Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday March 16 2017, @12:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the sit-stay-cook dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:11PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @01:11PM (#479753)

    <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>

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Magneto on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:01PM (1 child)

    by Magneto (6410) on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:01PM (#479816)

    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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 16 2017, @08:17PM (#480003) Journal

      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

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:03PM (#479820)

    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

    by quietus (6328) on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:39PM (#479883) Journal

    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.