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, 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.