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: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:16PM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:16PM (#480030) Journal

    "I agree with your solution, but disagree that it is a sociological tool. I would call it an artifact, something that has come into being based on societal circumstances."

    OK your not allowed to disagree with me and then agree with me again in the same sentence.

    Allowed by who?

    I agree with you that there must be more to life than work but what's happening is a sociological construction of value and credentialism is attributed value of the person not of skill, it is a method of violence not of merit.

    Sounds like someone's education got wasted! First, you're agreeing with the prior poster and then disagreeing. Not allowed! Second, it's emergent phenomena. People who spent years earning a degree a priori have decided that a degree is valuable. The rest follows without any deliberate construction.

    Finally, "violence" has particular meanings. You're not using them.

    this is part of my point that college education not only does not make you smarter it in many cases makes you dumber since conforming to the desires of the profs is the path to success not critical thinking or knowledge university has become a way of limiting understanding not expanding it.

    I agree yet disagree. I agree that college has a variety of opportunities for making yourself dumber. But I disagree that those ways are the only ways. There's still plenty of opportunity for bettering yourself, should you try.

    It's a bit to late on the mid life crisis front, I had it sometime around 15 and though I regret the existence of most people I do know it is not my fault.

    That's a bit early for the alleged mid life crisis. And the "regret the existence" thing is a typical adolescent fantasy. Some people learn to appreciate other people despite them not being shiny perfect.

    Mid life crises are more "I've lived this long and done what?" Sometimes the knowledge that you're more than halfway through your life encourages people to try to do something with the rest of their lives.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @11:43PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @11:43PM (#480106)

    I was clear.. In the same sentence denial and acceptance.

    none of what you assert is actually happening if you read which you can't apparently

    yes violence has a particular meaning from the wiki and the UN

        "Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation""

    as for your what with my midlife crisis at 15 yep your an idiot

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 17 2017, @01:25AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 17 2017, @01:25AM (#480134) Journal

      I was clear.. In the same sentence denial and acceptance.

      So what? Still not feeling whatever concern you seem to have about it.

      none of what you assert is actually happening if you read which you can't apparently

      Um, so for example:

      Second, it's emergent phenomena. People who spent years earning a degree a priori have decided that a degree is valuable. The rest follows without any deliberate construction.

      Why would people who have spent years earning a degree do so, if they don't think it's valuable? And tribalism is a routine human habit. Forming a tribe around college experiences is little different than forming one around ethnicity or sport team.

      Somehow I doubt you found every bit of what I asserted to be a nonevent.

      yes violence has a particular meaning from the wiki and the UN

      "Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation""

      So we're done with that nonevent. Now that you know what the word means, you won't continue to misuse it, right?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @01:41AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @01:41AM (#480143)

        Second, it's emergent phenomena. People who spent years earning a degree a priori have decided that a degree is valuable. The rest follows without any deliberate construction.

        Why would people who have spent years earning a degree do so, if they don't think it's valuable? And tribalism is a routine human habit. Forming a tribe around college experiences is little different than forming one around ethnicity or sport team.

        good jorb spending a lot of energy tracking me AC from another thead but I doesn't change what I am asserting that we need to move passed tribalism and when we judge people for a task they should be able to have certification in that or related tasks and skills without the assumption that they are competent because credentials that are mostly wrong.

        you need to learn how to read words because language is clearly not a certification you can pass

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 17 2017, @12:52PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 17 2017, @12:52PM (#480368) Journal

          good jorb spending a lot of energy tracking me AC from another thead but I doesn't change what I am asserting that we need to move passed tribalism and when we judge people for a task they should be able to have certification in that or related tasks and skills without the assumption that they are competent because credentials that are mostly wrong.

          Certification is just another credential. While it often is more focused on things actually desired by an employer, it can still go wrong in the same way. As to the alleged tracking, while I think I've seen your style of posting elsewhere (use of loaded sociological terms is a giveaway), I was just replying to stuff in this thread.

          you need to learn how to read words because language is clearly not a certification you can pass

          Why dig the hole deeper? Your use of the term, "violence" was inappropriate. The definition of the word you cited, demonstrated that. When someone biases based on credentials, they aren't using physical force or power. Nor is the harm caused of the source associated with violence (a missed opportunity is not equivalent to physical injury). It's an absurd dilution of the meaning of violence.