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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:19PM (8 children)
"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."
I knew all of these things by the beginning of grade 9 it's no wonder the US is such a mess, people need to get over themselves credentialism is destroying opportunity and creating a caste system with no validity.
Want a meritocracy? make people certify on specific things, word, powerpoint, javascript, lab procedures for making LSD, basic penmanship whatever and make them re-certify every few years, since a BA seems to fail to teach even the minimal knowledge above it's time to just admit that education has totally failed and exists exclusively to create exclusivity not to increase knowledge
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 16 2017, @02:50PM (7 children)
Penmanship? I'm one person who is grateful for the advent of computers. I owned a typewriter from age 20, until computers and printers came along. My "penmanship" sucks donkey dick. There are times when I had a hard time deciphering my own writing. Stupid pens and pencils simply refuse to obey my commands. There are few things that I have ever found that I can't do reasonably well, but penmanship comes first on that list. I believe that I had some influence on a readin' n ritin' teacher who suicided. Thank God and Linus for computers!!
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday March 16 2017, @03:41PM (2 children)
I believe that AC is saying that if an employer wants someone with penmanship skills, they should get someone with a penmanship cert rather than an X year degree.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:04PM (1 child)
yes also I was trying to make a point of certification about whatever skill, notice the "lab procedures for making LSD" if you what to evaluate peoples ability to do any particular job, certification in skills is the way to go, if we want general education and critical thinking skills then a general program is the way to go both have value, but undergrads don't lean the latter so lets stop pretending that that is why people go to university, up here in the great white north you need a BA/Bsc to be a bank teller skills you really should have learned by grade 2 or 3 if you where a really slow kid, credentialism is a huge problem it's used to exclude people that can do jobs because we don't like you or your not our kind it is a weapon of class warfare.
putting a BA, or Bsc or esq. after your name does not make you competent in anything it only signifies that people that approve of you assert without basis and often in their own interest that you are competent.
Knowledge for it's own sake is worthwhile after all at some point we need to figure out the question for the answer of 42, but skills are what we need to determine if someone can do a particular job and assuming that credential == competence which is demonstrably not true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:08PM
also in an off topic way, the +/- is a good compromise between the slash reload/hide and a totally flat comment system good job.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:35PM (3 children)
While I agree it's a waste of time teaching penmanship in the age of computing, if you pick up calligraphy as a hobby and treat it as an art, the penmanship would naturally follow: http://www.zanerian.com/VitoloBookHandoutComplete3.pdf [zanerian.com]
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:46PM
I wasn't saying that penmanship was a waste of time nor was it intended as some sort of mockery, it is simply an easily definable skill that can be tested, calligraphy is a whole other ball of wax and requires skills more similar to painting than writing I could have chosen typing instead but I wanted my examples to be obvious and clear... which apparently they where not.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday March 17 2017, @05:03AM (1 child)
As a calligrapher with over three decades of practice behind me, I respectfully disagree--I have to transcribe anything I have hand-written within a few weeks, or I will have no way of deciphering it once the initial circumstances and associations of my jottings have faded from memory.
I find that calligraphy and handwriting are different arts with different functions: The former is primarily aesthetic, with considerations of text, form, balance, fluidity, weight and clarity all contributing to the overall effect of the product; where the latter is primarily me gettin' shit down on paper--sorta like rendering versus sketchnotes.
I guess If I had practiced my handwriting as assiduously as I did calligraphic forms, I might have been able to write quickly and elegantly as, say, my mother (who initially taught me lettering).
But I didn't--once I learned block capitals, I just stopped trying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @12:45PM
It could be argued your penmanship would have been even worse off were it not for you practicing calligraphy all these years :D