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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:37PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:37PM (#480043)

    The easy counter to this statement is "If you truly want to end the struggle, you need to climb the social/corporate ladder -- to do that you need all the soft-shit so you can not sound like a complete fuck-tard when you open your mouth." The piece of paper itself is really almost worthless, all it does it open a few doors. If you don't exploit that, or say "fuck the man, just give me a job", you're really not going to any better off.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday March 16 2017, @11:18PM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday March 16 2017, @11:18PM (#480096) Homepage

    Well, you gotta keep in mind it's a cash-cow, and I believe that we should have not only stronger vocational programs (such as our high-school ROP which had programs in agriculture, welding, CAD drawing, and landscaping) but a degree track where you learn only what you have to for your major.

    American universities are more businesses than they are institutions of learning. Teaching credentials, advanced degrees in education, that annoying extra degree requirement about diversity added at the last minute (as what happened to me) -- they say it is so that you will be more well-rounded, but in the autodidactic age of the internet, people are more than capable of learning things outside their major, and on their own terms. I learned much more about psychology, politics, and human nature reading classic literature than I did having to write bullshit papers in my non-STEM classes.

    The "piece of paper" is and isn't worthless in the sense that it is the new high-school diploma in industry and every serious corporation (with increasingly few exceptions) requires one for salaried positions. I work with no less than 4 recent engineering grads working as technicians well below their ability -- and not because it's Boston Dynamics, but because there is a glut of STEM grads. As I've pointed out in a previous discussion, you don't hear much ("we have a shortage of qualified workers") from big tech anymore, because they know that we know that line is bullshit. And this is coming from a guy who spent 12 years getting a 4-year degree.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:38AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:38AM (#480165)

    you need all the soft-shit so you can not sound like a complete fuck-tard when you open your mouth

    More Soylentils need to read the comments made by e.g. aristarchus.
    They also need to note how many of the references he makes go over their heads.

    People with a proper, broad-based education tend to climb higher on the ladder.
    When The Suits use metaphors which refer to things which happened centuries ago, it's important that you know what to say in response so that they recognize you as someone who belongs in their rarefied ranks.

    ...and knowing what mistakes have already been made may keep you from repeating those and looking like a fool.
    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --George Santayana

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday March 17 2017, @04:07AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Friday March 17 2017, @04:07AM (#480197) Journal

      Oh noes, you did not just do that, gweg_?

      "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --George Santayana

      Santayana, fair to middling American philosopher. What I like to add to his profound saying is that those who remember the past are condemned to repeat it, too, but at least they will know what the hell is going on! Weimar Republic, my dear Drumpfkins? Oh, and for extra credit, look up "beyond the Pale" and "hoist by your own petard", and never say "begs the question" for "raises the question", and be cognizant of what a "shibboleth" is. You will go far, young IT guy, if only you pursue learning for learning's sake, Ars gratia artis, rather than being a lowly mercenary slave to some corporate master. Better to die in your mind than sleep on your knees.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 17 2017, @01:59PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 17 2017, @01:59PM (#480391) Journal

      More Soylentils need to read the comments made by e.g. aristarchus. They also need to note how many of the references he makes go over their heads.

      No, I would advise them to avoid that bullshit. Among other things, aristarchus has a habit of wasting peoples' time (particularly, my time!) with dishonest, fallacy-laden argument. Just look at his reply to your post. We all need yet another clueless, word-salad rant comparing Trump to Hitler because there aren't enough of those already anywhere you look. And starting with a brief snide remark about Santana just to segue into the Trumphitlerness looks to me to be one of his typical red herrings.

      When The Suits use metaphors which refer to things which happened centuries ago, it's important that you know what to say in response so that they recognize you as someone who belongs in their rarefied ranks.

      Just like aristarchus uses metaphors? Is he a member of your tribe? I guess my opinion here is that if there's something you despise in other people, such as using special knowledge to exclude or marginalize outsiders, then don't engage in it yourself.

      I think aristarchus is a completely fake persona (erm, beyond the basic act of pretending to be a two millennia old philosopher). I still lean towards the interpretation that aristarchus and Ethanol-Fueled are the same person. You never see them in the same room together except of course, when they jointly announce [soylentnews.org] that they're going to take a three month break. Seriously, EF should be an enormous pile of red meat for someone like aristarchus, but I've only managed to find a couple of half-hearted attacks [soylentnews.org] despite some googling on the matter.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2017, @08:57PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 18 2017, @08:57PM (#480916)

        [...]And starting with a brief snide remark about Santana just to segue[...]

        Different person. He's the one with the guitar. I've never heard of the other guy.

        [...]I still lean towards the interpretation that aristarchus and Ethanol-Fueled are the same person.[...]

        Maybe they are. Why does it bother you? Giving names to aspects of his/her personality may well help to control them both prior to, perhaps, sublimation or subsumption into the main.
        You right-wing wankers are all for freedom of speech, aren't you? Who's holding a gun to your head to make you read it? Just don't fucking read it. Go back to your rightard safe space where you can talk shit about foreigners without the grown-ups hearing.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 19 2017, @05:35AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 19 2017, @05:35AM (#481060) Journal

          You right-wing wankers are all for freedom of speech, aren't you? Who's holding a gun to your head to make you read it? Just don't fucking read it.

          I have discovered that the "foe" option allows me to do just that. It can act as a crude killfile, modding people on my foe list, who just so happens to contain aristarchus now, to -1. But the problem here is that I normally like reading OriginalOwner's stuff. It's just very annoying that he chooses to laud a huge dick like aristarchus.