quote: I wonder, sometimes, at the conclusion of a course, when I fail nine out of 15 students, whether the college will send me a note either (1) informing me of a serious bottleneck in the march toward commencement and demanding that I pass more students, or (2) commending me on my fiscal ingenuity—my high failure rate forces students to pay for classes two or three times over.
What actually happens is that nothing happens. I feel no pressure from the colleges in either direction. My department chairpersons, on those rare occasions when I see them, are friendly, even warm. They don’t mention all those students who have failed my courses, and I don’t bring them up. There seems, as is often the case in colleges, to be a huge gulf between academia and reality. No one is thinking about the larger implications, let alone the morality, of admitting so many students to classes they cannot possibly pass. The colleges and the students and I are bobbing up and down in a great wave of societal forces—social optimism on a large scale, the sense of college as both a universal right and a need, financial necessity on the part of the colleges and the students alike, the desire to maintain high academic standards while admitting marginal students—that have coalesced into a mini-tsunami of difficulty. No one has drawn up the flowchart and seen that, although more-widespread college admission is a bonanza for the colleges and nice for the students and makes the entire United States of America feel rather pleased with itself, there is one point of irreconcilable conflict in the system, and that is the moment when the adjunct instructor, who by the nature of his job teaches the worst students, must ink the F on that first writing assignment.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A university education is not suitable for everyone, no.
That said the vast majority of people failing their classes probably are doing so due to reasons other than intellectual capacity issues. Usually its executive functioning, priorities, etc
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Ms. L. had done everything that American culture asked of her. She had gone back to school to better herself, and she expected to be rewarded for it, not slapped down. She had failed not, as some students do, by being absent too often or by blowing off assignments. She simply was not qualified for college.
This feels bogus to me. College entrants have to take placement tests before they can sign up for classes. This woman clearly should have been in a remedial English class. If his students don't have the basic skills to begin undergraduate work, there are ways to receive them. If there is a problem here, it is that the placement tests are not discerning enough. This is a big part of the reason we are counseled before beginning college; each student should have it clearly explained to them what they will need to know before they begin and how they can acquire those skills.
Plus, not everyone is as daft as Mrs. L., who basically refused to acknowledge Professor X's instructions that she get tutored in basic computer literacy. The woman seems like a straw man with a name.
ETA: However, no, university education is not suitable for everyone. But assuming you are driven to succeed (and, I'm sorry, needing to get a raise or promotion would be plenty of motivation for me) there is no reason that a person of average intelligence can't get the skills they need to pass 100 level classes.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think there are at least two mistaken assumptions here... First, failing your first essay in your first college class does not mean that a college education is not suitable for you. The question that needs to be asked is: Did that same student keep failing in every essay after that? Or did she, over the course of her classes, end up learning how to write better? If a student goes into a university failing every essay and comes out getting an A on every essay, then a university education probably was extremely helpful for them. But this professor is not in the perspective to see that - teaching only 101 or 102 classes, he or she only sees students at the beginning of the process.
Secondly, the author here seems to be assuming that the goal of a college education is to produce scholars, and that if someone doesn't end up as a scholar then the education was not suitable for them. I don't think that is correct. For someone who is taking college in order to become a more effective police officer, failing to appreciate Writing About Literature doesn't necessarily mean their college experience was a waste of time. It is entirely possible to graduate from college without high grades and without an appreciation for the inherent value of knowledge, but still gaining skills that can greatly improve one's everyday or career life. A college education is definitely suitable for such people - just not in the same way as the professor might hope.
I think a better way to put the conclusion would be this: A university education serves different purposes for students who enter it with different goals in mind, and depending on what the student intends to get out of it, it is only going to be productive if the student enters into it with certain prequisite skills and attitudes.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:there is no reason that a person of average intelligence can't get the skills they need to pass 100 level classes.
There are some people with higher than average intelligence who have a very difficult time passing some 100 level classes. Some have learning disabilities (many of which have never been diagnosed, and there's almost no way they're going to get diagnosed as an adult, having struggled through with them for years at this point); others just can't seem to overcome anxiety or other difficulties enough to test well even when they KNOW the subject, and when two tests comprise the entire basis for your grade for the class, well... Yes, these problems can be addressed, but the means by which to address them frankly are not in place in most colleges (at least not in a way that is accessible to most students) and so I would not say there is "no reason" for ALL students of average or above intelligence.
My husband gave up on ever getting a degree in science because he simply could not pass chem, no matter how he tried, and he didn't do so hot in higher math, either. Luckily, along the way, he found out that he loves accounting, and found an alternate career path that he is eminently suited to. But he has still just scraped through sometimes because of his extreme difficulty testing; he just does not test well.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:It is entirely possible to graduate from college without high grades and without an appreciation for the inherent value of knowledge, but still gaining skills that can greatly improve one's everyday or career life. A college education is definitely suitable for such people - just not in the same way as the professor might hope.
Indeed.
My husband had to take Environmental Science to fullfil his science requirements at the end in order to finish his degree. Nothing in the class was new to him and I don't think it really impacted his life at all (well, except the grumbling about writing papers on dim-witted Environmental Science topics that he didn't enjoy.) However, finishing that class meant he got his degree in Accounting, which has meant employability as a tax accountant, which is what he wanted to do, and along the way he DID learn valuable accounting skills in his accounting classes; he just didn't learn all that much in classes unrelated to his major.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I totally understand what you're saying, kq. I don't think that the methods we use in our educational systems are necessarily the best option for all types of learners. But my assertion was that people of average intelligence should be able to get the skills they need to pass those classes. Remedial courses are one way; they probably have classes (not necessarily at the college, but it would be helpful if the counselor had those resources available to pass along) for people who get nervous while testing, as well. Perhaps "intelligence" wasn't the best term. Obviously, if a person has high "intelligence", but severe enough learning disability to hinder their ability to use that intelligence effectively in a classroom situation, that's a problem. Perhaps I need a broader term that would include the way intelligence and "learning abilities" work together. Unfortunately, everything I come up with would probably be insulting or offensive to someone.
But, at any rate, the point I was making was that the problems are not in the classrooms, they are prior to that. There should be more discerning testing going on to see that students are ready for the classes they are signing up for, and if they are not, either because of learning disabilities or just lack of skill, there should be methods in place to deal with that.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Perhaps he's just not as good a teacher as he thinks. Perhaps he needs to choose more accessible material than Hamlet and James Joyce. Who teaches Joyce in a remedial English class. Surely the idea is to teach people to write- pick something they actually want to read and understand, like Neil Gaiman's Sandman or Brave New World or the ones he mentions- Animal Farm. It doesn't matter that it's not difficult literature or that some of them have read it before, the point is to get the students thinking about it as literature and able to write about it because they understand it.
As for poor Mrs. L, hasn't this guy heard of a library? It has these old fashioned things in called books and they are absolutely full of research just as good if not better than JSTOR. Honestly. Hardly any internet skills required.
He asks them to come up with their own paper. Darling, give them some guidance. It's first year in a remedial class! Give a list of topics and then if they're still stuck give them some help in figuring out what he's looking for instead of keeping throwing them back out to fail again and again and again in trying to figure out the complicated concept you're clearly failing to convey.
This man doesn't seem like a very good teacher for this class. He doesn't seem to like or support his students, despite his love and support for the subject he attempts to teach. He seems to have picked literature that is more difficult than easy, give little guidance in figuring out exactly what a college level thesis looks like beyond telling struggling students what it is again and sending them off again to fail.
At the end, this gentleman has delusions of grandeur. He's not saying anything new. He's right: not everyone is suited for university.
EDIT: Oh, it's not a remedial class, but it has the *ring* of a remedial class, as it's clearly intended to teach students to write and interpret. Either way, if the curriculum isn't working, the professor is employed to make it accessible while still teaching students to read and write at a decent level. The complexity of the text, provided it upholds some standards, is totally irrelevant. If he can't find a film they've all seen why not show them a film? Get them to read the script? Many film scripts are written like literature and it's a touchstone everyone can get too easily, leaving more time for discussion. We read the play Hedwig and the Angry Inch and watched the film in my first year non-remedial class.
[ October 21, 2008, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For my part, I think we've hurt a huge number of students by turning high school into college prep, thus delaying "actual" education until a student is 18 years old, and expecting students to pay $40,000 or more just to obtain a piece of paper that says they're qualified to apply for jobs for which their educations have not actually prepared them.
I think apprenticeships are useful. I think college educations are cheapened by being called useful when, with some exceptions for some specific careers, they are not. For my part, I would greatly prefer a scenario in which less than a tenth of the people currently attending college actually did so.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Out of 4 years of college studying business, only 2 courses have been helpful to me in life. Business law, and human resources. The rest really felt like a waste when I got out.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Actually I think the article is outstanding. Teshi, I think you're being unfair. He did tell "Mrs. L" to schedule a private conference with the librarian. Not to mention, every university I know of uses online classes, online registration, and other things that absolutely require a person attending college today have adequate computer skills. That woman's inability to do anything with a computer was going to hinder her - letting her get by his class without using technology only to have her come up against a class later on that requires it would have done her no service at all.
He says he DID think about giving her a topic, but that coming up with it on her own is part of the assignment. An adjunct doesn't have much control over how and what he teaches. That is pre-determined, and most likely it says "assign a historical research paper and require students to come up with their own topic." As for the literature, that is also probably pre-determined, and I think "Araby" and "Hamlet" are definitely appropriate for a 102-level lit course. I've seen "Araby" taught in high school - Hamlet too.
Sounds to me like he's done everything I would do, and more if I were teaching 101 as an adjunct. My husband now teaches at a junior college. The level of performance is so low, it staggers me. When he comes home and tells me tales of what his students say and do and how little they know - I'm saddened and shocked. I've seen it myself when I tutored people in 101 and 102 and sophomore level courses. They can't write. They can't.
We're doing a lot of things wrong, in my opinion, and I think Tom is right about the way we're treating high school now. Honestly, the kids in honors programs in high school are ready for college - they should be taking English 101 and 102 and math 101 and psychology 101 and all those freshman survey-type courses in the last two years of high school. Turn all current universities into institutes of higher education that only teach junior and senior-level courses.
Turn the junior colleges into adult and vocational higher education - train our nurses, our paramedics, our vet techs, our HVAC workers, our plumbers, electricians, etc. in the junior colleges. The junior colleges can also be "gateway" institutions that prepare students who didn't take college coursework in high school for college. So, if you don't graduate from high school with college credit, then you can obtain that and go on to the higher institutions later by using the JUCO system.
There's no reason the honor students should be held back and prevented from taking college coursework they are ready for simply because their classmates aren't ready for it. Conversely, all students do not need to be in college-prep. It sounds very anti-PC to say that we should allow tracking, but we should. Not all students are the same. In Alabama, everyone is now by default on the "Advanced Academic Diploma." Whereas you used to have to request your child be placed on that track, now you have to specifically opt out in writing or it is assumed they will take advanced, pre-college classes in high school. Not all kids need it. Not all kids even want it, but that's the way it is now.
The idea behind it is a noble one and I applaud it. That students shouldn't be prevented from going to college, that students in underprivleged homes may not think college is for them, and that by putting them on this track they may discover that it is - all those are good ideas. But the harsh reality is that some students aren't cut out for it and aren't going to do well. The likliehood they will fail, and drop out is probably going to grow.
I'm doing supervised teaching this semester in a pre-AP class. The school got a huge grant to train AP teachers and have these classes, but there is a minimum quota of students they must maintain. Because of that, they've put students in the classroom that shouldn't be there. My mentor teacher is failing kids, who she says would pass and even possibly excel in her regular class that is not pre-AP. But, the school wants them in there, so their numbers don't drop too low. That's the type of mentality that drives me crazy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:they probably have classes (not necessarily at the college, but it would be helpful if the counselor had those resources available to pass along) for people who get nervous while testing, as well.
In KPC's experience, they were not effective. (He took 3.) He has done intensive drilling, rehearsing, and learning of techniques with me and my uncle (an educator with years of experience prepping kids for Catholic high school entrance exams and SATs, ACTs, and other college entrance exams) and that has helped some but not much. The fact remains that if he could skip tests and be evaluated some other way he'd do a lot better... I think that one of the problems with college is it doesn't provide a lot of flexibility in what you can take to fulfill some requirements, leading to situations like his where he switched to a BS program from a BA because he just wasn't going to make it in a BA program but he needed a degree to get the in with the company that he was going to get real experience and work with, and to have access to the classes he really DID need. I think I'm in favor of a lot of certificate programs in highly specialized areas as an option for those who don't WANT a liberal arts education, more like I hear they have in the Netherlands...
In TX, where he grew up, you have to take a placement test to even go to a community college. He got placed in remedial math and English based on it. He is NOT someone who belonged in remedial English (he didn't mind math as much because he actually could use the review at that point.) He was placed so low based on their test that they wanted him to take 3 extra years of English classes. It wasn't until he went to an out of state school and got a B plus in a REGULAR English class and transferred back that they allowed him out of the remedial track. But anyway, I'm derailing the thread... I'll go reply to another point now. This is just a real frustration to me because I absorb stuff like a sponge and test so well I put out very little effort in anything I ever studied, while he can know something back and forward and he is SMART and a much harder worker than me, but tests really poorly on most things.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I guess I find it weird that the University doesn't have some kind of controls over who attends. If it's a community college teaching basic skills, then it should definitely be easier focused more on just learning to read and write. If it's a university, this is obviously a remedial class. If this is the standard class then it's a community college *posing* as a university and so he should be more basic.
Either way, if the students are too far behind what you're teaching the only thing to do is to teach from a lower level or with simpler texts. The best thing about the simpleness of texts is that everyone can get something out of them, even those who can read and write.
And yes, I did Shakespeare all through high school, but I imagine if this is the first time these students are encountering Shakespeare and they're not getting it and it's on the curriculum, there's obviously something that needs fixing at this school.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:As for the literature, that is also probably pre-determined, and I think "Araby" and "Hamlet" are definitely appropriate for a 102-level lit course. I've seen "Araby" taught in high school - Hamlet too.
Ditto.
quote:We're doing a lot of things wrong, in my opinion, and I think Tom is right about the way we're treating high school now. Honestly, the kids in honors programs in high school are ready for college - they should be taking English 101 and 102 and math 101 and psychology 101 and all those freshman survey-type courses in the last two years of high school. Turn all current universities into institutes of higher education that only teach junior and senior-level courses.
Turn the junior colleges into adult and vocational higher education - train our nurses, our paramedics, our vet techs, our HVAC workers, our plumbers, electricians, etc. in the junior colleges. The junior colleges can also be "gateway" institutions that prepare students who didn't take college coursework in high school for college. So, if you don't graduate from high school with college credit, then you can obtain that and go on to the higher institutions later by using the JUCO system.
I agree. It goes along with what I said about a lot of vocational certificate (or degree) programs and not having to have a liberal arts education if you don't want it for most fields. (Teachers, etc. would still get those educations. People who would USE them. But the 19th century idea that all educated people should learn art and music is, I think, misplaced. If you WANT that experience, fine. There are plenty of people who love this part of getting a degree, and that's fine. Let it remain available to them. But that is not why everyone goes to college, and I think those who would prefer to skip it should have more ready access to training for their chosen careers that does not involve things that are irrelevant to them.)
quote:I'm doing supervised teaching this semester in a pre-AP class. The school got a huge grant to train AP teachers and have these classes, but there is a minimum quota of students they must maintain. Because of that, they've put students in the classroom that shouldn't be there. My mentor teacher is failing kids, who she says would pass and even possibly excel in her regular class that is not pre-AP. But, the school wants them in there, so their numbers don't drop too low. That's the type of mentality that drives me crazy.
Grrr, me too.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
This comes close to a problem we've all been recently smacked in the face with.
If you have the money to attend a good private elementary school, this helps gets you into a good Prep-school, under the assumption that those schools only produce better quality students.
If you have the money to then attend one of those good College Prep Schools, then this helps get you into a good University, under the assumption that those schools only produce better quality students.
If you have the money to then go on to a good University, you are more likely to get into their premier MBA program.
If you have the money to get that MBA degree, then you have it made, for you will quickly be hired into one of the great companies, at a great salary, because of the assumption that only those with the educational resume you possess are bright and trained well enough to do good work.
And the motto of that MBA is "Behold the Justice and Power of the Free Market."
Yet that whole structure has market problems. It is not geared to producing all great businessmen. It is geared to producing a few great businessmen to build its reputation, but to create more wealthy alumni who will later feed it all their children, etc, etc through the generations.
The recent Market disaster comes in part due to those with these excellent educational resumes trying to prove their self-proclaimed MBA Wizardry by massing paper-wealth like it was some game of Monopoly.
Why does the CEO of a company make $20 Million a year? Because he's got the resume that says he will do a great job, even if the heart of that resume is a education that is fine, but not 200 times better than the guy stuck in middle management making that much less.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:ETA: However, no, university education is not suitable for everyone. But assuming you are driven to succeed (and, I'm sorry, needing to get a raise or promotion would be plenty of motivation for me) there is no reason that a person of average intelligence can't get the skills they need to pass 100 level classes.
While this is probably true, keep in mind that
a) Even a bachelor's degree needs more than 100-level classes and b) Half the population is below average intelligence anyway. (Modulo the usual assumptions about bell curves and whatnot.)
Another point is that perhaps these 100-level classes are unduly dumbed down, if people of average intelligence are indeed passing them. Where I took my undergraduate degree, some of the lower-level courses were explicitly difficult ones to weed out the people who shouldn't be there, thus avoiding the waste of their time. I think that's a useful approach.
And touching Shakespeare, I too read him in high school, along with the inevitable Ibsen and a bunch of more modern lit'rary authors.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: While this is probably true, keep in mind that
a) Even a bachelor's degree needs more than 100-level classes and b) Half the population is below average intelligence anyway. (Modulo the usual assumptions about bell curves and whatnot.)
*nod* I may be incorrectly assuming that in most scenarios the 200 and higher level classes would be built upon skills learned in the 100s. In my happy little universe scenario, everyone would receive the education in high school to prepare them for college, and it would progress from level to level.
However, I largely agree with Tom and kq. I was reading "Anne of Green Gables" today and noting how Anne takes a two-year course after her elementary schooling to prepare her for teaching, and is teaching by the time she's 16. At that point she has the opportunity to move on to "university" work to attain her BA. I thought that was a fascinating look at an older system of education. Children either became skilled in a trade, got specific education for a professional career (after testing high enough to prove they already had all the basic knowledge they needed to do so), or went to university. I think that if given those options, most people would choose to be trained in their profession and skip the university-level work altogether. That would remove a lot of stress from young people and young families.
But in our "enlightened" aged, it seems to be believed that everyone must have training in many art-related areas that have nothing to do with their potential careers. My issue is that I think all children should be encouraged to get that kind of education. I just don't think they should have to.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:My issue is that I think all children should be encouraged to get that kind of education. I just don't think they should have to.
I agree with most of your post. In addition I would say that perhaps all children should get this kind of education in elementary school, and by high school they should be able to choose whether to continue with it or move on to more specific vocational-oriented training. If they choose to continue it they could do so in or out of school, and school could be more oriented to preparing them for a career or college or job training program.
For instance, in my high school, 2 years of fine arts or 2 years of foreign language and one semester of fine arts were required for graduation.
I can't help but think that those kids who struggled would have had to do less of the zero- and seventh-period classes and summer school to get required credits if they had more chances to take their English classes and/or could be on a vocational training track where their practical arts credits would count toward their graduation more (only 1 year of practical arts counted toward graduation, while you HAD to have 2 years of foreign language or fine arts.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(In fact, in many European countries this is how it is done. Kids do art and music in elementary school but high school years are spent mostly in academics with maybe one elective. In elementary years all kids are taught 3 or so foreign languages-- I'm counting Latin here-- and then they drop down to one, or none, in high school, the one they are best in, though sometimes it is 2 with English being mandatory. However, since the elementary years are during the time when fluency in a language is naturally acquired, many kids in many European countries retain their fluency in multiple languages into adulthood, while MOST people language trained in U.S. high schools do not gain true fluency or, if they do, do not keep it.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
To the OP: in a perfect world, yes. In a practical world, maybe not.
I'm just going to interject that I am sick of it being suggested that university education is not "worth it." We're all different- and patently, for some, it's just the thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. But the vast majority of people take it because it's required for a job, not because it's "just the thing."
Posted by TheBlueShadow (Member # 9718) on :
What's a practical art?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That is very true. If we did not have people who were eminently suited to it we would lose many great thinkers, writers, teachers, and others. And it's awesome for those who are suited to it.
It's when there's no alternative (or the alternative is working a minimum-wage job for the rest of your life or working in a field you despise) that the problem comes up.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think apprenticeships are useful. I think college educations are cheapened by being called useful when, with some exceptions for some specific careers, they are not. For my part, I would greatly prefer a scenario in which less than a tenth of the people currently attending college actually did so.
I am going to take general exception to the notion that a college education is only useful in certian particular circumstances. I think the experience is useful to almost everyone who attends college.
However, I agree with the rest of your point. I met a great many people in college who had little visible interest in education, and who might have benefited from a more focused education. I think a problem with some colleges and unis -certainly mine- is that they are too programmed for people like me, who thrive in an academic environment that encourages self-determination, and too unfocused for people who are trying to follow a more practical course of study, with a particular career or position in mind.
I entered and left college with little idea of my lifelong career, but I don't count that against the experience at all. That's just not something I got in college. People who expect to get it sometimes don't, whereas I had colleagues who were frustrated because they felt they were being too closely controlled.
I'll admit there were instances in which I was acting within the system, to get the degree, but for the most part I attended college with the understanding that I was getting educated, not getting grades. In fact I told my mentor this when I started working with him (which was my second year of five), and following that, we worked together on music for about 4 years without any formal assessments. On paper, I was in the middle of my class (3.4 GPA) but in actual accomplishments, I was near the top.
Now, there were other people he worked with who might have been concerned about grades- but I'd be surprised if he was freer with them than with me, and I know there had never been a student who he had tutored for so long.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheBlueShadow: What's a practical art?
Wood shop, auto shop, metal shop, Intro to Education (where we went next door to TA in the elementary school), Foods classes, Child Development, Clothing (where offered-- my school discontinued it before I got there although I did have it in jr. high), typing, JROTC could all count as practical arts classes (some could count for different things-- my first 2 years I counted AFJROTC as P.E. credit, the third went for practical arts credit.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Sure. But the vast majority of people take it because it's required for a job, not because it's "just the thing."
And for that, I think we need a more open and diverse system in which high prestige is bestowed upon different disciplines of learning, and we have respect for trades (and within trades) that our society has marginalized. I can't really speak to that, because it was never my situation, but I feel many people do put themselves in an academic environment in which they make themselves and others uncomfortable.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: [QUOTE] But in our "enlightened" aged, it seems to be believed that everyone must have training in many art-related areas that have nothing to do with their potential careers. My issue is that I think all children should be encouraged to get that kind of education. I just don't think they should have to.
Not here. Or at least, not as much as in the US.
One form of English is compulsory through high school (ESL, English or Lit, usually). But once you get to uni, our degrees are specific - there is no prerequisite for a general undergrad degree. So if you do a BSci, you do 3 years of only science. Engineering, Accounting, Finance etc have no Arts components. Similarly, a BA or a law degree has no science units.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That's interesting, imogen. I know that several countries have more focused programs like that. I'm also impressed when highly skilled trades are valued more highly than in the US.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love that people are required to take a wide variety of courses. I think it's marvelous that even engineers need to take English in college, and that even art majors need to pass Math 1050.
I think it is unfortunate that a college degree has become tied to job requirements, but I don't regret that people try to go to college who never would have dreamed of it fifty years.
Even the story of the woman in the article, while it doesn't make me happy, doesn't make me sad that she tried. I think it's wonderful when people try.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
It reminded me of a general discussion I was having somewhere else - sake I think - about different models of education.
Australia, in general, seems to have more focus on depth of learning throughout high school and university. The US system seems to have more focus on width/coverage of many subjects. (The example was books at high school - Australian students will do 5 texts a year in their English classes. My impression is that it is not unusual for US students to do many more texts than this in any given year).
I'm not sure either system is better - but I find the different focus (and philosophy behind it) interesting.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I figure that most people think that education in general is good, but since we don't know what we are doing and why in k-12 education, we've passed the buck up to University education. If we improve the conversation about primary education, I think the inflated demand for University education will take care of itself.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I love that people are required to take a wide variety of courses. I think it's marvelous that even engineers need to take English in college, and that even art majors need to pass Math 1050.
Depends on where you go. The BFA at BGSU has no math requirement.
As far as engineers taking English, I had it explained to me that they actually need that class because they have to write reports. Don't know if that's true or not; it probably depends on the person/position.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I agree. It goes along with what I said about a lot of vocational certificate (or degree) programs and not having to have a liberal arts education if you don't want it for most fields. (Teachers, etc. would still get those educations. People who would USE them. But the 19th century idea that all educated people should learn art and music is, I think, misplaced. If you WANT that experience, fine. There are plenty of people who love this part of getting a degree, and that's fine. Let it remain available to them. But that is not why everyone goes to college, and I think those who would prefer to skip it should have more ready access to training for their chosen careers that does not involve things that are irrelevant to them.)
Too far. Everyone needs education in arts and music. Everyone. Every. Single. Person. The fact that we have abandoned funding for these programs at earlier levels is, to me, a travesty. The fact that students now enter university with zero background in arts and music, and then these things don't work for many in university is not evidence that they aren't needed, just evidence that they aren't taught.
Not everybody has to be a musician, but music and art should be a vital part of early and middle education, and students should be allowed the chance to find their interest in these fields- not as a career per se, but as a lifelong skill and intellectual tool. I don't have to tell you what musical education does for children, because I suspect you know.
This, by the way, falls under my personal category for general outrage. It's filed right next to requiring one year of a foreign language in a university, where (at least at my uni) the class is well taught and instructive, rather than you know, requiring the effective teaching of a foreign language at an age when this REALLY COUNTS FOR SOMETHING.
It makes me even angrier as I work through this teaching certificate program I'm in. The tools for effective language teaching, especially for children are known around the world by tens of thousands of skilled practitioners. Every day I sit in outrage at the "spanish classes" that I took through middle school and highschool, which left me with a poor grasp of the language even now.
Music's like that too. Just because you can technically live without it, doesn't mean it's expendable, or "extra." For that matter, all the subjects are things that our ancestors lived without, so calling it non-vital or not necessary is a little silly.
[ October 21, 2008, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: As far as engineers taking English, I had it explained to me that they actually need that class because they have to write reports. Don't know if that's true or not; it probably depends on the person/position.
If you've ever been in a university required writing class, it's easy to see why that's needed. Students of all disciplines slip by for years and years without being able to form a coherent sentence.
Posted by TheBlueShadow (Member # 9718) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by TheBlueShadow: What's a practical art?
Wood shop, auto shop, metal shop, Intro to Education (where we went next door to TA in the elementary school), Foods classes, Child Development, Clothing (where offered-- my school discontinued it before I got there although I did have it in jr. high), typing, JROTC could all count as practical arts classes (some could count for different things-- my first 2 years I counted AFJROTC as P.E. credit, the third went for practical arts credit.)
Ah. What my school would have considered tech classes whether they be technical or technology based.
You could have either a tech prep diploma or a college prep diploma from my high school. There was a one credit requirement to take either a fine arts class or a tech class. However, they required a concentration of four credits in something other than gym. It could've and was usually in art, tech, or music; however, regular subjects would also work. These four classes couldn't overlap with any of the other graduation requirements. So a kid with a math concentration had to take eight math classes. It wasn't a popular choice, but there's always someone willing to go for it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I love that people are required to take a wide variety of courses. I think it's marvelous that even engineers need to take English in college, and that even art majors need to pass Math 1050.
Although this is possibly a good idea in principle - I am not convinced, mind you, but it might be - its actual application leads to courses like the aforementioned Math 1050, added onto the curriculum purely for the purpose of permitting art majors to pass a math course. Even if it has to be an arithmetic course.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: If you've ever been in a university required writing class, it's easy to see why that's needed. Students of all disciplines slip by for years and years without being able to form a coherent sentence.
This is a very reasonable requirement. In most of the world it's taught in high school, except for those parts of the world where it's taught in grade school.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Too far. Everyone needs education in arts and music. Everyone. Every. Single. Person.
In elementary school, sure. Why, at nineteen years old, should they spend hundreds of dollars and hours of their adult life to encounter a professor's take on what "art" means?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't think Orinoco said they should have to take an arts education in University, but in the elementary and middle years, which is the case here in Canada at least.
I don't count writing as an art. In this highly literate world, it's practically a survival skill like learning how to skin a deer, as is understanding math at least to a mid-high school level. King of Men is right of course, it's shocking that there are children who, even in high school, can't yet write a reasonably coherent sentence. They can speak, they can read- kind of- but they have no idea how to write it down into a more formal language.
Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
I think whether the breadth vs depth option is best will vary greatly between individuals. I was really glad I could focus entirely on science from the age of 16. I’ve ended up with a BSc, MSc and PhD and am working in a scientific job. If I had been made to follow a liberal arts course it is unlikely I would have made it through university.
Others are more generalist and feel constricted by having to focus in one direction at an early age.
I’m towards an extreme end of the spectrum, I could understand and was interested in all the sciences (and geography which is in between) but I really struggled with English and foreign languages and was bored by history. I’m also dyslexic which doesn’t help.
My writing reached and acceptable level for the job I do (which involves a lot of writing, but it is factual) but if I was to try to write a piece of fiction I would be just as stuck as I was at 11. Forcing me to do more years of literature would have no benefit and would probably have killed my love of reading for good.
At the other end of the spectrum are people who flourish when they can experience a wide range of subjects for as long as possible. Is it possible to devise a system where both can be available?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Teaching broad (more subjects) rather than deep (intense on a few subjects) puts more responsibility on the student to find a way to do their own intense. I like the "teaching broad" method because it is that first introduction to a completely new topic that is often daunting and the barrier to learning more. The introductory classes, even the bad ones, usually give an idea of where to start.
It's like the shotgun approach to finding your milieu. I like it. There is room for improvement, but as far as an education goes, I think it's a good idea. I have no problems with the general structure of a university education.
I do think it is a shame that it has become a requirement to spend oodles of money in order to get a basic job that doesn't need the training that comes with oodles of money, but that should be addressed by the creation of other avenues of qualifications, not by dismantling the excellent one that we have.
Incidentally, it's why I think that in some cases, you can get a better general education at non-Ivy schools. Ivies tend to specialize, so instead of "American Literature of the Nineteenth Century", you take "Female Sentimental Writers 1830-1890" and then never actually read Moby Dick and Huckleberry Finn at a college level.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Too far. Everyone needs education in arts and music. Everyone. Every. Single. Person. The fact that we have abandoned funding for these programs at earlier levels is, to me, a travesty. The fact that students now enter university with zero background in arts and music, and then these things don't work for many in university is not evidence that they aren't needed, just evidence that they aren't taught.
Tom hit it on the head-- as I mentioned in other posts, I DO think art and music are important in elementary education, as are foreign languages.
I just think by the time you hit high school you should have the OPTION to drop them, and by the time you're in college they should not be required for vocational degrees.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I do think it is a shame that it has become a requirement to spend oodles of money in order to get a basic job that doesn't need the training that comes with oodles of money, but that should be addressed by the creation of other avenues of qualifications, not by dismantling the excellent one that we have.
I agree completely.
I don't think we should do away with the liberal arts education or its availability at universities. I think we should have more availability of degrees/certificates/qualifications that are NOT part of that system, that should be required in lieu of them for many jobs. The option can remain open, but by not forcing everyone into it, we could stop watering it down and those who DO choose it could have more opportunity for higher-quality experiences, in large part because they WANT that experience.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think they are important enough and complex enough that people deserve an exposure to them that doesn't depend on their eleven-year-old brains.
I am not remotely musical at all, and I took music classes all through my education. There were things I learned in the college classes that I am grateful for that my brain just wasn't ready for when I was in junior high school.
That's why there should be alternative to going to college, but not change the nature of a university education. It isn't just that elementary education isn't adequate - it's that your brain is developed to learn differently and better in college than when you are ten.
So, if people don't want to go to college they shouldn't have to in order to get a job, but don't bowlderize what getting a university education means.
--
Looks like we agree, KQ.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think they are important enough and complex enough that people deserve an exposure to them that doesn't depend on their eleven-year-old brains.
I'm not comfortable mandating the things I think people deserve.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure you are. You think that kids, especially, deserve a warm, dry place to live where there are fed regularly and don't get beat up, and they deserve access to education which teaches them the basics their culture thinks they think to know. You think that people in general deserve all sorts of rights, including the ones listed on the Bill of Rights and a bunch of others added. You think people deserve all sorts of things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You think that kids, especially, deserve a warm, dry place to live where there are fed regularly and don't get beat up, and they deserve access to education which teaches them the basics their culture thinks they think to know.
No. I think they need those things to become functional adult members of society; I don't merely think they deserve them. I think people deserve lots of things.
In the same way, I think people deserve the opportunity to learn to appreciate classical music. I don't think people need to have that opportunity, however, to be good, useful people.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I don't count writing as an art. In this highly literate world, it's practically a survival skill like learning how to skin a deer, as is understanding math at least to a mid-high school level.
I think there should be a clear line between learning writing as a tool for communication, and learning writing as an art form, which largely pertains to literature. My least favorite class in school was always Comp/Lit, not because I didn't like the subject matter, but because the teacher would always focus on whichever half they cared most about, creating huge gaps in my education from grade to grade. I never knew, as I progressed through my early education, if I was going to be more harshly judged by my spelling and syntax, or my literary voice. Some teachers seemed to care little for how interesting my paper was as long as each sentence had punctuation, and some teachers, while they would still circle grammatical mistakes and expect me to fix them, would give a good grade based on the more subjective "artiness" of the thing.
Writing "correctly" and writing "convincingly" will overlap, but I think they should be taught in two different classes for most of our educational career. If the student wants to pursue writing as a career (or major) then that would be the time to get into the intricacies of how they work together. I think we would probably have better writers if we approached it that way.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Too far. Everyone needs education in arts and music. Everyone. Every. Single. Person.
In elementary school, sure. Why, at nineteen years old, should they spend hundreds of dollars and hours of their adult life to encounter a professor's take on what "art" means?
I think that when they encounter those courses in college, should they (hopefully) choose to, they should have gotten past the preliminary levels. Only that doesn't happen, and it makes college students miserable- either because the courses are dull or inaccessible.
I just see a camp of people saying: art education is useless in college! And I'm saying: at present it may be, so why not get us all to a place where it really does mean something?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I just see a camp of people saying: art education is useless in college!
I think what many of us are trying to say is that art education shouldn't be a requirement for people who are just trying to get the education they need to get ahead in a professional career that probably doesn't need the skills gained in those classes. Yeah, it would be cool if everyone had some experience with art in their lives, but a better place for it would be in the earlier grades, unless they want more in-depth study at a later age. I don't think anyone is debating the inclusion of some art in a baccalaureate degree, but I may be missing something. (At any rate, I think it should be a part of a four-year degree.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I just think by the time you hit high school you should have the OPTION to drop them, and by the time you're in college they should not be required for vocational degrees.
What vocational degrees require a background in arts and music?
And don't tell me it's too much of a burden for a full time college freshman in Engineering school to come to a music appreciation class twice a week. That's also part of the college experience that people want and pay for- even if they grumble, it's for more than the knowledge of the subject, and the knowledge of the subject is highly useful. It would be my argument that these classes ought to be unnecessary in Uni, but they aren't. I could only advocate better education at a lower level, so that when the required arts classes come around, students actually have something to put into them. Those classes serve multiple functions, and I don't think the answer is simply doing away with the requirement.
As an example: A really good (certainly not all) art appreciation class or, in my case, a freshman science class, like geology, may also include quite a bit of coaching from the professor on subjects related to everyday life, and surviving college. My first quarter of my first year, I took geology one, and the professor, knowing that there were probably no geology majors in the class, and few science people, used the opportunity to coach the class through the experience of the first quarter. We studied the subject, which was low-pressure and interesting, but we also studied "how to study," and it was the perfect thing for me to be doing three times a week. That's something I think a general ed course might be able to do where a depth course wouldn't bother. If you've got a required class like that, it has a social and pedagogical function above the material.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: We studied the subject, which was low-pressure and interesting, but we also studied "how to study," and it was the perfect thing for me to be doing three times a week. That's something I think a general ed course might be able to do where a depth course wouldn't bother. If you've got a required class like that, it has a social and pedagogical function above the material.
I think that, if that were the best reason to take those required courses, a better option would be one required course called "How to Study and Survive College".
ETA: Dang. My previous response was that last one on the page. I hate that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:What vocational degrees require a background in arts and music?
It varies by the school. My almost-step-brother-in-law (that's a mouthful) had to take 3 art classes, including one appreciation, one music appreciation, and one fine arts performance class (glee club, instrument, drama, whatever) to get his BS in Chemistry.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Worth reading: Riches for the Poor.
A curriculum in the Western Canon, including art and music, appears to dramatically improve earning potential for people with minimal skills or knowledge.
Essentially, knowledge of shakespeare, mozart, michelangelo, plato, homer, et al, is extremely helpful in getting good access to power, whether that power is your landlord, the manager at mcdonalds, the banker you're trying to get a mortgage from, or your federal representative.
Doesn't need to be a LOT of exposure, but adult exposure to the curriculum that those in power have as a knowledge base puts you on a more equal footing with those in power, when you're trying to get something from them.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: What vocational degrees require a background in arts and music?
In context, we were initially talking about adult students in an English class who had no understanding/appreciation for the literature that was being taught. So that, at least, is one form of "art" that everyone has a requirement in but that not everyone needs/gives a hoot about.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I think that, if that were the best reason to take those required courses, a better option would be one required course called "How to Study and Survive College".
Some schools actually require a class or workshop in "study skills" and one in "library skills," etc. for all freshmen. I don't think that is a horrible idea if they're seeing problems in those areas.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A BS in Chemistry is not a vocational degree.
"Skills" classes are pointles because they aren't being applied to anything. A general class on the library won't teach nearly as well as a class on geology where students are required to use the library and given support while researching a separate topic.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: It varies by the school. My almost-step-brother-in-law (that's a mouthful) had to take 3 art classes, including one appreciation, one music appreciation, and one fine arts performance class (glee club, instrument, drama, whatever) to get his BS in Chemistry.
See, I'm of the opinion that baccalaureate degrees should have some form of art as a requirement. Those types of degrees show that someone has a well-rounded adult education.
Now, it might be cool to have an "engineer" or "scientist" program that have no liberal arts at all, but I wouldn't call them baccalaureates. That denotes a different type of education than the very narrow one that would be required in that type of situation.
quote: "Skills" classes are pointles because they aren't being applied to anything. A general class on the library won't teach nearly as well as a class on geology where students are required to use the library and given support while researching a separate topic.
I don't agree. I think it would be perfectly feasible to present a real-world type of situation in which the students would have to do research on a particular topic in order to pass.
That said, I think that in practice they probably would be useless because most people seem to think they are above such classes and see them for what they are, just another "required course" that doesn't take into consideration what a student already knows.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think anyone is debating the inclusion of some art in a baccalaureate degree...
I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the subsequent belief that such a degree can be used to determine suitability for employment.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: A BS in Chemistry is not a vocational degree.
"Skills" classes are pointles because they aren't being applied to anything. A general class on the library won't teach nearly as well as a class on geology where students are required to use the library and given support while researching a separate topic.
No, it's not. I was trying to answer the spirit of his question, because what I was asserting was not that people needed arts for vocational degrees, but that they needed liberal arts degrees to get work because not enough vocational degrees are available.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't that vocational degrees aren't available; it is that jobs are looking for people with bachelor's degrees when they could do it with a vocational degree.
There are lots of places willing to give you a vocational degree.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yes, but I'm talking about ones for, say, engineers or scientists as PSI mentioned. Or accounting, KPC would have loved that. The number of fields in which vocational degrees are available are extremely limited, while some of the jobs that require a bachelor's degree could benefit from hiring people that had a vocational degree, but such a degree does not yet exist.
(Okay, actually I'm not advocating this for engineering or science, for a variety of reasons. But accounting or maybe waste management, lots of other fields, sure.)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
"Either way, if the students are too far behind what you're teaching the only thing to do is to teach from a lower level or with simpler texts."
This is not the job of a 100-level college course.
"And yes, I did Shakespeare all through high school, but I imagine if this is the first time these students are encountering Shakespeare and they're not getting it and it's on the curriculum, there's obviously something that needs fixing at this school."
No, there's something that needs fixing *prior* to this school. If you get to a 100-level college course and you are lost, then it is not the teacher's responsibility to remediate for you. This isn't elementary school.
If the material is above the level of the student, the teacher cannot bring the level of material down so that the student can pass. That simply waters down the subject material and makes a passing grade worth less.
If you fail at English-101, you need help. That doesn't mean help in the form of the teacher lowering standards, or help in the form of taking the class over and over again until you scrape by with a D. You need a lower-level, remediated course, or maybe even GED-prep courses.
It's getting more and more to the point where a high school diploma isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and is no guarantee of any sort of competence in any given academic area.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:I think that, if that were the best reason to take those required courses, a better option would be one required course called "How to Study and Survive College".
Some schools actually require a class or workshop in "study skills" and one in "library skills," etc. for all freshmen. I don't think that is a horrible idea if they're seeing problems in those areas.
My mother made me take a class like that (Effective Studying) my first semester, on the theory that I had never really had to study in my life, and therefore had never learned how.
I got all As that first semester, except for Effective Studying, which I failed because it was so boring that I just stopped going.
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: I love that people are required to take a wide variety of courses. I think it's marvelous that even engineers need to take English in college, and that even art majors need to pass Math 1050.
Depends on where you go. The BFA at BGSU has no math requirement.
As far as engineers taking English, I had it explained to me that they actually need that class because they have to write reports. Don't know if that's true or not; it probably depends on the person/position.
"Even engineers". Heh.
I studied engineering at the university, and that's not how it worked for me.
The 100-level English course that I took was the same one that everybody took. I didn't learn anything about how to write a report. The focus was on the literature, and the writing portion was just so that the teacher could grade us on the literature portion.
I don't begrudge the class, but it gave me no more engineering-required skills than did my 100-level courses in music, political science, sociology, or philosophy.
One class that did help me, however, was a 400-level technical writing class that was required for graduation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: We studied the subject, which was low-pressure and interesting, but we also studied "how to study," and it was the perfect thing for me to be doing three times a week. That's something I think a general ed course might be able to do where a depth course wouldn't bother. If you've got a required class like that, it has a social and pedagogical function above the material.
I think that, if that were the best reason to take those required courses, a better option would be one required course called "How to Study and Survive College".
Nah, that's defeating the purpose. The point is that it has to be a class you don't technically need to ace, just one that is interesting, and a primer for how to take a class. Just think, if you're taking a class called "how to study and survive college," you're actually studying something you really need, whereas the lesson sneaks in with a good general ed course. I realize that's counter-intuitive, but people can learn better when they aren't necessarily aware of exactly what it is they are learning.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: A BS in Chemistry is not a vocational degree.
"Skills" classes are pointles because they aren't being applied to anything. A general class on the library won't teach nearly as well as a class on geology where students are required to use the library and given support while researching a separate topic.
Incidentally, yes, the geology class I took required me to use various electronic journal resources to *actually* do something. And as a result I ended up using those same resources throughout school, when others simply didn't know about them. The amount of resources actually available to undergraduates at a large university is staggering- and some students never use them, or even know about them.
I can't argue that a study skills class couldn't have gotten me that information, but I know that the geology class did, and I didn't even realize it at the time. Besides, a study skills section, useful or not, is not the same thing as a run of the mill general ed course. In a good general ed course, you can become engrossed enough in the topic to pick up the tools you are offered without complaint, and you will, imo, carry that implied lesson through the rest of your life. If it's good. I have yet to hear about a study skills class (and I've only been in two myself, middle and high school) that were any good at all. I learned the Dewey Decimal system for crying out loud- I've never used it in my life, and probably never will. We have these things called computers that tell you where the books are.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Yes, but I'm talking about ones for, say, engineers or scientists as PSI mentioned. Or accounting, KPC would have loved that. The number of fields in which vocational degrees are available are extremely limited, while some of the jobs that require a bachelor's degree could benefit from hiring people that had a vocational degree, but such a degree does not yet exist.
(Okay, actually I'm not advocating this for engineering or science, for a variety of reasons. But accounting or maybe waste management, lots of other fields, sure.)
Having edited and re-written an accounting manual from material written by accountants, I am all for accountants taking as many writing classes as possible.
There isn't any professional field where someone can do well by only knowing their narrow subject. I think it can and should be possible to get a job doing that, but an actual career requires dealing with people outside of your subject area, and a broader education and communication skills are vital to doing that well.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Orincoro, my liberal arts university had "general" courses designed exactly for that purpose - the First Year Seminar. Every student had to enroll in their first semester, and they were typically really off-beat, but cool topics that you weren't likely to study again:
History of Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Intelligence, Mind, and Computers The Looking-Glass Self: Women and Self-Portraiture What is a Riddle? Paradoxes, Conundrums, and Riddles Green Chemistry
etc, etc. Each First-Year Seminar, besides studying the topic of the course, discussed research and test-taking strategies, required papers, presentations, and group-work, and generally just helped the freshmen get oriented to college life. The professor of the course is the student's initial adviser (when you declared a major or knew enough faculty in your major area, you switched). And all of the students in the same seminar were in the same orientation group too, and had the same peer mentor.
It's one of the more brilliant setups I've seen at a university to help students succeed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That is amazing. I'm very impressed.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
DePauw University, people. It's in the middle of Nowhere, Indiana, but it's got great academics, very good merit aid, excellent honors/technology/internship programs, and a Super-Walmart in town!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That is cool, Jhai. I'd love to take a class like that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It does seem to me that it is possible to over-focus on the curriculum at the expense of preparation. Europe and the US have very different philosophies on this; I didn't have to take a single art or literature class for my undergrad, for example. Nonetheless, both continents do turn out people who are well-educated and suited either for research or business. If there exist differences in how well the graduates do, they are clearly subtle.
The problem, then, is not so much in what is taught, as who it is taught to and what their preparation is. People who cannot write a grammatical sentence have no business in a college course whether it's on complex analysis or basketweaving. And high schools that turn out such people are not doing their jobs.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Having edited and re-written an accounting manual from material written by accountants, I am all for accountants taking as many writing classes as possible.
What do you mean by "as many as possible"? Do you think accountants should have, say, the equivalent of an undergraduate English degree?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Line me up with Orincoro on this one. Education should be more than just skills to earn a living. What about living itself? I can imagine nothing sadder than a person spending their whole life with a self who has nothing interesting to say.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:It's getting more and more to the point where a high school diploma isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and is no guarantee of any sort of competence in any given academic area.
You are apparently right. As for my comments, I was under the impression that this was a "junior university" that caters specifically to people who are not necessarily academic.
quote:Orincoro, my liberal arts university had "general" courses designed exactly for that purpose - the First Year Seminar
My (big) university offers these as a recommended, but not required class. They weren't so dedicated to helping students to fit in, at least overtly, but they were similarly small classes on wacky topics where you were not one of 500 students. The idea was to give you at least one class where you were one of only 20, could engage directly with a real professor on a wacky topic.
Mine was called "Time."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can imagine nothing sadder than a person spending their whole life with a self who has nothing interesting to say.
So, because you feel this way, should people be forced to pay $40-$60K before they can get a job?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I'll not comment on cost. Shopping for price, when it is a factor, applies to education too. But, given that; Yes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Line me up with Orincoro on this one. Education should be more than just skills to earn a living. What about living itself? I can imagine nothing sadder than a person spending their whole life with a self who has nothing interesting to say.
While this is, indeed, sad, the fact remains that that half of the population which has less than median intelligence is not going to become more interesting through an ability to regurgitate Shakespeare.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Orincoro, my liberal arts university had "general" courses designed exactly for that purpose - the First Year Seminar. Every student had to enroll in their first semester, and they were typically really off-beat, but cool topics that you weren't likely to study again:
History of Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Intelligence, Mind, and Computers The Looking-Glass Self: Women and Self-Portraiture What is a Riddle? Paradoxes, Conundrums, and Riddles Green Chemistry
etc, etc. Each First-Year Seminar, besides studying the topic of the course, discussed research and test-taking strategies, required papers, presentations, and group-work, and generally just helped the freshmen get oriented to college life. The professor of the course is the student's initial adviser (when you declared a major or knew enough faculty in your major area, you switched). And all of the students in the same seminar were in the same orientation group too, and had the same peer mentor.
It's one of the more brilliant setups I've seen at a university to help students succeed.
This is the system we use at Dickinson, too. My freshman...err, "First-Year" seminar was Rock Climbing: A Case Study in Science and Risk. It's a wonderful way to guide incoming students through that critical first semester.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
katharina, I am all for everyone taking writing classes. At least ones germane to their field (accountants could benefit from professional writing and business writing and letter writing classes, for example.) That's part of functioning in the business world and I see it as part of the purview of a technical degree.
I'm still not convinced that everyone needs biology or music appreciation to succeed in business.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am convinced that a business person who can talk intelligently only about their specialized subject is at an extreme disadvantage.
Sooner or later, the different between a job and a successful career is the ability to engage with people outside your own field.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yes, but there are other avenues to being able to talk about other things. Not everyone needs a music appreciation class to talk to other laypeople about music intelligently, and if high schools are doing their jobs one should have a basic understanding of science, etc.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
While I'm not denying that you have to take a class in order to understand music at a sopisticated level, it certainly is the easiest way. I also suspect someone who cannot understand the material when taking a music class would have a hard time learning the same material from laypeople.
If someone hates their basic literature course, I doubt they'll go out on their own and read the classics and be able to discuss it.
There are many ways to learn, but the mainlining of a formal course is the most straightforward.
-----
You shouldn't need a background liberal arts education to get a job. But a liberal arts education is invaluable to someone who wants a career.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
There's also the alternative of being able to get the qualifications you need for a job, getting a job, and then, once you are financially stable, being able to go back for classes in the arts that interest you or even get a liberal arts degree. I think if that were a more accepted path that people would be more invested in their liberal arts education, because they would 1) not be worrying about the huge amounts of debt they were going into to get something they did not see as necessary in the immediate future and 2) would be doing it on their own terms and their own time, when they wanted it.
It's kind of a hierarchy of needs thing to me; first people want to make sure they're going to be able to survive and take care of themselves (and their families if they have them), then they have time to satisfy their needs for music and arts and literature, etc.
I'm not saying everyone is like this. There will always be the people that want the liberal arts education from the start and enjoy it, and the people who don't go back and aren't going to enjoy it whatever you do. But this might cover the middle ground of people who WOULD enjoy it if they didn't feel they had more pressing concerns (which in my limited experience of talking to people about these things is a lot of people.)
That's why I'd be in favor of more choices in qualifications and paths to an education.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are different choices and paths to an education. The problem isn't a lack of options for an education - it is that despite the different paths to an education, only one or two are what employers are looking for.
The option of going back for more schooling later is available to people now.
If people want a professional, career-track job that can support a family with only a high school diploma or with minimal education, that's a different request that has nothing to do with the value of a liberal arts education.
[ October 23, 2008, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I just think by the time you hit high school you should have the OPTION to drop them, and by the time you're in college they should not be required for vocational degrees.
A University equation IS NOT and SHOULD NOT BE vocational training. Universities exist to educate people to be life longer learners and lead a rich full intellectual life and not merely to train people for jobs.
There are very few professions or vocations which require a university degree. If all you want is to be trained for a job, then a University really isn't the right place for you. Go to a Business College, Nursing school, a technical school. If the courses that interest you are only offered at a University, there is nothing preventing you from taking only those University courses that interest you. People have the OPTION right now to never take an art class of a history class while they attend the University. They just don't have the option to receive a degree without fulfilling all the requirements for the degree -- including those that might include classes in the arts and humanities.
There is no law preventing companies from hiring engineers, accountants or IT managers who have the relevant technical skills but haven't completed their arts and humanities courses. If companies won't, maybe its because they have found that people with a broader liberal education make better employees in the long run.
Universities have the right to set requirements for the degrees they issue. If what they teach and require isn't relevant to a lot of people, People have other options. Tertiary education is a highly competitive market. There are many options available if you don't want to meet the requirements Universities set.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I am sick and tired of restating myself ten different ways in an effort to get my point across, and being nit-picked. (I'm also just plain tired-- I've been averaging 3 hours of sleep per 24 hour period for the past week and a half.) I know what I mean but apparently no one else does. So I think I'm going to take a break from this thread now.
Have fun.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Orincoro, my liberal arts university had "general" courses designed exactly for that purpose - the First Year Seminar. Every student had to enroll in their first semester, and they were typically really off-beat, but cool topics that you weren't likely to study again:
History of Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands Intelligence, Mind, and Computers The Looking-Glass Self: Women and Self-Portraiture What is a Riddle? Paradoxes, Conundrums, and Riddles Green Chemistry
etc, etc. Each First-Year Seminar, besides studying the topic of the course, discussed research and test-taking strategies, required papers, presentations, and group-work, and generally just helped the freshmen get oriented to college life. The professor of the course is the student's initial adviser (when you declared a major or knew enough faculty in your major area, you switched). And all of the students in the same seminar were in the same orientation group too, and had the same peer mentor.
It's one of the more brilliant setups I've seen at a university to help students succeed.
We had something similar, but not required in my first year. It was required in all subsequent years. At my school, teachers had the option of devising their own random freshman seminar course. They met once a week, typically did not include homework, and everyone got an A for showing up. Class sizes were very small- like 10-15 They could be on just about anything, and were usually just a forum for students to talk to professors and teachers about whatever ailed them.
It's a good set-up, and a good system, and it also helped teachers try out materials and subjects for their bigger required classes. In fact, one of my musicology professors presented a paper I wrote on Californian minimalism to his seminar class on California history, and later he decided to include the lecture in his class on California music.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I would have been irritated to take random classes past freshman year; seminar classes would be fine, as most of mine were (shameless boast: my largest class was 22 people), but I was ready to focus on my interests after my first year of college.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I am sick and tired of restating myself ten different ways in an effort to get my point across, and being nit-picked. (I'm also just plain tired-- I've been averaging 3 hours of sleep per 24 hour period for the past week and a half.) I know what I mean but apparently no one else does. So I think I'm going to take a break from this thread now.
Have fun.
I would frankly expect more from you. But not on 3 hours of sleep, so I understand.
I think the essential objection to your point is that a university degree is not and maybe should not be what you think it is, but that vocational degrees should be better respected and a more real option for more people. At the same time, yours is a losing argument, if only because the way things are carries with it many advantages that you are not willing to acknowledge, or would like to suggest alternatives for. The point remains that universities gain their reputations by graduating people who are good at what they do, and have a diverse range of knowledge and interests that help them through life.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:A University equation IS NOT and SHOULD NOT BE vocational training. Universities exist to educate people to be life longer learners and lead a rich full intellectual life and not merely to train people for jobs.
People have different reasons for attending universities, and vocational training IS one of them, whether it should be or not. And for many jobs, a university education is the best education availble for that particular job - because many jobs require well-rounded individuals that can think and be flexible to a changing work environment. That is what many employers are looking for. This many not be what the faculty intends to be the purpose of the univesity, but for many people that is exactly what it is. (It should also be noted that if people who merely wanted to get a good job suddenly stopped going to universities, many universities across the country would probably have to shut their doors due to lack of enrollment.)
----
Having said that, I think many people misunderstand "practical" when they try to get an education with practical value. Practical does not equal money. Practical does not equal getting a job. Practical means something that will create utility for you - anything that will get you something of real, inherent value to you.
Money is only of value to people indirectly - it is only as useful as the things you can buy with it are useful. And while some people do find inherent value in their careers, others simply hold jobs to make money (which in turn is only useful for buying other things.) That means if you really want to assess the practicality of an education, you need to look beyond the financial value of it to how it ultimately effects all the things people really care about - good health, family, friends, happiness, productiveness, fulfillment, knowledge, or whatever. Education can get you a job which can get you money to buy products which can eventually help you attain some of those things, but education can also get you some of those things in far more direct ways.
That is why it can be practical for students to take classes in the arts. And in those cases, it is not so much the specific details of Shakespeare that will get those students the most utility. Rather, its the general experience of learning to think about art and the ideas behind art, of learning how to think creatively, etc. that provide the utility.
Whether college classes actually succeed in teaching those general skills is another question - but that is, at least, the intention.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There are very few professions or vocations which require a university degree. If all you want is to be trained for a job, then a University really isn't the right place for you. Go to a Business College, Nursing school, a technical school.
In the US, the distinction between a college and a university is generally whether the school offers anything past the level of an associate's or bachelor's, not (necessarily) the quality of the education or classes. Most colleges which offer 4-year degrees (as opposed to technical schools or others which offer specific job training) have some kind of "breadth" or "core" requirements. These usually require English (composition & literature) courses, science & math, arts, and possibly other things -- regardless of the field one is majoring in.
While there certainly are schools which will allow you to get a 4-year degree (or its "equivalent", which can mean all kinds of things) without such requirements, almost all are proprietary schools, which charge on the order of 5-10 times what a state school does. (At least here in California.)
And many, many employers consider a 4-year degree part of the minimum qualifications for a job.
While I happen to approve of the breadth requirements (at least in the form that most schools have them), I can understand the frustration.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:There is no law preventing companies from hiring engineers, accountants or IT managers who have the relevant technical skills but haven't completed their arts and humanities courses. If companies won't, maybe its because they have found that people with a broader liberal education make better employees in the long run.
There is no law that explicitly says so, no. However, the various employment laws have the same effect, in that they require employers to show that their hiring decisions were based on measureable criteria. A full bachelor's degree is measureable; "the relevant technical skills" is not.
Or so runs one theory. Another theory is that having only half a degree does not demonstrate an ability to see things through, which is a bit of a disadvantage for a job. But this does not imply that we are giving people the right things to finish whether they like it or not.
A point to notice here is that a high proportion of graduate students in physics have undergraduate degrees from Europe or Asia, with a much higher degree of specialisation in physics. Presumably this indicates that universities here do not find liberal arts necessary to good physics-research skills.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Employers aren't required to show that their hiring decisions are based on measurable criteria.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: A point to notice here is that a high proportion of graduate students in physics have undergraduate degrees from Europe or Asia, with a much higher degree of specialisation in physics. Presumably this indicates that universities here do not find liberal arts necessary to good physics-research skills.
Or it means that proportionately few American undergrads are interested in getting a graduate degree in research science, so universities are forced to compete for the foreign applicants, and the details of their undergrad degrees be damned.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Employers aren't required to show that their hiring decisions are based on measurable criteria.
I do believe that the proponents of that theory are rather exaggerating the threat of lawsuits, yes. Hence my implied skepticism with "Or so runs one theory". Still, it's a point to consider.
quote:Or it means that proportionately few American undergrads are interested in getting a graduate degree in research science, so universities are forced to compete for the foreign applicants, and the details of their undergrad degrees be damned.
And what does this say about how well-prepared a standard American undergraduate degree leaves people for a graduate degree in science?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Or it means that proportionately few American undergrads are interested in getting a graduate degree in research science, so universities are forced to compete for the foreign applicants, and the details of their undergrad degrees be damned.
And what does this say about how well-prepared a standard American undergraduate degree leaves people for a graduate degree in science?
Precious little.
It does say quite a bit about the PITA process of getting one's PhD, and the cut-throat nature of academia. Many US science undergrads have seen enough of that up close to have no desire to go through either.
The problem is not their qualifications; it's their interest.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. Especially given a simple model of comparative advantage: even if an American undergraduate degree prepares a student well for graduate research in science, if it prepares them proportionally better for some other pursuit (than people with undergraduate degrees from somewhere else), they're still not going to go into graduate research in science as much, whatever the relative absolute levels in capability.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: It does say quite a bit about the PITA process of getting one's PhD, and the cut-throat nature of academia. Many US science undergrads have seen enough of that up close to have no desire to go through either.
Your words are not in correspondence with reality.
quote:The problem is not their qualifications; it's their interest.
Interest is a qualification.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're wrong on both counts, KoM.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Having known a number of people who work in HR, I'm content to believe that it's simple HR incompetence rather than any part of an overarching strategy. When faced with 120 applicants for 1 job, one of the most convenient things you can do -- if you're doing the first cut, and you (like most HR people) don't understand any of the actual job criteria -- is to look for the 60 or so resumes that don't have any degree at all and throw 'em away. Now your pool is cut in half, and you haven't even had to engage a single brain cell yet. You can get half the job done before your morning cup of coffee.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
At my university, all arts undergraduates were required to take a single full-year science class and all science undergraduates were required to do the reverse. Included among the possible Science courses were all the History and Philosophy of Science courses (which counted as both science and humanities), the first year seminar I took which mostly consisted of writing short science fiction stories, and Science For Dummies courses deliberately aimed at arts students. I, an arts grad, graduated with 2.5 courses that count as science courses.
There are plenty of more factual based classes aimed at Science students getting their Arts credit. The aforementioned History and Philosophy of Science courses, especially certain ones, are more dependent on short answer and multiple choice in order to accommodate those unused to writing essays.
I know only one person who had difficulty in completing this requirement, and she was a drama student who was not incapable of filling the requirement- far from it- she was simply totally disinterested. I do not think the disinterestedness of a minority of students is a good reason to say that requiring arts students take a science course and science students take an arts course is too much to ask. I believe that having that extra perspective and going to class with students you do not always go to class with is invaluable. The faculty was called the Faculty of Arts and Science and encompassed all purely academic subjects.
I, although I agree quite strongly with Rabbit, do not think that highly academic vocational schools- Nursing, Medecine, Law, Education, Engineering, Pharmacy, Business etc.- need to be kept out of universities or should exist separate from that kind of atmosphere because the students who attend them only want a job and not have to fulfill all kinds of requirements. I think they benefit from the highly academic atmosphere of the school. At the university I attended each of the above schools had their own Faculties and there was no problem. The students who entered them, whether it was directly from high school, partway through an undergrad degree or at the end of one, were overwhelmingly also interested in learning, not just getting a degree and getting out of there.
As for the learning-to-write courses, having highly educated people like Doctors, Pharmacists and Engineers not being able to communicate in at least a basic, professional-looking way would be a huge problem. I believe even many community colleges require this skill depending on the subject.
Recently in Ontario, high schools and community colleges have been pushing and advertising going to community college and alternative tertiary education systems like apprenticeships. There was a series of semi-viral ads that opposed the view that parents should push their children into university simply because it looks good or they feel it's the only honorable middle-class way to go. At the same time, I feel that community colleges and technical schools are beginning to gain ground and attract a wider range of people rather than merely the bottom of the graduating class. Perhaps the diversification of this kind of college will encourage the ability for people to learn to be plumbers and electricians while also studying more academic subjects like history and literature.
Do plumbers and electricians need to know how to write an essay? No. Would it be helpful to them and to society in general for them to understand how to read, write and comprehend science at a reasonably complex level? Yes.
The above said, some jobs seemed to have a gained a requirement for an academic degree that perhaps seems unnecessary. For example, in order to be a librarian, you need 6 years at school. Now, perhaps somebody here with a degree in Library Science can set me straight, but it seems that such a degree, although a bonus and perhaps could allow higher entry into the system, would not be necessary to run a library effectively, let alone carry out the everyday functioning of a library. Many library systems require this two-year masters degree for every librarian hired and give no other options- such as apprenticeship or even college (since the degree is an MA and the college degree is "Library Technician") to become a librarian. It requires more education to become a librarian than a teacher.
Such requirements do not exist all over the world and certainly have not always existed. Are we closing our doors to many enthusiastic young people who love books and are willing to learn the theoretical and technological facets of running a library as they go in order to employ people who have simply spent longer in school?
Another example is the advent of the Journalism degree. Although not so widely required by employees, there was a time when journalism degrees didn't exist. An employee was hired from university or high school even and given basic easy assignments. If he or she was good at the job, he or she was promoted. Alternatively, he or she freelanced- an entry way that still exists, thankfully.
I think we are shying away from employing the inexperienced and training them ourselves, towards a world where only the experienced are employed at a high entry point. The education outside of the job is more important than the education inside of the job. Are our journalists particularly much better than they were before the Journalism degree was widespread? I don't think so.
I think that partially this is due to the baby boomer generation making the world top heavy. There are too many older, experienced people free to hold jobs- rightly; they are more experienced. But it's also to do with the extreme real-world value placed on academic instruction where it doesn't always apply. Learning on the job was once much more valued than it is now.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
For clarification, because I think 99% of us are arguing the same side:
Does anyone feel that students going for a bachelor's should not have to take any liberal arts at all? Everyone seems to be arguing that liberal arts are a good thing in a university education as if someone was arguing the opposite. So far, I don't think anyone is.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Since studies have shown that taller, better-looking people generally earn more and advance farther (over the course of their lifetimes) than their shorter, ordinary-looking counterparts, I propose that high school graduates spend the money they now spend on college on shoes with thick soles and cosmetic surgery.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No. I think that taller, better-looking people should be charged triple for school to give the shorter people "equal" advantage.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Does anyone feel that students going for a bachelor's should not have to take any liberal arts at all?
*Raises hand*
I didn't, and look what a fine, upstanding grad student I've become. Although technically my undergrad degree is a cand. mag., rather than a bachelor's.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Do plumbers and electricians need to know how to write an essay? No.
To be a plumber, no. To be a business owner, they need to know how to communicate clearly and effectively with non-plumbers, they need to be able to understand how to keep books and run a business, and if they want to partner with contractors and they like, they need to be able to talk about things other than plumbing intelligently.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think the greatest change would come about to our system of education if the students were allowed to choose which teachers they wanted to study under, and those whom nobody liked were fired. Good teaching matters more than almost anything else, and yet we have little or nothing in place to ensure our students get good teaching.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I think the greatest change would come about to our system of education if the students were allowed to choose which teachers they wanted to study under, and those whom nobody liked were fired."
Being popular, and being good, are not the same thing.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: *Raises hand*
Duly noted. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Does anyone feel that students going for a bachelor's should not have to take any liberal arts at all?
At my university, you can get a BEng or certain joint BMath degrees without any liberal arts at all. In both you have to do makeup courses in English if you either fail a Toefel or do badly in high school English, and in the latter you get electives, but on the whole there are no mandatory liberal arts courses.
I'm ok with that.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Being popular, and being good, are not the same thing.
That's only if you assume that students are trying their best not to learn at all, and aren't looking out for their own interests in getting the best education for the money. In other words, if you assume they're children.
What would happen to restaurants if we decided to give people the best food instead of the food they want? We'd have to keep the costs down and we'd want to serve vegetables at each meal, but it wouldn't matter overly much how tasty it is because the most popular food isn't the best, right?
So we'd end up with all restaurant becoming something like an elementary school cafeteria. My point is that what we have now in education is uniformly this whats-good-for-us "school cafeteria" version of learning. I'd like to explore as a society having also options that correspond to the Wendys of learning, the Cracker Barrel of learning, and the Ruth's Chris of learning and all points between. Does that make sense? I think letting the students choose their teachers would give us that.
[ October 23, 2008, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Ruth's Chris
Weirdest. Name. Ever.
That's all. Carry on.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Being popular, and being good, are not the same thing.
That's only if you assume that students are trying their best not to learn at all, and aren't looking out for their own interests in getting the best education for the money. In other words, if you assume they're children.
And IME, a sad percentage of undergrads are. The percentage probably varies greatly at more exclusive schools. Although with the pressure to get good grades, maybe not as much as one might hope.
Then again, we did fire (or not re-hire, anyway) a teacher based primarily on student complaints.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Wow, check out sites like "ratemyteacher.com" some time. Often, the best teachers get some of the worst scores, while some of the worst teachers get very high scores.
Why? Because, as mentioned above, the site polls children. It's also the reason why good parents don't let children just eat food they like, and instead actually balance meals so their kids don't end up looking like the stay-puffed marshmallow man.
At the undergraduate college level, this isn't much different - though there is a higher percentage of students who do have their own futures and best interests in mind.
Unfortunately, there are also those students who want the "easy A", or even highly competitive students who would mark down teachers in top classes for ruining their 4.0 average and their chances at the best grad schools.
Beyond this, add in all the students who are not paying their own way through college who don't value what they aren't financially accountable for.
While it is a good idea to have teacher evaluations and take these into account when dealing with professor's continued employment, the idea of only keeping professors/teachers that the students really like is wrongheaded.
From my own anecdotal experience, I didn't appreciate some of my very best teachers until later - when I realized how well they had prepared me for years beyond their class. I also learned later that I regretted some of my favorite teachers at the time not being more critical of my work or challenging the class more, because I wasn't as prepared as I could be.
To have evaluations be the sole determining factor relies on a level of maturity and self awareness not found in the majority of students (or people in general, for that matter).
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:To be a plumber, no. To be a business owner, they need to know how to communicate clearly and effectively with non-plumbers, they need to be able to understand how to keep books and run a business, and if they want to partner with contractors and they like, they need to be able to talk about things other than plumbing intelligently.
Psst, I know. My next sentence:
quote:No. Would it be helpful to them and to society in general for them to understand how to read, write and comprehend science at a reasonably complex level? Yes.
I fully agree.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Of course the parents of the children would also have a large influence on the choice.
I'm not sure I understand how you're sure the good teachers get bad ratings on rateyourprofessor.com. I know when I was an undergrad in EE, I and my classmates chose our favorite teachers based on how good they were, not how easy. Our favorite teacher was pretty much the hardest one in the department, but he was also an excellent teacher, and conveyed the most information in the most efficient and interesting way.
When I was tutoring, I thought the ratings I received were highly accurate in terms of the value I was able to provide to the student. When I got low scores from one student, for example, I reexamined the transcript of our tutoring session and realized I had not been at all effective in conveying the concepts to him.
So I disagree that students and their parents together are unable to understand things well enough to judge how effective a teacher is. I think any other suggestion is paternalistic and unfortunate.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Assuming your experience is the norm is a common logical fallacy.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have picked professors based on the *comments* on rateyourprofessor and been quite successful.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
You have to ask yourself, Tatiana, what is the goal of the student, and what is the goal of the parent?
Is the goal: "To learn as much as possible in the most effective, enjoyable and efficient way"?
That may be your goal (and it may be a great goal to have), but that (in my own experience) is not the goal of everyone - or even most students (up through middle and high school, which is my own teaching experience)
How about those students who don't share those same values? What about other goals? - To get good grades (focus on score, not learning) - To enjoy class (with or without regard for learning attained) - To make friends (without regard for learning attained) - To get a degree (note: this just means the piece of paper, without regard to any learning involved)
While those all might be worthwhile goals, they can all be at the expense of learning (or, alternately, be a part of learning).
What happens when a teacher who is fun, friendly, gives generous grades and extra credit, and hands out candy every day is more popular than the challenging, engaging, tough-grading teacher who expects a high level of personal responsibility?
Who is "better" - the teacher who gives the student a "C" for effort, or the teacher who holds the student back because they are not ready for the next level? I know what the student will say - and parents aren't too keen on their kids being held back or getting bad grades, either.
quote:like to explore as a society having also options that correspond to the Wendys of learning, the Cracker Barrel of learning, and the Ruth's Chris of learning and all points between. Does that make sense?
This is perfectly illustrated - and is part of the reason why we live in a Big Mac culture. People have the choice to eat healthy, or not. And the vast majority choose "not".
The "obesity" problem in this country caused by people overindulging on fast food would be paired with the "ignorance" problem of people overindulging on enjoyment over learning.
Hmm... I could eat the well balanced meal, or I could eat Cheetos...
quote:I think any other suggestion is paternalistic and unfortunate.
And the belief that the "student knows best" is naive and unfortunate.
Throw in the parents (who, by the way, have no direct classroom experience with the teacher by which to judge) and you compound the problem. While some parents want their kids to succeed in school and move on to college, others are wholly uninterested (or even, inexplicably, work against that goal).
This idyllic world you describe requires a level of maturity, responsibility and self-awarness that is not universal. I wish it were.
quote:I'm not sure I understand how you're sure the good teachers get bad ratings on rateyourprofessor.com.
My experience is with ratemyteacher.com, which is geared at high school, primarily, and I would like to think (hope?) that the collegiate level has a higher level of personal responsibility (though that is by no means a foregone conclusion).
I have worked with several "well liked" teachers that were just abyssmal with regard to their ability to teach. They closed their doors, handed out a lot of candy, watched a lot of movies, gave all "A" grades, and curved the final exams something in the order of 40%. They were there to get a paycheck, and they were tenured, but the students in those classes had a great time.
Yes, there were several who took their education seriously, and most of these transfered out to other teachers. Alternately, students who were looking to avoid work asked to transfer in. And on the two observation days of the year, the teacher had the kids trained in a variety of tricks to make the kids look engaged (which, when explained to me, were just astounding).
This teacher got huge numbers on the site.
Alternately, a teacher who regularly had visits from former students thanking them, had extra help sessions every morning, had multiple district award winners in science, had regular fun science-based activities, etc... had middling scores.
Why? Because for every positive comment, there was a response of "I HATE her! She's so hard!" or "Avoid this class unless you like C's!" from students whose goals were to coast along with as little effort as possible.
Put the choice of teachers in the hands of the students and parents, and you'll have the inmates running the asylum.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Don't get me wrong, though - I think evalutations by the students should carry *some* weight. And they should be reviewed by someone with the ability to make staffing decisions.
But you can't just judge based on evaluation score - because the signal to noise ratio is just too much of a risk.
If the evaluations are thoughtful and on point, the reader can use that as part of their decision making process. If they are nonsense, they can be discarded.
But they should not be worked in as a hard and fast mandatory factor when determining whether to retain a teacher/professor or not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Put the choice of teachers in the hands of the students and parents, and you'll have the inmates running the asylum.
Sounds like a couple schools I used to work at.
quote:Don't get me wrong, though - I think evaluations by the students should carry *some* weight. And they should be reviewed by someone with the ability to make staffing decisions.
But you can't just judge based on evaluation score - because the signal to noise ratio is just too much of a risk.
If the evaluations are thoughtful and on point, the reader can use that as part of their decision making process. If they are nonsense, they can be discarded.
But they should not be worked in as a hard and fast mandatory factor when determining whether to retain a teacher/professor or not.
Agreed 100%.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Does anyone feel that students going for a bachelor's should not have to take any liberal arts at all?
*Raises hand*
Me too.
I suspect you'll find most people who are graduates of a British/European/Australian system would agree.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think one of the main reasons for the poor performance of our schools, though, is that the students are treated something like inmates in an asylum. Your metaphor is all too true, in other words. Instead they should be treated as customers who are paying scarce dollars for an important experience or commodity. Who delivers it best? Let them choose.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Instead they should be treated as customers who are paying scarce dollars for an important experience or commodity. Who delivers it best? Let them choose
If it's important, why would we let people who by definition aren't yet educated, choose according to their implicitly underinformed opinion. I think that couching education in market-driven economic rhetoric is a profound and pernicious result of lazy public policy and poor educational discourse.
In general, I agree with Flying Cow. In addition, we'll be serious about education in this country when we stop looking to threats posed by India and China, stop looking at test scores, and start thinking about what it means to be an American. Again, if this financial crisis has taught us anything, it's that it doesn't matter how advanced your math knowledge, if you haven't the quality of character to refrain from cooking books, the entire economy is in peril.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: [QUOTE]Again, if this financial crisis has taught us anything, it's that it doesn't matter how advanced your math knowledge, if you haven't the quality of character to refrain from cooking books, the entire economy is in peril.
I would find this a lot more compelling if there were any actual evidence that lit'rature and lib'ral arts courses actually teach character.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
... and that that the latter is disproportionately represented.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Does anyone feel that students going for a bachelor's should not have to take any liberal arts at all?
*Raises hand*
I didn't, and look what a fine, upstanding grad student I've become. Although technically my undergrad degree is a cand. mag., rather than a bachelor's.
KOM, While I don't know the details of the Norwegian educational system, the University system in most European countries is not comparable to the US system because students enter the University only after they have successful a completed a Baccalaureate (Abitur in German). The Baccalaureate requirements cover very nearly the same areas that most US Universities cover in their general education core. These things aren't required in European Universities because students are required to have them before they enter the University. Essentially, European Universities require students to have roughly the equivalent of an associates degree before they start. Students who enter US Universities with an associates degree or International Baccalaureate usually aren't required to take any general or liberal education classes in either.
But since I'm pretty sure you know all that, I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Having known a number of people who work in HR, I'm content to believe that it's simple HR incompetence rather than any part of an overarching strategy. When faced with 120 applicants for 1 job, one of the most convenient things you can do -- if you're doing the first cut, and you (like most HR people) don't understand any of the actual job criteria -- is to look for the 60 or so resumes that don't have any degree at all and throw 'em away. Now your pool is cut in half, and you haven't even had to engage a single brain cell yet. You can get half the job done before your morning cup of coffee.
That's an indictment of universities... or of HR people...? I have an idea: hire smart people who work hard for your HR department.
Oh, but no, better change the University system so that lazy people don't have excuses for being lazy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say I do not recognise your description in Norwegian practice. Now, I myself am a bit unusual because I did have an International Baccalaureate before entering university, which is not usual in Norway. However, the actual requirement is what they call 'studiekompetanse'. You get this by attending three years of high school college track (as opposed to vocational-school tracks) and not getting any failing grades. (In the case of more competitive majors like law or medicine, you need pretty good grades to get in; physics, though, is notoriously the warm-body major in Norway. They fix this by making the first year heavy on the hard math, weeding out the weenies.) Now, I'm as much in favour of a bit of US-bashing as the next European, but you can't tell me a Norwegian high school (college track or not) is the equivalent of an associate's degree. I won't speak to other European countries.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
And while you weren't addressing me Rabbit, I'll say it's certainly not true of Australia.
To get into University, you need a good end of year 12 grade (very good for the more competitive course at the better unis). Depending on your state, this is done by mostly end of year 12 exams, or combined year 11 and 12 internal assessment, or a combination of both. (There is also entry through the IB, but this is relatively uncommon.) You need to have at least 4 subjects (though most people will do 5, or 6), and you must do some form of English. That's it. It's entirely possible to get to uni without doing any form of music, art, history, geography etc in year 11 or 12 (though most of these are compulsory in earlier high school).
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"'studiekompetanse'"
I imagine this in the voice/accent of Arnold Shwarzenegger.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: And while you weren't addressing me Rabbit, I'll say it's certainly not true of Australia. ...
Your description loosely matches my high school requirements in Ontario, Canada and I'd note that Math Accounting program I linked to is also rather devoid of liberal arts courses as described in this thread.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The liberal arts don't build character, they broaden our outlook on life. Some of my favourite people are artists and scientists and I strive to be interested in and understand the sciences myself so I can be an informed citizen. We should not be entirely specialized beings not only for the knowledge that we gain but also because it forces us to think in a different way, it challenges us with things we are not necessarily good at and last it has us mix with different people for the hour, two hours we spend in class.
There is a truth in the idea that scientists and artists think differently, and many scientists and artists shun the other. Why do we make these separations when our minds are capable of enjoying, if not excelling, at both? How can taking a single course outside of our field by a step or two make a student a poorer person? At the very least, we learn to think a little differently, to struggle with something unfamiliar. At the most we learn to enjoy something new and to appreciate it.
Liberal Arts and Fine Arts majors should not be content with being stupid about science because it's "so hard and boring", and scientists should not be content in proclaiming the last book they read was The Cat in the Hat. Our lives are enriched by having varied interests even if we are terrible at them.
So, yes, I think it doesn't grievously harm students to take a single course slightly out of 'their area', especially if they get to choose it and there are courses aimed at their mindset. I think it improves them.
*
Concerning the idea of education as a form of retail, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Yes, poor professors should be held accountable, but to peddle learning like designer goods would turn education into a cattle market.
Popualar professors do get rewarded. Their class sizes go up or become competitive. They get more interested students and one hopes that a professor is happy to have eager students. I presume that professors like that also get paid a little more.
Not all good professors, however, get a majority vote. Some are quietly punting away in the background in obscure subjects interesting to only a few students and never reach the kind of prominence more popularist professors reach. They are nevertheless just as good.
Other professors are controversial, but excellent. The professor I learned the most from in university drives me batty, he's so annoying and contrary and crazy, and yet aside from this he was brilliant.
Some popular professors are popular because they're funny or engaging, not because they teach well. The only English course I *had* to take (in order to get my major) was entirely a waste of time (not the literature, the class) because the professor mostly gave background you could get from Wikipedia. People tended to like the professor, though, because he was funny, and I heard that he was much better in smaller classes.
Rankings of professors exist and they are not entirely wrong. We were always asked to give comments at the end of the class and I'm sure that most students at the university I attended put something reasonably reflective not of the marks they had intended to get but instead of how the class was. If it was good or not.
We do not need to sell education like televangelists sell religion in order to get good educations.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Teshi, I think the argument isn't that no one should have to take something outside their major, just that they have to take so much outside their major.
I went to UF for a bit. To major in anything I needed: 120 hours worth of classes; a 2.0 GPA; at least 30 hours earned at UF; 40 hours of general education - 3 composition, 6 math, 9 humanities, 9 social and behavioral sciences, 6 physical science, 6 biological science, and 1 science lab; out of those credits, 6 of them must meet the international/diversity studies requirment; 18 hours of 3000 level electives; and proficiency in a foreign language, which may or may not include taking a class since you had to take two years in high school just to get in to UF.
So, to graduate from UF, you basically have to spend your first two years just meeting their minimum requirements before you can even move on to what you came to school to study. That's $6,200 for tuition and fees at one of the cheaper schools in the southeast. Plus housing. Plus food. The southeast average is closer to $14,400 plus room and board.
That's a lot of money and time just to get your outlook broadened. I don't think the question in the thread has ever been, "Is it good for you"? I think it's always been, "Are we really comfortable dictating that kind of imposition of our values on folks just trying to get a better job"?
The University doesn't necessarily need to change. But somewhere, there needs to be a less micro-managing, cheaper option for folks to do better in life. You shouldn't have to buy into the academic outlook just to make $50,000 a year.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:You shouldn't have to buy into the academic outlook just to make $50,000 a year.
That's higher than the national average income. Why shouldn't you have to do that in order to make more than the average income? Why should there be an easy entry into professions that make above average?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why should it be a liberal arts education?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
$6200 for tuition sounds kinda low. Is that per term or per year? (Nvm, "one of the cheaper schools")
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do you propose to replace that with?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
My undergrad, being a liberal arts school, had breadth requirements. There were six different "groupings" of courses:
Natural Sciences & Math
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Literature & the Arts
Historical & Philosophical Understanding
Foreign Language
Self-Expression (P.E., studio art, theater, etc)
When I entered the school, we were required to take two classes in four of the six groups, and one in the other two groups - so a total of 10 courses, altho your major and minor would often fulfill a couple of those group requirements. Most student chose to only half-complete (i.e. take only one, not two courses in) Group 1 (math & science) and Group 5 (foreign language). When I was a junior the faculty decided to change the requirement for all incoming future students so that the new students would have to fully complete all six groups, although the total number of courses you'd need to graduate wasn't changing.
Most of the students were upset (I was quite pleased), and Student Congress that week was quite crazy. Many of the students complained that this would make it more difficult to complete double majors, study abroad, complete one of the honors programs, etc, since you would have to plan your classes a bit better to complete all of the requirements of these programs AND graduate in four years. (I am of the opinion that life's about trade-offs.)
Anyways, the surreal highlight of the night was when a student stood up, and proudly declared that she was glad she had only taken one math/science course, and she didn't think that we should be forced to do any more. She was a double major, and thought that this change in requirements would put too much strain on the segment of the student body who were trying to complete double majors. "After all," she said, "7% of the graduating seniors complete double majors - that means that 28% of the student body will be negatively affected by this change in requirements."
I left soon after.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Instead they should be treated as customers who are paying scarce dollars for an important experience or commodity.
Tatiana, to take the retail metaphor a little farther...
Up through secondary school, students are not the customer but instead the product. They do not pay for the education they get - the cost is deferred onto others who have already been "produced" by the educational factory and are now making money and paying taxes.
At the collegiate level, this breaks down somewhat, but the sources of funding for colleges are still not derived wholly from the students sitting in classrooms. In state schools, there is state funding drawn from tax dollars. There are also grants provided by the government or business, alumni donations, scholarship programs, revenues generated by the school itself... and, as in secondary school, parents/guardians who often pay or contribute to the bill.
The educational system creates a product, which is "educated individuals". Those individuals are in turn "paid for" when they are hired by companies or the state, or themselves begin producing a subsequent product paid for by others in society.
The factory isn't currently making ideal widgets, and it isn't doing it very efficiently. The people buying the widgets (business, society) are complaining about quality of product. It behooves the people who pay for the facotry (those contributing hte dollars - which may, at the collegiate level, include a percentage of the widgets) to fix the process.
In this particular factory, the widgets have voices and can provide feedback on the process - we have the opportunity to hear from voices who see the inside of the factory!
That's a great resource, and it should be tapped into by those trying to fix the process. But the not-yet-widgets themselves should not ultimately be making the decisions.
To quote Irami:
quote:If it's important, why would we let people who by definition aren't yet educated, choose according to their implicitly underinformed opinion.
While there is a percentage of students who may have keen insight into the problems of the educational system and may be able to provide wonderful intelligence on what is broken or needs fixing, those people should be *consulted*, not made foremen.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Liberal Arts and Fine Arts majors should not be content with being stupid about science because it's "so hard and boring", and scientists should not be content in proclaiming the last book they read was The Cat in the Hat. Our lives are enriched by having varied interests even if we are terrible at them.
I must say that I have never encountered a scientist, from any country - education-specialising or not - who would even remotely match this description. And I do meet quite a few of them, and talk about this and that. Liberal arts majors, on the other hand...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
KoM, you deal with scientists and you are not a liberal arts major. They're two totally different animals. That's all I'll say.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I think the issue needs to be addressed on different levels. No one seems able to agree about the ultimate goal of getting a university education. I went to Columbia, where all students get a classic liberal arts education (the Core Curriculum). I had a full tuition scholarship, so I just had a very small loan to cover the rest of the expenses (books, housing, lab fees, etc.). Basically, I paid $10K for a $136K education. Many people feel that I am wasting my education because I've chosen to be a wife and mother, rather than to have a career. Obviously I disagree. While I certainly don't apply my knowledge of the Peloponnesian War to my everyday life, my education gives me the freedom to be assured of a place in the workforce should I ever choose to re-enter it. Also, I don't think that Columbia should be a diploma factory or a grad/med/law school/Wall Street feeder.
However, I knew a lot of people who were miserable with the Core and just wanted to get on with their careers. They felt that going to Columbia would increase their chances to get into grad schools/get the right jobs and they were right. But they were so unpleasant to have in classes and we all would have been better off if they could just have gone straight to grad school or an apprenticeship. They learned enough of the material to do well and promptly forgot it as soon as the final was over.
Then there are the students who have somehow managed to gain admittance to colleges like VCU, where my husband teaches. He does have bright and talented students who are interested in the material, but he also has a significant number of students who are on a middle-school level in terms of critical thinking and writing. His class is not remedial and is required of all freshman, so he's stuck with these students who should never have been admitted at all. Can you imagine how frustrating it is for everyone to have a mixed class like that?
There are so many problems at colleges today. I think many of you would be shocked at the things professors have to deal with. They now have to give talks at the beginning of the year about not texting or answering their phones in class.* My best friend is T.A.-ing a behavioral analysis class at UF and she has had to address profanity in essays and assignments. Cheating and plagarizing are MAJOR problems and students get indignant when confronted with concrete proof that they've cheated.
*Andrew allows his students to keep their phones on vibrate for emergencies because he has to do so himself (because I'm pregnant). He asks that students step out of the room if they get an emergency call and that it not become a habit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: [QB]
quote:A University equation IS NOT and SHOULD NOT BE vocational training. Universities exist to educate people to be life longer learners and lead a rich full intellectual life and not merely to train people for jobs.
People have different reasons for attending universities, and vocational training IS one of them, whether it should be or not. And for many jobs, a university education is the best education availble for that particular job - because many jobs require well-rounded individuals that can think and be flexible to a changing work environment.
Yes many people choose to attend a University to get vocational training. Some people also attend a University to meet boys, to binge drink, to live near a ski resort, to qualify for health insurance, to avoid getting a paying off their student loans or any number of other reasons. The fact that a University accommodates many of those things is basically irrelevant. The purpose of a University is not to be singles club or a bar or a health insurance plan or job training-- the purpose of a University is to educate people. And educating is not equivalent to job training.
I have exactly the same amount of sympathy for people who complain about having to meet general education requirements they see as unnecessary for their future job as I do for students who complain that exams interfere with their social life -- less than zero.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To what extent do you feel that you should be allowed to dictate what people use Universities for?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: To what extent do you feel that you should be allowed to dictate what people use Universities for?
I don't think I have any right to dictate what people use Universities for. But as a Professor, I see no reason to accommodate students wishes when those wishes are in conflict with our mission as a University.
Universities have the right to establish their missions and then to establish policies designed to meet those missions. If people are able to use the University to achieve other ends, that's fine but they have no right to complain that the University isn't accommodating them if their goals aren't compatable with the Universities mission.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:they have no right to complain
Oops...
English is funny.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's cute, but what does it mean?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Universities have the right to establish their missions and then to establish policies designed to meet those missions. If people are able to use the University to achieve other ends, that's fine but they have no right to complain that the University isn't accommodating them if their goals aren't compatable with the Universities mission.
Quite so. The fact remains that universities are competing in both a literal marketplace and one of ideas; if your mission doesn't match up with what people want to do, you're going to fund yourself going broke at some point.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Yes... because so many universities (especially those crazy liberal arts ones) are having trouble filling their seats. *rolls eyes* College enrollment is on the rise in the US, and has been trending upwards for a very long time.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Quite so. The fact remains that universities are competing in both a literal marketplace and one of ideas; if your mission doesn't match up with what people want to do, you're going to fund yourself going broke at some point.
I can't agree more, but I would conclude that the mere fact that a US University education continues to be highly sought after indicates that at least thus far, providing a broad based education rather than narrow vocational training is winning the competition.
If liberal arts requirements really provided little or no value, institutions that don't have them (and such institutions do exist) would start dominating in the US and they simply haven't.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If liberal arts requirements really provided little or no value, institutions that don't have them (and such institutions do exist) would start dominating in the US and they simply haven't.
I don't know. There could be a host of confounding variables at play.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would conclude that the mere fact that a US University education continues to be highly sought after indicates that at least thus far, providing a broad based education rather than narrow vocational training is winning the competition.
Or that the recipients of broad-based education, once esconced in their jobs, seek to validate their own empty degrees by limiting access to jobs to people who jumped through the same meaningless hurdles.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Quite so. The fact remains that universities are competing in both a literal marketplace and one of ideas; if your mission doesn't match up with what people want to do, you're going to fund yourself going broke at some point.
I can't agree more, but I would conclude that the mere fact that a US University education continues to be highly sought after indicates that at least thus far, providing a broad based education rather than narrow vocational training is winning the competition.
If liberal arts requirements really provided little or no value, institutions that don't have them (and such institutions do exist) would start dominating in the US and they simply haven't.
I was perhaps not communicating too clearly. I intended to object to your statement of, basically, unis doing what they do, and students having to accept that or forfeit your sympathy. At some level it really is the students who determine the purpose of universities. As an example, where are the universities who enforce strict alcohol control, separation of the genders, and church on Sundays? Two generations ago this was mainstream, more or less. They still exist, but they're very much a minority.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ...
If liberal arts requirements really provided little or no value, institutions that don't have them (and such institutions do exist) would start dominating in the US and they simply haven't.
If I may point out, graduates from our relatively liberal arts free Engineering, Computer Science, and mathematics programs are doing quite well in the states.
In fact, the phenomenon of our graduates being sucked off to employment in the states is actually an ongoing issue of debate for our government.
I suspect that Irami is right on the ball and that there are many confounding factors in play here.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I was talking the other days about seemingly "meaningless" hoops that we have to jump through in education programs.
For example, five classes (15 hours) of literature surveys which must include American lit, world lit, and British lit are required. Sounds good, no? Well, the thing is, the surveys are 200 level sophomore classes, and in order to graduate with an English major (which we are required to do - secondary ed majors have to fulfill a complete major in their field, English in my case), I have distribution requirements that ensure I take British, American, and world/multicultural lit at the upper levels - 300 or 400 level. So, even though I have to take American lit at the 400 level, I still have to take a sophomore survey course on the same exact lit and time period. I've done Equiano's autobiography four times - once in the sophomore survey, once in a 300-level African-American lit course, once in a 400-level 18th century British lit course, and now again in a 400-level American lit course. Now, Equiano's story is a great one, and I enjoy it and am glad I've read it, but I don't think I've needed to study it four different times.
Unfortunately, education programs have to answer to state departments of education which credential them. And, those state departments are so regimented in what a university education program must offer, that they have to document nine ways to Sunday that we've been instructed in certain types of literature. The easiest way to ensure that we've gotten the breadth and scope required by the State Department is to force us to take all the surveys.
What's crazy, is that while I'm taking sophomore surveys that only repeat stuff I've already studied at a higher level, I'm NOT taking classes that would really benefit me. For example, we take only one class in exceptional education, and yet with full inclusion the norm in many schools, we are pretty much guaranteed to have students with special needs in our classrooms and have very little training in how best to meet their needs.
But, it's not just the university that determines what I have to take to graduate. The state dept of education helps determine that. My husband teaches part-time at a junior college - anatomy, physiology, and emergency pharmacology. What dictates his course of study is the National Registry test for Paramedics that his students have to pass after they graduate his program. There's always other factors at play.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Just a little side question since Jhai brought it up, has anyone else seen anything about increased college enrollment? Lately I've heard that it's quite the opposite for a variety of reasons, often financial; other times students are seeking other options in order to get specific training for a specialized job.
I live in a fairly wealthy upper-middle class town, and for the longest time most kids around here went to college because they were raised under the idea that it's simply the next logical step in life. That's starting to change a little bit from what I've seen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Everything I've seen says that college enrollment is rising. Example in Ohio.
I've seen stories saying similar things about Utah and the DC/Va/Md area. Detailed statistics only go back to 2006; projections are for continued increases. Of course, those projections could be changed by economic reality.
However, choosing to go to college when it's harder to find a job doesn't seem like an unlikely result for many people.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I would conclude that the mere fact that a US University education continues to be highly sought after indicates that at least thus far, providing a broad based education rather than narrow vocational training is winning the competition.
Or that the recipients of broad-based education, once esconced in their jobs, seek to validate their own empty degrees by limiting access to jobs to people who jumped through the same meaningless hurdles.
OSC... is that you???
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"However, choosing to go to college when it's harder to find a job doesn't seem like an unlikely result for many people."
I seem to remember reading that college enrollments always rise during recessions, etc. It's also pretty intuitive, if you have enough life experience. A perfect example would be an industry like tobacco or car-making. R.J.Reynolds was the highest paying employer around here for many decades. They also had better benefits than anybody. If you were making $16 an hour pushing a broom or moving pallets around with only a HS diploma, and your job security looked good for the foreseeable future, why go back to school? There are still a number of jobs out there that don't require a college degree, but pay well, have good job security, and good benefits, and are at least somewhat enjoyable/satisfying. When jobs like that are no longer available, you'll see some butts in some classroom seats. Count on it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
This is just a real frustration to me because I absorb stuff like a sponge and test so well I put out very little effort in anything I ever studied, while he can know something back and forward and he is SMART and a much harder worker than me, but tests really poorly on most things.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Grrr, me too.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's in the middle of Nowhere, Indiana, but it's got great academics, very good merit aid, excellent honors/technology/internship programs, and a Super-Walmart in town!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)