posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I think that taller, better-looking people should be charged triple for school to give the shorter people "equal" advantage.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have picked professors based on the *comments* on rateyourprofessor and been quite successful.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
$6200 for tuition sounds kinda low. Is that per term or per year? (Nvm, "one of the cheaper schools")
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To what extent do you feel that you should be allowed to dictate what people use Universities for?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
