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: 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"