Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the 2+2=5 dept.

Washington Post's Fareed Zakaria writes:

If Americans are united in any conviction these days, it is that we urgently need to shift the country’s education toward the teaching of specific, technical skills. Every month, it seems, we hear about our children’s bad test scores in math and science — and about new initiatives from companies, universities or foundations to expand STEM courses (science, technology, engineering and math) and deemphasize the humanities. From President Obama on down, public officials have cautioned against pursuing degrees like art history, which are seen as expensive luxuries in today’s world. Republicans want to go several steps further and defund these kinds of majors. “Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists?” asked Florida’s Gov. Rick Scott. “I don’t think so.” America’s last bipartisan cause is this: A liberal education is irrelevant, and technical training is the new path forward. It is the only way, we are told, to ensure that Americans survive in an age defined by technology and shaped by global competition. The stakes could not be higher.

This dismissal of broad-based learning, however, comes from a fundamental misreading of the facts — and puts America on a dangerously narrow path for the future. The United States has led the world in economic dynamism, innovation and entrepreneurship thanks to exactly the kind of teaching we are now told to defenestrate. A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Exposure to a variety of fields produces synergy and cross fertilization. Yes, science and technology are crucial components of this education, but so are English and philosophy. When unveiling a new edition of the iPad, Steve Jobs explained that “it’s in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough — that it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing.”

It's another installment in a running debate, but with reports that 1/3 of student loans in the United States are delinquent, perhaps it's worth revisiting now.

This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:55AM (#164636)

    Study what you like not what you feel obliged to do. You can spend your life regretting a useful but unsatisfying education or you can enjoy your life even if you have a so-so job.

    Research done years ago (back when this obsession with science teaching started in the late '50s and early '60s) showed that only about 10% of the European and North American population was any good at science and maths and the rest of the population struggled with it (studies didn't include Asia, Africa etc so we can't say anything definite about their populations). No amount of emphasis on science and maths in school changed that. It just created a lot of resentment among the non-science majority (and probably contributed to the anti-science feeling in the hippy era that is with us to this day).

    We need non-science teaching and non-science experts. Civilization is based on progress in human knowledge, not on profits for the 1%.

    I studied engineering and did well in it because I was a science and maths nerd. My life would be less interesting if I couldn't enjoy things today from historians, novelists, musicians and other "useless" professions.

    • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:51AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:51AM (#164656)

      You're the crock. In America, if you're educated, you're unemployable. Educated people know too much about things and stuff, and their advanced learnings are dangerous to the idiots in charge. Americans need to be trained to obey authority and do nothing else except obey. Anybody who's enjoying life is obviously not being worked hard enough.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:29AM

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:29AM (#164673) Journal

      about 10% of the European and North American population was any good at science and maths and the rest of the population struggled with it (studies didn't include Asia, Africa etc so we can't say anything definite about their populations)

      I don't have any numbers on that topic as well, only my sample of personal experience with co-workers and discussions with people from several Asian nations about their culture. While that's not enough to claim certainty, it probably is slightly more than anecdotal (since it covers a >1 sample of individuals). From what I heard, e.g. in Indian culture, mainly the parents tell their children what to become. So there are, between the many talented engineers with whom to work I had the pleasure, lots of unhappy and less talented engineers as well who might have been better off becoming artists, medical practitioners or construction workers. Also the learning culture in many institutions seems to be a bit different; more about learning the exact wording than experimenting and experiencing. Richard Feynman describes the learning style from another time and another region from his experience in Brazil [v.cx].

      But many Asian country seem to have one advantage over many of the western civilizations: I have the feeling in wide parts of Germany and probably also US, being motivated and good at learning is seen as kind of a social disadvantage. The best learners are often seen as the nerds, the awkwards, eager beaver. In many Asian countries its seen as a positive attribute to be keen on learning and to be good at school. Kids there seem to be more competitive. I guess this is something we would need to address in out cultures to avoid falling behind.

      Nice movies on this topic are Idiocracy [imdb.com] and 3 Idiots [wikipedia.org].

      --
      Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by DNied on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:51AM

        by DNied (3409) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:51AM (#164685)

        it probably is slightly more than anecdotal (since it covers a >1 sample of individuals).

        Ahem... "Anecdotal" doesn't mean that you have a one-person sample, it means you only have anecdotes to back up your point. Anecdote comes from Greek anékdota, or "that which is unpublished".

        See? Humanities to the rescue!

        • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:18AM

          by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:18AM (#164701) Journal

          "Anecdotal" doesn't mean that you have a one-person sample, it means you only have anecdotes to back up your point

          But anecdotes are usually about single persons. How would you define the difference between anecdote and experience?

          --
          Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:11PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:11PM (#164753)

            Since most experience is anecdotal, it wouldn't make sense to define a difference.

            The difference is between anecdotal evidence and an adequate sample.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:45PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:45PM (#164911)

            An anecdote is a description of a particular within it's context while an experience is the context itself from a viewpoint of the human condition.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:37PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:37PM (#164811) Homepage
          Etymology does not define present-day meaning. Nowadays, all anectodes are ecdoted, if you'll permit me to back-form.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 2) by DNied on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:06PM

            by DNied (3409) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:06PM (#164890)

            Nowadays, all anectodes are ecdoted, if you'll permit me to back-form.

            I know for a fact that quite a few are still unpublished.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:55PM

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:55PM (#165009) Homepage
              Were they labeled as anecdotes, though? If they don't have a label clearly visable on them saying they're anecdotes, they're not real anecdotes.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:43PM (#164909)

          His work isn't anecdotal. It is published. Here's the peer review. [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by lizardloop on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:50AM

        by lizardloop (4716) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:50AM (#164746) Journal

        Another anecdote. I'm watching an anime called "aku no hana" which is set in a small town Japanese school. The most popular girl in class is the highest achiever while the "rebel" girl who does no work is universally disliked and mistrusted. Not sure how indicative of Japanese society at large that is but I found it interesting. When I was at school in the UK I constantly had to play down my academic achievements for fear of becoming a social outcast.

    • (Score: 0, Redundant) by wisnoskij on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:31PM

      by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:31PM (#164775)

      Exactly right. Also, someone needs to mow my lawn, and cook my McBurger. Who would do that if there were no Arts students?

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by gishzida on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:02AM

    by gishzida (2870) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:02AM (#164640) Journal

    How may of that "1/3 of all loans" figure is for folks that took some / all / the"liberal arts" as their major?

    In some regards the Japanese educational system's idea that higher education is not for everyone seems to be a good one. Only the best fitted to higher education should probably go on.... I am aware of a number of folks who have "advanced degrees" (MBAs anyone?) who hold nothing more than "customer phone support" jobs. Isn't that a bit of a waste of money and effort? What about all those subjects where there is only a very small market? Shouldn't there be some kind of proof of aptitude?

    OTOH, if I had a say in making decisions in terms of "what should be taught?", the first and main one I would select would be "Critical Thinking" and all of the subjects that relate to that specific subject. The focus of STEM at the expense of all other areas of learning seems to be rather narrow.... especially since most tech businesses are replacing their local workers with outsourced labor or Visa temp workers.

    Of course "Political Science" and "Law" are considered "liberal arts". Certainly these politicians could not be saying that they will de-emphasize the genteel art of "eating hot dogs, kissing babies, and lying through your teeth while taking all the money you can get away with" as every good politician does... Why that would be un-American! After all isn't that what the Citizens United verdict was all about? The one with the most money gets the most representation. Maybe this is an attempt to limit the competition in the "political job market".

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:09AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:09AM (#164643) Journal

      In some regards the Japanese educational system's idea that higher education is not for everyone seems to be a good one. Only the best fitted to higher education should probably go on.... I am aware of a number of folks who have "advanced degrees" (MBAs anyone?) who hold nothing more than "customer phone support" jobs. Isn't that a bit of a waste of money and effort?

      Putting a monetary value on education, are you?
      IMHO, that's pretty much the same "modelling failure" as putting a monetary value on a human life. Yeah, it can be done, but does it mean anything other than doing something similar with using a meter to measure energy?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1) by gishzida on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:28AM

        by gishzida (2870) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:28AM (#164649) Journal

        I'm not putting a monetary value on education... I'm putting a monetary valuation on the failure to use that education. The real question is who might be to blame for that failure to use the trained talent? Is it "society's failure" or is it the student's lack of critical thinking?

        The economic notion of "Scarcity" applies to the job market. If you have 10,000 journalism grads nationwide but there are only 1000 actual jobs isn't that a waste of resources (both social and personal)? Or consider the number of "MBA" programs as alleged as being a "leg up" in the job market when a trained machinist or tool maker might make more money.

        A number of years ago I worked for a rocket engine factory [Rocketdyne]. One of the "manufacturing engineers" I knew had received a degree in History and for a few years was a high school teacher but found he could not make enough money to take care of his family so he became a machinist then upgraded his skills to become an manufacturing engineer. Another person I met was an RTD/Metro bus driver who had a Master's Degree in Education that found that driving a bus was less stressful and paid a lot better than teaching.

        The idea that "every one should have the opportunity to be what ever they want" has its limits.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:49AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:49AM (#164655) Journal

          The economic notion of "Scarcity" applies to the job market. If you have 10,000 journalism grads nationwide but there are only 1000 actual jobs isn't that a waste of resources (both social and personal)? Or consider the number of "MBA" programs as alleged as being a "leg up" in the job market when a trained machinist or tool maker might make more money.

          It is so only if you see education from the strictly utilitarian perspective, as a "mean" for the "end" of job market participation.
          But it's not the only perspective.

          My case: I graduated physics. What I got from there (among others) is an understanding of modelling the reality with its power and (more some) limits. This is what I use now in my profession (software related).
          Does it mean that all the maths and special branches of physics are to be discarded as irrelevant and put their "monetary" value in the "loss by wastage"? Methinks not: I'd do it again (and I'd pay more attention to them).

          My point? There's more in this life than the pure "economy of value" model - this model is too reductionist for my taste (a too rough approximation of the reality).
          Granted, one needs pass over the survival level, but I found that's not that hard to do it (yes, critical thinking helps. Too bad in today's education this aspect is beaten out of the students, compliance being the preferred behaviour)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:06PM

            by Snotnose (1623) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @03:06PM (#164831)

            I'd been a programmer (8086 assembly and C) for about 4 years when I realized that, if I wanted to get another job, I'd need a degree. So off to college I went. Didn't want to study CS as I already knew it (at the time Pascal was the language du jour), I was good at math, so I got a BS in applied math. Now I never use it, except when I go off on a tangent (sorry).

            The most useful class I took was graph theory. It's amazing how often, after thinking about a problem for a while, you realize it can be solved best by something learned in graph theory.

            --
            Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:10AM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:10AM (#164681) Journal

        I'd love to agree with you. It would 'feel' right. But I can't. Health- and life insurances always have to put a price-tag to human life, because resources are limited and have to be split up somehow. There is *always* an option to spend more money to prolong life a bit more. Additional medical checks, more treatments, etc. But we have other needs, too. So we need to spend some of our resources on e.g. education, but also a bit on entertainment, street repairs and so on.
        Monetary value is just one way to make the resources comparable to better decide how much to invest on which topic.

        You can reject the idea of putting a price tag to human life, to education and so on. But someone has to, and someone will. And the more people stick to the idea that human life is invaluable, the less people will make this decision, and the more they will hide their way of reasoning. I think it's better to openly say "yes, saving human lives costs money and we can't save everyone. Lets discuss, how much we invest and for which cases." The same goes for education, at least as far as teaching and schools are concerned.

        But maybe we can find a common denominator in open access policies: Everybody should have free access to knowledge. Everybody should be given the opportunity to learn at home or in self-organized courses with others. Scientific papers and entry-level science books should available at reproduction cost (which is free for ebooks) for everybody. (For entertainment media I also advocate open access, but it's a slightly different topic for me. Access to knowledge should be a human right. Access to entertainment is a luxury.)

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:34AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:34AM (#164706) Journal

          Health- and life insurances always have to put a price-tag to human life, because resources are limited and have to be split up somehow....
          ...
          You can reject the idea of putting a price tag to human life, to education and so on. But someone has to, and someone will.

          And because someone does put a price-tag to human life (maybe legitimately from their narrow point of view) does it mean that all the society must adopt the same reductionist PoV?

          I think it's better to openly say "yes, saving human lives costs money and we can't save everyone. Lets discuss, how much we invest and for which cases." The same goes for education, at least as far as teaching and schools are concerned.

          Oh, gosh. It took only 50-something years from:

          We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people.
          ...
          We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills

          to "we can't save everyone.".
          America is dying quickly; the rest of the world can only wish there won't be convulsions in the process.

          Monetary value is just one way to make the resources comparable to better decide how much to invest on which topic.

          Ah, yes... metrics and the illusion of control by quantification. Have you noticed that choosing the wrong metric is usually worse than not having any metric at all?
          E.g. how do you quantify the drop of biodiversity in money?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:53AM

            by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:53AM (#164713) Journal

            Oh, gosh. It took only 50-something years from:

            I didn't make this transition, and I'm not even American at all :-) And if you asked me, I'm not sure I'd have been in favor of the mission. Probably, but not for some propagandist heroism, but for scientific reasons. And I wouldn't have agreed at any cost, just at reasonable cost.

            Your post sounds very humanitarian, which is a good thing, but doesn't answer the basic question: How would you allocate different resources for different purposes? If life is invaluable, do you want to prohibit alcohol, fast food, cars etc.? Each of them reduces life expectancy, I'd prefer to balance a bit, enjoy my life within a reasonable life-expectancy.

            Reg. education: Do you teach? How many classes? I you have a free evening left, why is that, when teaching is entirely invaluable? How about a teacher having stress-related health problems, should he prioritize teaching or his live? And how about pharma industry paying salary? Should they pay their workers or enforce slave-labor in order to be able to give their medicine away cheaper? There is always a kind of prioritization and therefore a need to compare the values of results of different resource-usages.

            I do agree that humanity should strive for education and wisdom but also freedom. There are ways to pursue this goal without sacrificing too many others. But for that we need to think analytically about current situation and limitations. Open access is one way to go. Reducing military expenses in favor of space exploration and other sciences would be another one. But this only works if we think of our values in relative terms, not in absolutes. We need to think about efficiency, about achieving more with the resources we have.

            --
            Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @10:41AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @10:41AM (#164720) Journal

              How would you allocate different resources for different purposes?

              How do I do it now, in regards with my resource allocation and prioritization of my purposes: (feeling of guts, guestimations) maximize the number of possible outcomes of my current choices in the future: sometimes it doesn't even matter that the number of "bad" outcomes increase as well. Rationale: if I'm not running into dead-ends**, I'll choose the continuation later, when I get to that bridge.
              Thanks God I don't need to allocate resources and prioritize for others.

              ** success may be a dead-end in itself: end of journey, how's this fun?

              If life is invaluable, do you want to prohibit alcohol, fast food, cars etc.? Each of them reduces life expectancy, I'd prefer to balance a bit, enjoy my life within a reasonable life-expectancy.

              What did make you think my refusal to put a monetary value to life means I consider life as invaluable? (I only said valuing a life in money seems like a silly thing to me).

              But this only works if we think of our values in relative terms, not in absolutes. We need to think about efficiency, about achieving more with the resources we have.

              Achieving more in what sense (what's you metric of assessing if we achieved more)? In the monetary sense of it?
              You sure you haven't already fallen into the trap of "tell me how you measure me and I'll tell you how I'll behave" (aka "operand conditioning")?
              You speak about "balance between the life-expectancy and enjoying life": how do you measure "enjoying life" in monetary terms?

              Do you teach? How many classes?

              No. I tried, got a sense of inadequacy of my efforts, decided to better not do it than ruin the potential of the students.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:19AM

                by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:19AM (#164732) Journal

                What did make you think my refusal to put a monetary value to life means I consider life as invaluable? (I only said valuing a life in money seems like a silly thing to me).

                That sounds more down-to-earth to me.

                Achieving more in what sense?

                Maximum joy for maximum amount of life forms, as an integral over time until end of times ;-) And no, I couldn't directly and in a general way convert joy to money or even measure the joy of other life forms. I could maybe name some resources (e.g. sufficient food) that I suspect might increase my happiness. I'm in the lucky position to enjoy my job to a certain extent because it's a permanent challenge, permanently forcing me to improve my capabilities and to learn. But I'd probably work less if I didn't have some other wishes too.

                You sure you haven't already fallen into the trap of "tell me how you measure me and I'll tell you how I'll behave" (aka "operand conditioning")?

                Partially, maybe. I'm convinced that everyone likes to be appreciated. But I wouldn't go out of my ways to please someone. I don't care about fashion, mas long as I'm reasonably warm and clean. I don't care much about political correctness (although I don't find pleasure in offending people, just think staying straight to my points is more important.) But then again I know that honesty is appreciated by many, so maybe I'm just honest to be accepted? And I know that smelliness drives others away, maybe that's driving me to stay clean? Who knows?

                --
                Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:53PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:53PM (#164917)

                  To both of you: it is quite fun to see technical people slowly rediscovering value theory. In all seriousness, look it up and this conversation would be much more enlightened and thus interesting.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:47PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:47PM (#164761) Journal

        Putting a monetary value on education, are you?

        I think you should. If college doesn't have a value to you that you are willing to pay for, then that is a solid economic indication that it doesn't have value. And if you're paying the kinds of money that could be used to buy a house instead, you probably should be looking at the economic/financial costs and benefits of a college education in addition to whatever touchie-feelie criteria you're currently using.

        Further, to be very blunt here, I think a liberal education is vastly overrated, though that just might be my perception of the terrible job many current colleges do of it.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:54PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:54PM (#164959) Journal

          If college doesn't have a value to you that you are willing to pay for, then that is a solid economic indication that it doesn't have value.

          Two points: economic indicators are never solid, and usually are part of a pump-and-dump scheme.
          Second. Economics does not, and can not, deal with value. The term you are looking for is "price". Price and value do not often correlate.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:48PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:48PM (#164762) Journal

        IMHO, that's pretty much the same "modelling failure" as putting a monetary value on a human life. Yeah, it can be done, but does it mean anything other than doing something similar with using a meter to measure energy?

        As a second aside, we routinely put value on human life. For example, it's roughly five to ten million dollars in the US.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:30AM (#164651)

      Not that it is a reflection on anyone in particular but it never ceases to amaze me that Logic and Critical Thought are the sorts of classes that make up the core of a degree in Philosophy, a field that is perennially spurned by so many in STEM. And I do not believe that it was a coincidence that for centuries every educated person was expected to be well versed in Philosophy.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:54AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:54AM (#164665) Journal

        Not just for all, mandatory for all. I am a philosopher, and let me tell you, I am royally pissed! STEM? These people do not comprehend language, let alone mathematics! It is proved that training for slaves (STEM) is not at all similar to the curriculum (OK, since we are so far removed from antiquity, please indulge some etymology!) Curriculum is the running around, of your life, and thus a history of your studies. The prescribed curriculum is thus of great importance, since it is the judgement of you elders about what you should study. Of course STEM is not from your elders, it is from your masters.

        Clear Break: Dead Stop: Pay Fucking Attention here: You masters have an interest in training you to be more productive. Fear them, sabotage them at every opportunity. Real education (as opposed to training) is the Liberal Arts. OK, all you Indiana Republicans are getting you panties all in bunch, you know why? Because you are opposed to liberal arts education! This goes back to us Greeks of the Hellenistic period, and I would hate for our gift to humanity to be wasted! Liberal Arts are the Arts of Free People. These include, logic, aesthetics, ethics, and bullshit-detection. No one can be free without the ability to think for their self, which means that everyone who calls themselves a 'dittohead' is an idiot. Any one who thinks the problem with education in America has anything to do with teachers, or teachers unions, or anything other than a bunch of Koch suckers, could not get themselves a job in any discipline that requires a reality awareness system. Administrators: the absolute negation of critical thought. In fact, possibily the negation of all thought! We have discovered the educational equivalent of a intellectual black hole!!!!

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:55AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:55AM (#164696) Journal

          Real education (as opposed to training) is the Liberal Arts.

          Hmmm... not necessarily. I got the basics of epistemology only by looking at the progress of physics over ages.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:07AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:07AM (#164697) Journal

          We have discovered the educational equivalent of a intellectual black hole!!!!

          What's even worse, this discovery is the 3/4 century old [wikipedia.org]: it's like cognitivism [wikipedia.org], constructivism [wikipedia.org] and Piaget/Chomsky/Papert never existed.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:28AM

          by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @09:28AM (#164705) Homepage Journal

          Oof... Somebody hit a nerve, but your post really isn't very comprehensible or well argued.

          STEM people "do not comprehend language, let alone mathematics"? Um...lots of STEM people I know (including myself) specifically took optional courses in philosophy and other liberal arts fields. The reverse is rarely true - how many of your fellow philosophy majors took an extra science course to round out their educations? And to say that we do not comprehend mathematics - that's just bizarre.

          Our "masters have an interest in training [us] to be more productive". Huh? First, who are the masters supposed to be? Second, what's wrong with productivity? Personal productivity, is a fundamental cornerstone of personal happiness. Why would I want to sabotage the source of my personal happiness, i.e., the knowledge that I - through my STEM skills - make a net positive contribution to society?

          As for the rest of your rant, well, let's just say that I question that your personal gift to society ("our gift" "us [sic] Greeks") is on the same level as that of the Hellenistic Greeks.

          --
          Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 5, Interesting) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 31 2015, @10:17AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @10:17AM (#164716) Journal

            Somebody hit a nerve, but your post really isn't very comprehensible or well argued.

            Granted, on the nerve part, but the reason you do not comprehend or understand the argument is entirely to the point
            Yes, perchance, Liberal Arts majors do not wast time in the sciences, why is that? Kind of like "Physics for Jocks"?
            But then:

            to say that we do not comprehend mathematics - that's just bizarre.

            To a fellow academic, unless you truly only are STEM (omg, I totally blanked on what to call a STEM person! Not a major, not a discipline, not really a field of endeavor!) thing, then you should realize that the STEM appropriation of mathematics is purely utilitarian, only concerned with math as a practical tool. But you and I, or at least you, know that mathematics is in itself a beautiful and self-sufficient system of thought, far beyond the merchantile applications of STEM!

            Second, what's wrong with productivity?

            Oh, you Whore of very little knowledge? Productivity is the metric that slave owners use to judge the price of their slaves! What's in your wallet? Real S (first part of STEM)cientists pursue knowledge for its own sake, not for the sake of some merchants bribe! Just because you are a well paid prostitute does not mean you will have an enduring influence on posterity! Trust me, I know!

            Ah, you slight the Hellenes! You should be careful about such things, we have produces much worthless knowledge that is invaluable. And we live on in the spirit of pure scientific research and free software.

            • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:28AM

              by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:28AM (#164736) Journal

              Just because you are a well paid prostitute does not mean you will have an enduring influence on posterity!
              So true.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:15PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:15PM (#164934)

                Unfortunately no one is likely to have a meaningful influence on posterity. When contemplating writing and publishing yet more papers (focusing primarily on ethics) I came across a statistic: over ten thousand papers are written in the field of ethics every year. I might read four good ones. The average person does not even know ethics papers exist with their own journals. There could be a brilliant paper solving immense age-old problems hidden in there somewhere written by the most intelligent person of our generation and hardly a couple hundred people will read it. Of those how many will understand? Of those that understand how many will believe, as changing a belief is far harder than communicating a thought? Of those that believe how many will put it into practice?

                No, spending hundreds of hours on research and novel, robust thought to have a chance at making a difference to a handful of very educated people whom already have excellent lives is a very difficult thing to overcome. Far better to just donate that time in more banal material changes upon the world. Those actions are more certain to have an impact.

                Still, it is very difficult to give up knowing that there is a very slim but not nonexistent chance that I could help in enlightening humanity towards the solutions of problems we all face daily even if it meant giving up all well-being within my short life.

              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:31PM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:31PM (#164945) Journal

                Just because you are a well paid prostitute does not mean you will have an enduring influence on posterity!

                On the other hand, it also doesn't mean you won't! Just think of Emperor Justinian's wife, whats-her-name!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:10PM (#164789)

            how many of your fellow philosophy majors took an extra science course to round out their educations?

            Right on the head. I went to a liberal arts college who prides themselves on their several hundred year commitment to providing one a well-rounded education. I found it almost universally true that those in the "soft" majors not only did the bare minimum regarding completing their science and physical education requirements, they wore their disdain for these topics as badges of honor, much like our philosophical friend here with the big chip on his shoulder. In fact, the college even had a special scholar program designed to permit one to build their own degree by giving them true flexibility in maximizing their liberal arts experience. Each semester they were supposed to propose their schedule to their peers in this program to be accepted as sort of a peer review. It basically ended up being a program our philosophical friend would have loved; an excuse for a group of like-minded, narrow-minded humanities majors to completely avoid science, math, and physical education (as a friend of mine in the program basically admitted). The college had to "restructure" the program around the time I graduated (I hope they scrapped it).

            Of course, this intellectual elitism isn't relegated to just the humanities majors, though I would argue they constitute the vast majority population. Famously, you also have someone like GH Hardy [ualberta.ca] who prided himself on the fact that his research in number theory had no practical outcome and that it was pursuing knowledge in its purest form (the delicious irony to his conceit is that number theory became the foundation for cryptology and cipher research). I tend to look at someone like Hardy not so much as a STEM type of person, but more like our conceited philosophy major who happened to be adept at math.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:00PM (#164921)

            Personal productivity, is a fundamental cornerstone of personal happiness.

            Arbeit macht frei

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:23PM (#164981)

          Real Liberal Arts also includes the sciences, mathematics, and physical education. Almost all liberal arts majors seem to forget this.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:58AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:58AM (#164658) Journal

      In some regards the Japanese educational system's idea that higher education is not for everyone seems to be a good one. Only the best fitted to higher education should probably go on....

      On the other extreme: Germany has free higher education [theconversation.com], even for foreign students. All you need is to maintain yourself alive in Germany, which doesn't seem to be as hard as it was 60 years ago [wikipedia.org].

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:58AM (#164666)

        You're not so good at Arithmetic.
        The Allied bombing of Germany was 70 years ago.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:51AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:51AM (#164695) Journal
          (insomnia impaired) thanks for the correction.
          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:36PM (#165034)

          And completely off topic. I mean, WTF with the bombing comment?

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:03AM

        by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:03AM (#164680) Journal

        Removing/ limiting technical and trades courses and opening more universities (with several starting as just amalgamated technical colleges), and "forcing" people to senior high school (year 12), then to get a degree to get into government jobs, then giving graduates starting jobs at Grade 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Public_Service [wikipedia.org] meant that the "youth unemployment rate" dropped dramatically.
        The government sold this at the time as an improvement, as they wanted a much bigger percentage of the Australian population to have a tertiary qualification..
        But the unemployment figures were important...

        So now basic admin positions require a degree.
        And no one knows how to make a submarine.. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/25/us-australia-submarines-idUSKBN0ML05I20150325 [reuters.com]

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:21AM

          by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:21AM (#164684) Journal

          Removing/ limiting technical and trades courses and opening more universities [...] meant that the "youth unemployment rate" dropped dramatically.

          I never saw it in the context that extending the time of education directly decreases the unemployment rate, even though it's really obvious once thinking about it.

          --
          Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:37AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:37AM (#164741) Journal

      In some regards the Japanese educational system's idea that higher education is not for everyone seems to be a good one.

      One big problem with HE in the UK comes from the idea that advanced vocational courses are inferior to advanced academic courses. We used to have a load of polytechnics that provided first-rate vocational courses. They were all encouraged to become universities and now mostly offer third-rate academic courses. The government reached its target of getting n% of people into university, but gave them a worse education as the result. A number of these courses were very highly regarded in industry, to the extent that completing one basically guaranteed you a well-paid job. My memory is slightly foggy, but I think it was Bristol Poly that offered an aerospace engineering course that had people walking into the likes or Rolls Royce straight after graduation and getting large salaries. When they became a university, they had to bump up the theory content at the expense of of the practical work. They then taught the theory so badly that it became just another third-rate engineering degree. But now we have more people with degrees...

      Universities are not a good place for vocational training. A university degree is not intrinsically better than a vocational qualification. Some people are better suited to one or the other and our society needs people with both.

      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:21PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:21PM (#164757)

        A university degree is not intrinsically better than a vocational qualification.

        Those in charge disagree, and whichever results in more long term student loan debt is better for them. Then the quisling types who are always class traitors go along with the idea.

        So naturally we need all waitresses to have liberal arts uni degrees because the employee being in debt $100K is vastly superior from their point of view to being in debt $10K or even worse, none at all.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:27PM (#164902)

      >>How may of that "1/3 of all loans" figure is for folks that took some / all / the"liberal arts" as their major?

      About 30 years ago, a study on defaults on student loans in the US found that the majority* of those were from people in the highest income brackets - doctors, lawyers etc. Their sense of entitlement and objection to giving money to government (most of the loans investigated were gov loans) meant they they felt only poor stiffs pay back loans. Some changes were made to loan programs but I have no idea what impact it had.

      *Actually, I don't remember if it was majority in number of loans or in dollar value of the loans.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:03AM (#164641)

    This focus on skills, degrees, and jobs is harming *real* education. Instead of people going to trade schools where they belong, they think of colleges and universities as half-assed trade schools they can go to to hopefully get a good job, instead of thinking of them first and foremost as one means of getting a well-rounded education that allows you to understand the universe around you. These people really don't belong in colleges and universities, but many of these places will gladly sacrifice real education so they can get more money.

    "Everybody's gotta go to college!" is a lie, and it is harmful.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by morgauxo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:30AM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:30AM (#164650)

      I don't disagree. Higher education should be about learning, not about money. But.. the problem is that with the price of a college education one pretty much needs to look at it as a means to a job. A high paying job is necessary to pay of the student loans afterwards!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:59AM (#164659)

        Rampant privatization isn't helping with that, and neither is the 'everybody has to go to college' nonsense.

        • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:00PM

          by morgauxo (2082) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:00PM (#164964)

          So... By the way you are responding without disagreeing I take it that you are agreeing that College should be more for the value of learning rather than a tool to get a job?

          But.. you don't think everyone should have that learning?

          I get the idea that not everyone needs to go to college when college is only about preparing for the workforce. There are certainly many jobs that do need done which simply aren't that complicated.

          But.. when you decouple higher education from workforce preparation.. when it's about self-improvement AND you say not everyone needs it... So I guess some people just aren't important enough?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:06PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:06PM (#165021)

            So I guess some people just aren't important enough?

            The people who look at it first and foremost as a means of getting a good job and more money are poisonous to the environment and education in general. Unless they fix their attitudes, they should not go. Trade schools are more appropriate for them.

            'Everybody has to go to college' is telling people to go to college because it will supposedly increase their chances of getting a good job, and that sends the wrong message.

            • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday April 02 2015, @01:27PM

              by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday April 02 2015, @01:27PM (#165817)

              I think understanding technology helps a person understand and apreciate the technology in their own lives. We all live in a world that is increasingly dominated by technology.

              I think understanding sociology helps one understand the people that make up the world they live in.

              Understanding history helps one understand how the world got to be the way it is, to recognize the patterns in what is happening now and to predict what is to come.

              Understanding math.. well.. that is helpful in understanding pretty much everything.

              I could go on with this.

              Now.. tell me. Why do some people not need a higher education?

              For extra credit... most Slashdotters are probably coming from a country with some level of democracy. Work into your answer what happens when people get to vote.

              • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday April 02 2015, @01:33PM

                by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday April 02 2015, @01:33PM (#165818)

                Woops.. Ouch. I'm gonna get it on that one. I meant most Soylent readers.

                That's what I get for putting both sites in a combined RSS feed.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:33PM (#164776)

      If there was a trade-school for being a research scientist, then I would have went to one. I did not want a well-rounded education but it was the only option.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @08:02PM (#165016)

        Then maybe you went into the wrong profession.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:04AM

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @04:04AM (#164642)

    Seriously. Dynamic experimentation is the means by which every functional human being learned how the world works.

    See that kid constantly dropping his napkin and silverware on the floor? She's not doing it to piss off her parents, those are empirical experiments in gravitation. Kids just try things, and then they figure out how the world works. The innocence/curiosity of childhood is science.

    It's entirely possible to foster this in the educational system by encouraging inquisitiveness, discernment, problem solving, and critical thinking. We don't. Instead, we do all of the worst things possible to drive it out our children. Rote learning without context or application! Binge/purge learning for the tests! Can't leave any kids behind, so teach to the lower half of the bell curve while our best are starved for attention and bored out of their minds! Can't admit there is a lower half of the bell curve, because everyone's special snowflake is above average!

    The only thing which works is a low teacher:student ratio with personalized problem-based instruction. We also must start allowing each student to excel at their own pace. Grouping content by age is hilariously bad practice.

    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:51PM

      by darkfeline (1030) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:51PM (#164954) Homepage

      >See that kid constantly dropping his napkin and silverware on the floor? She's not doing it to piss off her parents, those are empirical experiments in gravitation.

      When I did this as a kid, I was conducting empirical experiments to see how my parents would react and how far I could go before a spanking or a time-out.

      Just saying.

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by albert on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:03AM

    by albert (276) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @05:03AM (#164660)

    You're supposed to master English before you get to high school. If you are dim but not a quitter, perhaps you might benefit from English in high school. English in college??? No. Just no.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:59AM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:59AM (#164749)

      A cousin of remedial college algebra.

      Linear algebra, great. Abstract algebra, awesome. Remedial "what is a polynomial?" algebra is a why are you at uni or how did you get in?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:21PM (#164940)

        How frequently does anyone need to know that? I am in STEM and the definition of polynomial never came up again after learning it in basic algebra. And even if someone can't answer that question, that does not mean much as many people who can apply higher level math concepts can not tell you what they were called.

        It is like assuming someone does not know how how to email or even deserve to own a computer based on the question "What is SMTP?"

  • (Score: 1) by pgc on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:04AM

    by pgc (1600) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @06:04AM (#164667)

    Americans are very often quite terrible at interpreting statistics ....

    "your changes of dying would increase with 50%, don't do it ! (from 0.001% to 0.0015%) ...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @10:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @10:27PM (#165101)

      Yeah. It's an American thing.

      Douche.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @07:18AM (#164683)

    A police state only needs technicians.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:13AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:13AM (#164730) Journal

      A police state needs technicians only.

      FTFY. Difference: your form implies that, would technicians be missing, the state may settle for an educated citizen.
      Well, it's not so: an oppressive state is threatened by educated citizens - see the case of intelligentsia [wikipedia.org]

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:31AM

    by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @11:31AM (#164739)

    Okay, we know liberal arts degrees don't lead to jobs. STEM degrees don't lead to jobs. Dead-end jobs are being automated as fast as possible. My question over the past several years is what jobs will we have in the near future? What should we prepare young people to do? Where is the growth going to be in the job market? Where will new jobs come from that replace the jobs we're losing to business process workflow automation and offshoring? I've been looking, and the only growth sector I can find is the medical industry. Is there any other sector of the economy creating new jobs? I keep looking. All I can find is the medical industry. We can't all be CNAs and PAs. We can't all sell extended warranties to each other. So what, exactly, are people going to be doing in the future? The administrative and office people whose jobs have been eliminated by workflow automation fell down into the Wal-Mart door greeter/stocker jobs, but we can't all check receipts at Wal-Mart. Entire career fields are disappearing because of automation. And not everyone is going to be a STEM expert. Some people have a ceiling in life that basically is a dead-end job. When those jobs are automated, then what?

    I've asked myself these questions since 2008 and have not gotten any good answers. I also don't see much debate about them. The education industry wants subsidies. They'll crank out cohort after cohort of unemployable people as long as they get their money up front. They don't care. They have nothing to add to the debate.

    --
    (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:07PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:07PM (#164751)

      In a healthy economy where everyone is employed its hard to outsource an electrician or plumber or HVAC dude. My neighbor across the street used to be an excellent HVAC dude.

      The problem is once all the outsourcable jobs are outsourced, there's nobody left to pay electricians, plumbers, or HVAC dudes, so he's unemployed.

      I have a cousin who makes twice what I do as a large diesel maint mechanic (like hospital generators) although the on-call hours and working conditions are horrendous (thus twice my takehome pay, for putting up with maybe 100x the physical BS I have to put up with) Its a strange job because you spend all your time getting certified on fuel injection governor oscillation suppression and troubleshooting sensors or whatever, but then spend almost your time changing filters and repairing degraded wiring. I suppose its similar to going to school for years and taking automata theory and compiler design, then getting out in the world and grinding out boring CRUD apps or even worse sitting on the help desk.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:13PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:13PM (#164754)

        Micro/Macro

        when the .gov (or merged .com) want to bamboozle and baffle with BS, a new form of sophistry you won't see in wikipedia as one of the traditional types is to confuse micro vs macro, especially with anything economic related.

        Every idiot out there knows that on a micro level if you get a STEM degree or become a programmer you'll be better off than sticking with factory work or whatever. So when the leadership wants to spew out a line of BS, they'll propose the micro solution as the ideal macro solution. Which is fairly idiotic.

        The only result of overproducing CS grads would be imploding CS grad salaries and transferring the pool of unemployed art history major grads to the column on the table of unemployed CS grads. There would be a lot of money made in the educational industry and especially the financial industry, look at those huge new tuition loans... But its not like unemployment would drop or the standard of living would go up or the economy (other than .edu and banks) would improve.

        If you produce twice as many education majors as there are open jobs (which is about correct in my area) then half the ed majors are going to be un or under employed. I guess you could argue that ed majors make superior bartenders, but four years of study would make even more superior bartenders out of actual bartenders...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:33PM (#164758)

      What should we prepare young people to do?

      We should prepare them to be flexible, to take opportunities, and to think for themselves.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by SunTzuWarmaster on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:52PM

      by SunTzuWarmaster (3971) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @12:52PM (#164764)

      My question over the past several years is what jobs will we have in the near future? What should we prepare young people to do? Where is the growth going to be in the job market? Where will new jobs come from that replace the jobs we're losing to business process workflow automation and offshoring?

      Note: I have a PhD in Artificial Intelligence, work in the education field, and am putting my money where my mouth is.

      Here is my answer:
      1 - First, as a direct answer: we both believe that most of the jobs of the future will be automated. As usual, there is a great future for those who automate. Median pay for computer scientists is nearly $50/hour (6 figures), and it is a growth field (source: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm), [bls.gov] which indicates that salaries may rise. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Failing computerized automation, supporting the value chain should be of general benefit. Examples include sensors for computerized detection, mechanical devices for supporting automated construction, signal processing for processing sensor signals, AI for computerized decision making, etc.

      2 - What specific skills will be of benefit in the future? There is always benefit in technical flexibility. Critical thinking, creative problem solving, troubleshooting techniques, etc. are always of benefit to any career path. The person who discovers a better way to do things always has an advantage over the person who doesn't. An engineering degree has value because it teaches the general principles of how to build things and how to fix things, and will be valuable as long as there are things left to build and fix.

      3 - Vision/Leadership/Management. The joke is that "Diplomacy" is the most powerful skill for a D&D character, and that it is written next to skills like "jumping really high". There has never been a time in history where the ability to attract and lead people has been worthless, and I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. People like The Oatmeal writer can raise the funds to build a Tesla museum based on personality and persuasiveness. It is a great joke of humanity that humans work best in groups, but lack direction.

      4 - Attention gathering. The world of the future has a wealth of information and a dearth of attention. The ability to gather attention and direct it is powerful, and has been increasing in value as the ability to reach audiences has increased. How many YouTube professionals are there now? Podcasters? I expect this number to increase, but its a winner-take-most system.

      5 - Business starting. In the world of the future, it is becoming increasingly easy to start a business. Websites are set up mostly by computers, accounting is done via computers, banking is done via computers, checkout/processing is done mostly by computers, and most businesses sell computer capabilities to businesses which need computer capabilities. It is much, much, easier. Things like Dirty Jobs rely mostly on finding a market niche (bloodworm digging), automating as much of the business as possible, focusing on customers, and performing the job (http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=240780579). It is easier than most people think to start the business, but it needs customers.

      6 - Creativity. Let's be honest, this one is a crap-shoot, and I don't know how to learn it. However, especially creative people (artists, musicians, designers, writers, comedians, etc.) have a tendency to do well in most market conditions. Mankind craves entertainment, this isn't going to change anytime soon, most entertainment is based upon novelty, and creativity is critical to creating the novelty.

      7 - Ability to work in groups, at a distance, over the internet. See point 3, and all of human communication history.

      I've tried to craft the above list such that it affects most/all industries. There are "new" jobs coming about which rely on these skills (medical education podcaster, robotic surgery designer, special interest politician, etc.). Note that you don't have to be "wicked smart" to have most/all of these skills. Running a business of 3 HVAC technicians is work, makes 6+ figures, and relies upon the above skills (starting it, automating it, recruiting people to work for you, managing them, and troubleshooting HVACs). Teach your kids these skills, point them at any field, and they'll do just fine.

  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by wisnoskij on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:40PM

    by wisnoskij (5149) <reversethis-{moc ... ksonsiwnohtanoj}> on Tuesday March 31 2015, @01:40PM (#164777)

    An Arts education makes nothing other than empty headed groupthinkers and yesmen. If you want critical thinking or creativity go into STEM, if you want a big loquacious vocabulary, and the ability to write 50,000 word essays about nothing and memorize a few facts from books go Arts. There is nothing wrong with studying French art, but it will not help you get a job and will not help you think. So should be left to the rich and as a hobby for those who already took STEM or got a career and a brain together some other way.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:12PM

    by JeanCroix (573) on Tuesday March 31 2015, @02:12PM (#164791)
    "Liberal arts educations are more important than STEM," writes the guy with a liberal arts education.
    • (Score: 2) by AnythingGoes on Wednesday April 01 2015, @02:41AM

      by AnythingGoes (3345) on Wednesday April 01 2015, @02:41AM (#165239)
      How many great books/music/culture-changing artifacts were created by those with a liberal arts education? How many humanity-improving inventions were made by those with a STEM education? You need both types of people, but you can write great books without a liberal arts degree. How many fatal diseases can you heal without a STEM background? So if you ask me, the number of students in those degrees should be reduced, but the subjects that are taught can be part of the requirements for graduating a STEM degree (which is already the case in many universities, so the liberal arts professors are afraid that they won't have a job for long).