Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
[Higher Education] Practical Problems and Philosophical Foundations
Posts
What other programs did you have experience with?
Engineering is a professional degree. It's natural that they'd focus on the post-academic profession of their students. I doubt this is significantly different than what you'd see in departments like education, nursing, architecture, etc.
I actually had to take my first exam towards eventual licensure prior to graduation.
Other STEM disciplines. My brother was in architecture and never ran into the same kind of thing. It's the only major I've ever seen where they talk alot about how much money this will make you rather then just about what you are here to learn.
No test to write up here before you've worked a few years either.
Huh. I didn't actually run into too much of that. There was a lot of focus on your future career, but little mention of the money. More why a given course or skill or concept can be important when you get out into the working world. I guess our faculty figured everybody there knew it was a decently-paying field.
And engineers are a licensed field. The first test merely starts your internship (if you pass), you can't even get licensed (through another exam) for several years after that, working under another licensed engineer. You aren't strictly required to be licensed as an engineer, though certain responsibilities will require it and many employers will want licensed engineers in certain positions (and this also varies by discipline...licensure is more necessary in some than others).
How many engineering programs did you have experience with? Just one? How many courses? I'm just curious, because I think perhaps you're generalizing based on a small sample.
Now, engineering students may focus a bit on the money they think they'll be making when they graduate. I just didn't see that coming down from the faculty.
There's actually a big focus even in my Philosophy graduate department about getting a job after finishing my PhD. Everyone wants to have good placement rates.
2 different programs in 2 different universities. Same shit at both. It wasn't like constant, but it happened on a semi-regular basis and never happens in any other field I've seen.
It always struck me as the professors trying to justify themselves to the students by saying "See, this is useful. Money!" Which was kinda creepy coming from other STEM programs where it was assumed you just wanted to learn this shit.
It was, to segue back to an earlier on topic point, like what hamurabi mentioned earlier about his friend thinking "low-value" degrees shouldn't be subsidized. It seemed like the attitude that university was nothing more then job training was the most pervasive in engineering. Largely, imo anyway, because that's the way the students saw it. It seemed like at least half the students were engineers because money and nothing else.
Basically, you can learn how to program through vocational schools, or even being self taught, but many times this is a superficial "how you use the language" education. Computer science goes further, into the actual theory of computation. To continue with the analogy, the technician knows that bubble sort is slower on average than quicksort. The computer scientist knows WHY bubble sort is slower on average, as well as why quicksort has a glaring weakness in its algorithm.
The Therac-25 case is one that needs to be pounded into every CS major's head.
It's difficult to unionize when adjuncts hold down 2-3 jobs at a time just to break 24-30k a year. Besides, even with unions things aren't guaranteed. For instance, both unioned and non-unioned adjuncts in Illinois are getting across the board class cuts because the community colleges/colleges/universities don't want to pay for their Healthcare. Unions, such as the ones at College of Dupage or Waubonsee Community didn't stop that from happening, and how could they really? The workforce is entirely replaceable, overworked, and completely spread out across multiple jobs.
From yesterday. The difference between a programming and Computer Science is sort of like the difference between being able to use Google and understanding how Google works and being able to design Google.
#FreeScheck
#FreeSKFM
And yet it isn't used by people to become Computer Sciences, it is used as an in into the IT track with companies considering in it a baseline to run helpdesks.
For the third time, I am not saying that CompSci departments should be shuttered, I'm saying that for many graduates and companies, spending 50k to get a CompSci degree seems like a massive waste of time and money.
I don't really think that's too complicated a distinction to make.
I have never understood the argument that grad students should be allowed to unionize. You are teaching as part of earning your degree, and those responsibilities are part of what you accept in exchange for university funding of your degree, correct? This is fundamentally different from working for pay, is it not?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Because unionization is meant to protect workers from being unfairly taken advantage of.
And universities love taking advantage of workers.
See TAs, GAs, and adjuncts.
Which.
Idk if you are familiar with adjuncting, but if I switched over to adjuncting instead of my part time job I would be making less money.
To a large degree, higher education is actually one of the most competitive fields out there today, and whether you're talking the Big Ten or Big Coal, it's the nature of any organization in a competitive industry to try and reduce overhead by making sure as much work as possible is done by people who will work for as little as possible.
There are literally hundreds of accredited law schools (and some unaccredited, but don't get me started on those) and because of the number of schools and the huge number of students at many of them, we greatly overproduce lawyers. The schools literally do not teach you the skills you need to pass the bar (almost every law student caps off their $150k+ 3 year education with a several thousand dollar bar "review" class where they teach you what you need to know for the test. Most of this is not taught in law school at all).
They also don't teach you anything you need to know to practice law, so a newly minted lawyer really has no qualification other than his diploma. All of the learning happens on the job, but here's the rub: Noone wants to hire an unexperienced attorney unless they just graduated law school. In fact, the top firms hire students after the end of the first year of law school ends, based on nothing but two semesters grades, and more importantly, the school you go to. So what happens if you fall into that group of excess law graduates and can't get a job immediately? You can go off and try to practice on your own (but remember, you haven't been taught how to actually be a lawyer), take a job you are woefully unprepared for like at a cash strapped non-profit that needs a lawyer on staff (you'll probably commit malpractice every single day for years), or take contract attorney work and be pigeonholed as a "temp lawyer" who is only suitable for document review forever.
To make matters worse, the schools in the US News third tier (which aren't even ranked) charge roughly the same tuition as the prestigous top 14 schools which have historically all but guaranteed a big law, six figure starting salary job (although that isn't the case since the downturn started, and now you need to be in the top 50% of so at even these schools to have the big law job be a lock).
Even if you do make it, most people stay in big firms for 2-4 years then leave because they don't like the life style, and the result is a sharp drop in earnings potential (in most cases) so most people go to law school, rack up a lot of debt, work long enough to learn how to be a lawyer and pay it off (these are the two things big firms excel at), and then take a more modest job which you will remain in long term. That's 5-7 years to basically break even and be ready for the job you actually want, IF you get the big law job, or a lifetime of debt you can never repay and a degree that depreciates in value sharply every day you are out of school but unemployed if you don't get to work in big law.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Yes, which is why it is important to make sure that workers aren't getting the shaft. Unions are basically the only way to do that in the US, and even then it doesn't do all that much.
Adjuncts are a distinct group from the others though. They work for pay, and I have no problem with them unionizing. But TAs and GAs? They are fulfilling part of their academic obligations, right? That strikes me as a completely different animal. The right question imo is whether we should allow universities to impose work like requirements on degree candidates, but that is very different from saying that a union should be set up to negotiate the requirements for a degree or academic program.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Well, I'm not saying yea or nay, I'm just saying that any class of workers needs to be protected from being taken advantage of.
I mean, I'm a part time worker and I'm getting hosed. I can't imagine what's going on with the GAs.
Computer Science is the study of Computers as much as Astronomy is the study of Telescopes.
I think we'd be best served if there were a 4 year degree program that focused entirely on programming for the work force, as the theoreticals mean jack all for 95% of the time in the real world.
This is a much broader problem than just CS. See my post about law schools. I literally would not have passed the Bar if I took it based on what I was taught at one of the top 5 law schools in the country. . .
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
This seems like a really stupid set up and makes me really glad I didn't take my undergrad advisor's advice about law school.
Loss prevention team chiefs at Target make over 50k a year.
I mean, my area of interest is still split between math and physics. The amount of math jobs that are not accounting in my area are just kinda... bleh.
Sorry, when I made the post I hadn't seen yours.
No. It's pretty much exactly the same.
To make matters worse, in most countries law school is an undergraduate program. They have masters and JD equivalents, but you can be hired and apprentice right out of undergrad. They whole system is really so stupid.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
How so? If a school says "the degree requirements are (x) credits of course work and (y) credits of teaching" then how can you create a TAs union without effectively agreeing to bargain on academic requirements?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Look into being an actuary. I'm completely serious.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
At least a lot of those law schools are starting to fail, and not quickly enough in my opinion. I hear a lot of schools (some in the top 100) are still extending their application deadline because they haven't enrolled enough incoming students.
On the other hand, U Penn is responding to this by spinning off an entirely new law school, apparently, so now they can have two failing law schools instead of one.
Shouldn't they be bargaining on those academic requirements, though? It's awfully convenient for the institutions conferring those advanced degrees that they were allowed to unilaterally set their degree requirements, and that additionally, it just so happens that all of those degree requirements coincide precisely with how those institutions offer a service to their undergraduate students without having to pay competitive financial compensation or offer benefits.
It seems to me that is is more of an issue for accrediting bodies than the students themselves. If we go the union route, what is to stop the students from negotiating for fewer coursework hours too?
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Reality?
What is to stop any negotiation from giving away ridiculous things?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought working as a TA/GA was a mix of degree requirements and obligations attached to university funding.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
Are you arguing that teaching Freshman Naps 101 is something that is, or should be, fundamental to getting a degree in the same sense hours of coursework are fundamental to a degree? I mean, if that's your position that's great.
But it's pretty clear to me that faculty are more than happy to take advantage of students, and use their future academic progress as blackmail to ensure they comply.
I PERSONALLY think that if a University wants to use TA's to teach / grad students to do research, they should be hired as staff and paid and subject to all the standard employment / labor laws. Tuition goes to class hours. Now, if the students wish to take compensation in the form of tuition instead of pay, that's a different story.
EDIT - I mean, doesn't the position of power that faculty have over students give them some fiduciary responsibility to not exploit / abuse their students?
I think its about having a line in the sand. Students don't have a say in academic requirements they need to fulfill, to keep them from using the leverage of their tuition to make schools essentially give degrees to people in exchange for money. Even if a discrete issue may make sense, you don't want to open the floodgates. I am NOT equating grad students with terrorists, but I think it is similar to the US stance on not negotiating with terrorists at all.
"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing." -- Andrew Jackson
I for one, as an outsider looking inside, do not like the current system at all.
I'm doing a Specialized Honors in History and am working my butt off to get those A and A+'s I need to get into grad school. However, I am amazed at the grades some of my friends have. particularly this one guy, who continually get D+ and C+ never getting anything above a C+ but he is still in the same program as I am. What is the need for him to remain in the program? I don't frankly see the need for his presence, though he is a friend, and his lack of success.
I try to help him out and we have been in a couple of the same classes in which I try to help but he could never succeed. I personally think he's unsuited for this degree but he keeps brandishing about how he is going to get a degree to teach English in China or some place while his essays and response are one of the worst I've ever seen. He's a great person but his educational means just aren't there.
Which I why in hindsight I say not everyone should go to University. Seriously the institution of a University was setup so that the children of wealthy and well to do parents, such as merchants, nobility, and such would gain an education that would be relevant to their social standings. Others learnt from their guild trades while other just became what their fathers were.
I still think that this should be the case in rather limited form. While acknowledging the smartest kids form any walks of life and giving them an opportunity to succeed is vital it should also be acknowledged that many are not suited for University and are rather, if I could put it bluntly, suited for more manual jobs such as labour, janitors or what not.
At least this was furthered by the not so recent issue of the Economist where they argued, I'm paraphrasing, that many of the affirmative action university students continually drop out of or fail because their strengths aren't identified but instead they are given a pass into higher end universities from which they can not cope.
Education is important, no doubt, but the level of education matters and not all are suited to continue after high school.
If the University / Faculty is unwilling to negotiate with students, the balance of power is so lopsided that they should be obligated to act in the best interest of their students. I mean...teacher / student relationships are up there with attorney / client and doctor / patient when it comes to abuse of position.
You can't argue that - even ignoring the impracticality of it - once a student commits to a graduate program they are effectively blacklisted from moving to any other equivalent program if they fail to meet the first program's requirements. You're talking about people who stand to lose - in many cases - hundreds of thousands of dollars, with little to nothing to show for it - if they wash out of their graduate program.
But we're not talking about academic requirements, we're talking about additional work requirements that sometimes take advantage of grad students and undergraduate workers because who are they going to complain to.
I'm very lucky I don't have permanent back damage from a scenario like this is undergrad.
Nobody who is serious is going to let students come and say "you dude, I think we can only take like 10 credit hours a semester and be full time. Cool beans, yeah?"