in an MD is someone with a truly fantastic memory. The more they can memorize, the better they can do in diagnosis. This is why there's work in applying AI to this profession, because computers can memorize stuff so much easier than humans, and can be constantly kept up-to-date on the most recent advances and learnings. Does your doctor know that just last week, some new clinical trial determined X, which could apply directly to his patient today? Probably not.
In a way, MDs are a lot like technicians in other fields; they work hands-on, and each situation is a little different, and they need to remember all kinds of minute details about the systems they're working on (human bodies in this case, rather than a plethora of car models or HVAC systems or electronic manufacturing). But they're not really scientists (there are some doctors who do more actual research, but not your PCP), and they're certainly not engineers because they don't attempt to re-design the system, just to patch it up and solve any problems in its operation. The main difference between MDs and other techs is the sheer complexity of the system, plus the "soft skills" of having to actually talk to and reason with a real human instead of a static, mindless inanimate (when not under power) object.
PhDs, as you said, seem to mainly concentrate on expanding the body of knowledge, and get into fundamental questions of epistemology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:38PM
The best cable tech I ever met was a scruffy contractor guy in a half rusted out truck that fixed in 20 min by relocating the cable and sealing it so water didn't get in, what 3 other cable techs had failed to do rebooting the modem.
As for Phd's the are largely useless, a small minority make real contributions.
Most "discoveries" have been made by those are not even professionally educated, university is a tool of exclusion and class violence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @07:55PM
yeah. we don't need doctors. people just need a very good "app". i'm not joking either.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @10:39PM
Does your doctor know that just last week, some new clinical trial determined X, which could apply directly to his patient today? Probably not.
And it is probably best they don't. Most medical trials are crap, and therefore can't be trusted. When the trial has been replicated half a dozen times, then it might be worth your doctor knowing about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @05:38AM
It's also because many MDs have a serious god complex and are unbearable assholes.