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

12357

Posts

  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    SammyF wrote: »
    Actually when I pointed this out the first time, I wasn't trying so much to signal that poli sci had been dumbed down at the undergraduate level to accommodate popular demand; rather, I think academia has gone out of its way to dumb down political science at the undergraduate level in order to generate popular demand. Especially because the academy of poli sci is interested in minting new poli sci professors (and not people who work at think tanks), we must create more positions to teach poli sci at the undergraduate level. The problem is that not a lot of undergraduate students want to go on to become poli sci graduate students in the first place, so the academy expanded the definition of poli sci at the undergraduate level to also mean "pre law."

    Psychology and sociology are, I believe, in sort of similar boats. Psychology as a hard, research-based science is kind of small field, but at the undergraduate level, the scope of the program is widened to include people who want to be special ed teachers or BCBAs or LPCs. The difference is that the APA at least recognizes people who study psychology without practicing psychological research as being respectable human beings who made a valid life choice. Being a poli sci PhD who works in a think tank has the same negative stigma as an MBA who works the cash register at a Wendy's.

    Oh.

    Well, fair enough. I also recall wondering if those same people (and I don't know if this category includes you) who resent PoliSci undergrads/MAs not going on to pursue doctorates in PoliSci would resent me for just wanting to take what I need from it and use it to my own devious ends. :P
    network_sig2.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    I'm not sure that I'm bothered by Bachelors degrees being just a tick in a box all that much.

    Because they always were, really, at least to an extent.

    We just told fewer people to go get them.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • cptruggedcptrugged Buster Machine 3Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    I'm not sure that I'm bothered by Bachelors degrees being just a tick in a box all that much.

    Because they always were, really, at least to an extent.

    We just told fewer people to go get them.

    And they didn't cost $Texas. I wouldn't hate the ideal with a seething passion if tuition weren't such a killer. Or if people were given an option that wasn't laughed at.
    cptrugged on
  • cptruggedcptrugged Buster Machine 3Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    cptrugged wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    No matter how much you relax the requirements, gen eds are still just "for fun" and/or "because I have to". They are not why you are at university and so they aren't seen as important enough to want to do alot of work for.

    And that's not even related to job training or anything. Even if I'm just at university to learn shit, I'm there to learn shit about the subject I majored in, not a bunch of other stuff.

    Perhaps there would be some virtue in changing these things.

    Changing what things and how?

    On some level, knowledge has become far too specialized for universities to be churning out Renaissance (Wo)Men.

    But to what end are we specializing? How many people use the subject that their degree is in as the basis of their current career? I just walked around and took a quick poll of my coworkers here in IT. One has a degree in culinary arts, one in mechanical engineering, and one in English. Hell, the only people with MIS or CS degrees seem to be the developers. It didn't matter what specialized knowledge they had when they got hired. Just that they had a degree.

    A BA is basically just a box you're required to check for white collar work nowadays. It almost does not matter what you major in.

    Sometimes its a fun game to walk around a corporate environment and ask folks what their degrees are in. You hear some of the wildest stuff.

    <-- Japanese language major. Into my 13th year as an IT professional. The only time the Japanese came up is when the pharma company I worked for got bought by a Japanese company. I was able to impress the new owners on their tour by saying. "Hello, my name is CptRugged, please to meet you".
    cptrugged on
  • HamurabiHamurabi Registered User regular
    cptrugged wrote: »
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    cptrugged wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    No matter how much you relax the requirements, gen eds are still just "for fun" and/or "because I have to". They are not why you are at university and so they aren't seen as important enough to want to do alot of work for.

    And that's not even related to job training or anything. Even if I'm just at university to learn shit, I'm there to learn shit about the subject I majored in, not a bunch of other stuff.

    Perhaps there would be some virtue in changing these things.

    Changing what things and how?

    On some level, knowledge has become far too specialized for universities to be churning out Renaissance (Wo)Men.

    But to what end are we specializing? How many people use the subject that their degree is in as the basis of their current career? I just walked around and took a quick poll of my coworkers here in IT. One has a degree in culinary arts, one in mechanical engineering, and one in English. Hell, the only people with MIS or CS degrees seem to be the developers. It didn't matter what specialized knowledge they had when they got hired. Just that they had a degree.

    A BA is basically just a box you're required to check for white collar work nowadays. It almost does not matter what you major in.

    Sometimes its a fun game to walk around a corporate environment and ask folks what their degrees are in. You hear some of the wildest stuff sometimes.

    I was vacillating in that post between "almost does not matter" and "does not matter." In retrospect, I think it should have just been "does not matter at all." :P
    network_sig2.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    cptrugged wrote: »
    I'm not sure that I'm bothered by Bachelors degrees being just a tick in a box all that much.

    Because they always were, really, at least to an extent.

    We just told fewer people to go get them.

    And they didn't cost $Texas. I wouldn't hate the ideal with a seething passion if tuition weren't such a killer. Or if people were given an option that wasn't laughed at.

    Absolutely.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User regular
    I think that specialization argues against trying to cram people with as much specialized knowledge as possible, because the classes you take will always be broader but with less depth than the experience you need for your actual work. It may be better to just teach people how think and learn, and then unleash them into the job market. That is ostensibly the goal of law school, and while I can't say whether it actually works or not, I have a highly specialized job which I took essentially no classes in (I took tons of tax classes, but am not a general tax lawyer anymore) and it all seems to work out.


    "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
    SKFM annoys me the most on this board.
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    I think that specialization argues against trying to cram people with as much specialized knowledge as possible, because the classes you take will always be broader but with less depth than the experience you need for your actual work. It may be better to just teach people how think and learn, and then unleash them into the job market. That is ostensibly the goal of law school, and while I can't say whether it actually works or not, I have a highly specialized job which I took essentially no classes in (I took tons of tax classes, but am not a general tax lawyer anymore) and it all seems to work out.

    But those classes are still highly specialized.

    Like, they teach you all all about the tons of different varieties of, say, electrical engineering because they don't know what specific job you will have, what knowledge you will need and they want to equip you with the skills to succeed at any job related to the field.

    But that field itself is still highly specialized within the greater sum of knowledge that is learnable at any university.
  • TheNomadicCircleTheNomadicCircle Registered User regular
    Way back in 2002ish, as part of an application for a grant, I was asked to write about whether liberal arts should be taught everywhere or if public schools should take on more of a pragmatic focus. I argued that the true liberal arts program was basically dead at all levels. I think that is even more true now than it was then. The last vestiges of liberal arts programs at universities now are largely the result of departments trading prerequisite requirements so that they can keep enrollment in their 101's up enough to keep justifying the size of the staff. And students seem to recognize that being well rounded is not valued, as they look for the easiest classes that satisfy prereqs and spend the rest of their time focusing on classes in their major (or a sub division of major courses which they think will be better for grad school applications). I think this is a real shame, since we have replaced college as a place to learn new and varied things with a program where you trade time and money for a credential.

    Universities never had this role historically and it is only a 20th century invention that it is a place to "learn new and varied things".

    It was always a traditional ground for preparation for the nobility to rule or for the merchants to develop new contacts or learn their trade, I would argue that math was also important, than to learn about new and varied things.

    Think about it Anthropology was always the realm of the wealthy and upper class who could actually afford to travel around and thus this "science" for discussing other people developed. \

    This idea of a place to learn is an American invention which coincided with the idea of the "American dream". This had never existed, as I mentioned previously, was only recently.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User regular
    Way back in 2002ish, as part of an application for a grant, I was asked to write about whether liberal arts should be taught everywhere or if public schools should take on more of a pragmatic focus. I argued that the true liberal arts program was basically dead at all levels. I think that is even more true now than it was then. The last vestiges of liberal arts programs at universities now are largely the result of departments trading prerequisite requirements so that they can keep enrollment in their 101's up enough to keep justifying the size of the staff. And students seem to recognize that being well rounded is not valued, as they look for the easiest classes that satisfy prereqs and spend the rest of their time focusing on classes in their major (or a sub division of major courses which they think will be better for grad school applications). I think this is a real shame, since we have replaced college as a place to learn new and varied things with a program where you trade time and money for a credential.

    Universities never had this role historically and it is only a 20th century invention that it is a place to "learn new and varied things".

    It was always a traditional ground for preparation for the nobility to rule or for the merchants to develop new contacts or learn their trade, I would argue that math was also important, than to learn about new and varied things.

    Think about it Anthropology was always the realm of the wealthy and upper class who could actually afford to travel around and thus this "science" for discussing other people developed. \

    This idea of a place to learn is an American invention which coincided with the idea of the "American dream". This had never existed, as I mentioned previously, was only recently.

    I disagree with everything but the assertion that math was important:

    "Let None But Geometers Enter Here."


    "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
    SKFM annoys me the most on this board.
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    Way back in 2002ish, as part of an application for a grant, I was asked to write about whether liberal arts should be taught everywhere or if public schools should take on more of a pragmatic focus. I argued that the true liberal arts program was basically dead at all levels. I think that is even more true now than it was then. The last vestiges of liberal arts programs at universities now are largely the result of departments trading prerequisite requirements so that they can keep enrollment in their 101's up enough to keep justifying the size of the staff. And students seem to recognize that being well rounded is not valued, as they look for the easiest classes that satisfy prereqs and spend the rest of their time focusing on classes in their major (or a sub division of major courses which they think will be better for grad school applications). I think this is a real shame, since we have replaced college as a place to learn new and varied things with a program where you trade time and money for a credential.

    Universities never had this role historically and it is only a 20th century invention that it is a place to "learn new and varied things".

    It was always a traditional ground for preparation for the nobility to rule or for the merchants to develop new contacts or learn their trade, I would argue that math was also important, than to learn about new and varied things.
    Do you have a source for this other than that you literally made this up? Because, you literally made this up.
    3FMmC.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    TheNomadicCircle is an experiment in what a person would be like if what we all assume SpaceKungFuMan is was real.

    Because universities have been around for centuries. I myself went to one that has been around since 1583, and while the "nobility" often went to university, so did the burgeoning new class of businessmen, scientists, and scholars that built our shiny new enlightenment.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    This argument is one I've been having with multiple number of people over the last year (2012/13 school year) about the schooling system and how it should be setup.

    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.

    $$$$$$$$$$$

    He is subsidizing your education, to a certain extent.
  • TheNomadicCircleTheNomadicCircle Registered User regular
    Way back in 2002ish, as part of an application for a grant, I was asked to write about whether liberal arts should be taught everywhere or if public schools should take on more of a pragmatic focus. I argued that the true liberal arts program was basically dead at all levels. I think that is even more true now than it was then. The last vestiges of liberal arts programs at universities now are largely the result of departments trading prerequisite requirements so that they can keep enrollment in their 101's up enough to keep justifying the size of the staff. And students seem to recognize that being well rounded is not valued, as they look for the easiest classes that satisfy prereqs and spend the rest of their time focusing on classes in their major (or a sub division of major courses which they think will be better for grad school applications). I think this is a real shame, since we have replaced college as a place to learn new and varied things with a program where you trade time and money for a credential.

    Universities never had this role historically and it is only a 20th century invention that it is a place to "learn new and varied things".

    It was always a traditional ground for preparation for the nobility to rule or for the merchants to develop new contacts or learn their trade, I would argue that math was also important, than to learn about new and varied things.
    Do you have a source for this other than that you literally made this up? Because, you literally made this up.

    Certainly. You can examine the situation, not in the Western context, but in an Middle Eastern or Islamic context where the Universities, especially in places like Baghdad before the Mongol Invasion catered to the established elites who funded works like the translation movement which was the by products of the these institutions or even looking further on Mughal India or Qajar Iran especially during the 18th and 19th centuries where the same principles were applied.

    It is another matter when you take Universities in a Western concept.
  • JurgJurg Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote: »
    Abolish the tuition system! Free-or-heavily-subsidized tuition for all!

    But actually that does remind me of a discussion I had with a good (but unfortunately libertarian) friend of mine. He is of the opinion that public universities' institutional aid, federal Pell Grants, and federally-subsidized Stafford loan moneys should not go towards what he referred to as "pointless" or "low value-added" degrees like anthropology, art history, etc. I'm paraphrasing here (and frankly don't trust myself to do his position justice), but he basically felt that you should not be getting federal money or breaks from publicly-funded institutions if you weren't a STEM major. He viewed those funds as an investment, and that the return on investment from, say, an art history major does not justify the expense to taxpayers.

    I totally disagree with him, but this is not an unpopular (or wholly unreasonable, imho) position.

    Late to the party, but your friend is being inconsistent. Not only is this a terrible way for us to think about college, but he is a libertarian advocating state planning of the economy. If the state is only choosing to fund STEM careers, then it is effectively taking an active, interventionist role in the economy. Tell him to read some Hayek (since, you know, he probably didn't take a liberal arts class that covered it.)
    sig.gif
  • TheNomadicCircleTheNomadicCircle Registered User regular
    Marty81 wrote: »
    This argument is one I've been having with multiple number of people over the last year (2012/13 school year) about the schooling system and how it should be setup.

    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.

    $$$$$$$$$$$

    He is subsidizing your education, to a certain extent.

    I wish he was subsidizing. I then wouldn't have to pay these outrageous foreign student fees.
  • TheNomadicCircleTheNomadicCircle Registered User regular
    TheNomadicCircle is an experiment in what a person would be like if what we all assume SpaceKungFuMan is was real.

    Because universities have been around for centuries. I myself went to one that has been around since 1583, and while the "nobility" often went to university, so did the burgeoning new class of businessmen, scientists, and scholars that built our shiny new enlightenment.

    Again, you are taking in a Western concept where this "new class" could emerge with no noble backing. It was another matter completely in the rest of the world until the advent of the Colonial empires.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User regular
    Way back in 2002ish, as part of an application for a grant, I was asked to write about whether liberal arts should be taught everywhere or if public schools should take on more of a pragmatic focus. I argued that the true liberal arts program was basically dead at all levels. I think that is even more true now than it was then. The last vestiges of liberal arts programs at universities now are largely the result of departments trading prerequisite requirements so that they can keep enrollment in their 101's up enough to keep justifying the size of the staff. And students seem to recognize that being well rounded is not valued, as they look for the easiest classes that satisfy prereqs and spend the rest of their time focusing on classes in their major (or a sub division of major courses which they think will be better for grad school applications). I think this is a real shame, since we have replaced college as a place to learn new and varied things with a program where you trade time and money for a credential.

    Universities never had this role historically and it is only a 20th century invention that it is a place to "learn new and varied things".

    It was always a traditional ground for preparation for the nobility to rule or for the merchants to develop new contacts or learn their trade, I would argue that math was also important, than to learn about new and varied things.
    Do you have a source for this other than that you literally made this up? Because, you literally made this up.

    Certainly. You can examine the situation, not in the Western context, but in an Middle Eastern or Islamic context where the Universities, especially in places like Baghdad before the Mongol Invasion catered to the established elites who funded works like the translation movement which was the by products of the these institutions or even looking further on Mughal India or Qajar Iran especially during the 18th and 19th centuries where the same principles were applied.

    It is another matter when you take Universities in a Western concept.

    Perhaps you should take more Western history classes if you missed my reference to an institution. Of higher learning that is quite old and was not exclusively for th nobility.



    "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
    SKFM annoys me the most on this board.
  • TheNomadicCircleTheNomadicCircle Registered User regular
    Way back in 2002ish, as part of an application for a grant, I was asked to write about whether liberal arts should be taught everywhere or if public schools should take on more of a pragmatic focus. I argued that the true liberal arts program was basically dead at all levels. I think that is even more true now than it was then. The last vestiges of liberal arts programs at universities now are largely the result of departments trading prerequisite requirements so that they can keep enrollment in their 101's up enough to keep justifying the size of the staff. And students seem to recognize that being well rounded is not valued, as they look for the easiest classes that satisfy prereqs and spend the rest of their time focusing on classes in their major (or a sub division of major courses which they think will be better for grad school applications). I think this is a real shame, since we have replaced college as a place to learn new and varied things with a program where you trade time and money for a credential.

    Universities never had this role historically and it is only a 20th century invention that it is a place to "learn new and varied things".

    It was always a traditional ground for preparation for the nobility to rule or for the merchants to develop new contacts or learn their trade, I would argue that math was also important, than to learn about new and varied things.
    Do you have a source for this other than that you literally made this up? Because, you literally made this up.

    Certainly. You can examine the situation, not in the Western context, but in an Middle Eastern or Islamic context where the Universities, especially in places like Baghdad before the Mongol Invasion catered to the established elites who funded works like the translation movement which was the by products of the these institutions or even looking further on Mughal India or Qajar Iran especially during the 18th and 19th centuries where the same principles were applied.

    It is another matter when you take Universities in a Western concept.

    Perhaps you should take more Western history classes if you missed my reference to an institution. Of higher learning that is quite old and was not exclusively for th nobility.

    Islamic Universities were much older than Western Universities.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User regular
    Way back in 2002ish, as part of an application for a grant, I was asked to write about whether liberal arts should be taught everywhere or if public schools should take on more of a pragmatic focus. I argued that the true liberal arts program was basically dead at all levels. I think that is even more true now than it was then. The last vestiges of liberal arts programs at universities now are largely the result of departments trading prerequisite requirements so that they can keep enrollment in their 101's up enough to keep justifying the size of the staff. And students seem to recognize that being well rounded is not valued, as they look for the easiest classes that satisfy prereqs and spend the rest of their time focusing on classes in their major (or a sub division of major courses which they think will be better for grad school applications). I think this is a real shame, since we have replaced college as a place to learn new and varied things with a program where you trade time and money for a credential.

    Universities never had this role historically and it is only a 20th century invention that it is a place to "learn new and varied things".

    It was always a traditional ground for preparation for the nobility to rule or for the merchants to develop new contacts or learn their trade, I would argue that math was also important, than to learn about new and varied things.
    Do you have a source for this other than that you literally made this up? Because, you literally made this up.

    Certainly. You can examine the situation, not in the Western context, but in an Middle Eastern or Islamic context where the Universities, especially in places like Baghdad before the Mongol Invasion catered to the established elites who funded works like the translation movement which was the by products of the these institutions or even looking further on Mughal India or Qajar Iran especially during the 18th and 19th centuries where the same principles were applied.

    It is another matter when you take Universities in a Western concept.

    Perhaps you should take more Western history classes if you missed my reference to an institution. Of higher learning that is quite old and was not exclusively for th nobility.

    Islamic Universities were much older than Western Universities.

    Older than 387 BC?


    "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
    SKFM annoys me the most on this board.
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    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.

    Which may work in theory, but in practice it winds up sending the stupid rich kids to university and sending the smart poor kids to trade schools.

    Also, you'd have to roll back about four decades or so of changes to the United States economy before you could transition back to having post-high school education become the exclusive playground of the elite. There aren't that many janitorial jobs to make up for all the manufacturing jobs that have been lost as the U.S. has shifted towards being a service economy.
    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    TheNomadicCircle is an experiment in what a person would be like if what we all assume SpaceKungFuMan is was real.

    Because universities have been around for centuries. I myself went to one that has been around since 1583, and while the "nobility" often went to university, so did the burgeoning new class of businessmen, scientists, and scholars that built our shiny new enlightenment.

    Again, you are taking in a Western concept where this "new class" could emerge with no noble backing. It was another matter completely in the rest of the world until the advent of the Colonial empires.

    Gee am I talking in Western terms? The terms that most of us on this board operate under?

    Hmm.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. Risk is our business.Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    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.

    Which may work in theory, but in practice it winds up sending the stupid rich kids to university and sending the smart poor kids to trade schools.

    Also, you'd have to roll back about four decades or so of changes to the United States economy before you could transition back to having post-high school education become the exclusive playground of the elite. There aren't that many janitorial jobs to make up for all the manufacturing jobs that have been lost as the U.S. has shifted towards being a service economy.

    TNC is talking about nonsense when it comes to the western model of universities. There is literally nothing applicable about the American college system to be found here.
    Lh96QHG.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Way back in 2002ish, as part of an application for a grant, I was asked to write about whether liberal arts should be taught everywhere or if public schools should take on more of a pragmatic focus. I argued that the true liberal arts program was basically dead at all levels. I think that is even more true now than it was then. The last vestiges of liberal arts programs at universities now are largely the result of departments trading prerequisite requirements so that they can keep enrollment in their 101's up enough to keep justifying the size of the staff. And students seem to recognize that being well rounded is not valued, as they look for the easiest classes that satisfy prereqs and spend the rest of their time focusing on classes in their major (or a sub division of major courses which they think will be better for grad school applications). I think this is a real shame, since we have replaced college as a place to learn new and varied things with a program where you trade time and money for a credential.

    Universities never had this role historically and it is only a 20th century invention that it is a place to "learn new and varied things".

    It was always a traditional ground for preparation for the nobility to rule or for the merchants to develop new contacts or learn their trade, I would argue that math was also important, than to learn about new and varied things.
    Do you have a source for this other than that you literally made this up? Because, you literally made this up.

    Certainly. You can examine the situation, not in the Western context, but in an Middle Eastern or Islamic context where the Universities, especially in places like Baghdad before the Mongol Invasion catered to the established elites who funded works like the translation movement which was the by products of the these institutions or even looking further on Mughal India or Qajar Iran especially during the 18th and 19th centuries where the same principles were applied.

    It is another matter when you take Universities in a Western concept.

    Perhaps you should take more Western history classes if you missed my reference to an institution. Of higher learning that is quite old and was not exclusively for th nobility.

    Islamic Universities were much older than Western Universities.

    That's pretty much immaterial to the point of whether or not universities were meant as places of higher learning in the 18th and 19th century.

    You said they weren't.

    Plenty were.

    You are wrong.
  • redxredx Dublin, CARegistered User regular
    TheNomadicCircle is an experiment in what a person would be like if what we all assume SpaceKungFuMan is was real.

    Because universities have been around for centuries. I myself went to one that has been around since 1583, and while the "nobility" often went to university, so did the burgeoning new class of businessmen, scientists, and scholars that built our shiny new enlightenment.

    Again, you are taking in a Western concept where this "new class" could emerge with no noble backing. It was another matter completely in the rest of the world until the advent of the Colonial empires.

    It's been a really long time since I had any humanities classes. They were all sort of taught from a liberal apologist point of view. Opium wars, slavery, spheres of influence, slavery, oppression of cultures, slavery, and the rape of natural resources.

    Though maybe a more middle eastern outlook would have been better for my cultural self-esteem. Like I keep reading this and can't help thinking, w00t western imperialism.
    RedX is taking a stab a moving out west, and will be near San Francisco from May 14 till June 29.
    Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    I mean you might as well go "Yeah the earth being round wasn't really accepted by society until the late 1600s. What? Oh. Well obvs Ming China didn't accept it until then."
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    TheNomadicCircle is an experiment in what a person would be like if what we all assume SpaceKungFuMan is was real.

    Because universities have been around for centuries. I myself went to one that has been around since 1583, and while the "nobility" often went to university, so did the burgeoning new class of businessmen, scientists, and scholars that built our shiny new enlightenment.

    Again, you are taking in a Western concept where this "new class" could emerge with no noble backing. It was another matter completely in the rest of the world until the advent of the Colonial empires.

    It's been a really long time since I had any humanities classes. They were all sort of taught from a liberal apologist point of view. Opium wars, slavery, spheres of influence, slavery, oppression of cultures, slavery, and the rape of natural resources.

    Though maybe a more middle eastern outlook would have been better for my cultural self-esteem. Like I keep reading this and can't help thinking, w00t western imperialism.

    As a history major, I find it infinitely amusing how many people call a simple laying out of the facts of the last couple centuries equates to a "liberal" view of history. Of course, we live in an age when a biologist, climatologist and geologist explaining the evidence from their fields are also liberals, so it does make sense.
  • redxredx Dublin, CARegistered User regular
    edited May 2013
    redx wrote: »
    TheNomadicCircle is an experiment in what a person would be like if what we all assume SpaceKungFuMan is was real.

    Because universities have been around for centuries. I myself went to one that has been around since 1583, and while the "nobility" often went to university, so did the burgeoning new class of businessmen, scientists, and scholars that built our shiny new enlightenment.

    Again, you are taking in a Western concept where this "new class" could emerge with no noble backing. It was another matter completely in the rest of the world until the advent of the Colonial empires.

    It's been a really long time since I had any humanities classes. They were all sort of taught from a liberal apologist point of view. Opium wars, slavery, spheres of influence, slavery, oppression of cultures, slavery, and the rape of natural resources.

    Though maybe a more middle eastern outlook would have been better for my cultural self-esteem. Like I keep reading this and can't help thinking, w00t western imperialism.

    As a history major, I find it infinitely amusing how many people call a simple laying out of the facts of the last couple centuries equates to a "liberal" view of history. Of course, we live in an age when a biologist, climatologist and geologist explaining the evidence from their fields are also liberals, so it does make sense.

    Like, you realize that bit right there was pretty much a joke? Like, my intent was to amuse.

    I am kinda serious about the other part. I mean, yeah, we shat on a lot of places and people, but if breaking the chains of caste systems and injecting meritocracy and social mobility into their societies was a result, well... it certainly ain't all bad.

    TNC's comments really make me feel like there was something to that whole 'white man's burden' thing, which is frankly uncomfortable for me(a cause of dissonance because I believe the west's actions and beliefs were almost universally wrong), so I defuse that with humor.
    redx on
    RedX is taking a stab a moving out west, and will be near San Francisco from May 14 till June 29.
    Click here for a horrible H/A thread with details.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited May 2013
    redx wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    TheNomadicCircle is an experiment in what a person would be like if what we all assume SpaceKungFuMan is was real.

    Because universities have been around for centuries. I myself went to one that has been around since 1583, and while the "nobility" often went to university, so did the burgeoning new class of businessmen, scientists, and scholars that built our shiny new enlightenment.

    Again, you are taking in a Western concept where this "new class" could emerge with no noble backing. It was another matter completely in the rest of the world until the advent of the Colonial empires.

    It's been a really long time since I had any humanities classes. They were all sort of taught from a liberal apologist point of view. Opium wars, slavery, spheres of influence, slavery, oppression of cultures, slavery, and the rape of natural resources.

    Though maybe a more middle eastern outlook would have been better for my cultural self-esteem. Like I keep reading this and can't help thinking, w00t western imperialism.

    As a history major, I find it infinitely amusing how many people call a simple laying out of the facts of the last couple centuries equates to a "liberal" view of history. Of course, we live in an age when a biologist, climatologist and geologist explaining the evidence from their fields are also liberals, so it does make sense.

    Like, you realize that bit right there was pretty much a joke? Like, my intent was to amuse.

    I am kinda serious about the other part. I mean, yeah, we shat on a lot of places and people, but if breaking the chains of caste systems and injecting meritocracy and social mobility into their societies was a result, well... it certainly ain't all bad.

    TNC's comments really make me feel like there was something to that whole 'white man's burden' thing, which is frankly uncomfortable for me(a cause of dissonance because I believe the west's actions and beliefs were almost universally wrong), so I defuse that with humor.

    Yeah. It was more of a generalized observation, not a slam on you.

    As for the larger point, meritocracy is the logical endpoint for any society that understands basic biology and genetics. TNC might as well believe that his specialness comes from the farts of angels. It's just the same fancied up caveman hierarchy shit that kept humanity spinning in circles for two hundred thousand years.

    The real secret to progress is that ability is randomly distributed because of the vagaries of genetics. Modern societies try to break down traditional hierarchies to make sure that they aren't wasting their geniuses on shit shoveling while putting their inbred morons in positions of power based on whether their great-grandfather was the second cousin of some illiterate noble.
    Phillishere on
  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    redx wrote: »
    TheNomadicCircle is an experiment in what a person would be like if what we all assume SpaceKungFuMan is was real.

    Because universities have been around for centuries. I myself went to one that has been around since 1583, and while the "nobility" often went to university, so did the burgeoning new class of businessmen, scientists, and scholars that built our shiny new enlightenment.

    Again, you are taking in a Western concept where this "new class" could emerge with no noble backing. It was another matter completely in the rest of the world until the advent of the Colonial empires.

    It's been a really long time since I had any humanities classes. They were all sort of taught from a liberal apologist point of view. Opium wars, slavery, spheres of influence, slavery, oppression of cultures, slavery, and the rape of natural resources.

    Though maybe a more middle eastern outlook would have been better for my cultural self-esteem. Like I keep reading this and can't help thinking, w00t western imperialism.

    As a history major, I find it infinitely amusing how many people call a simple laying out of the facts of the last couple centuries equates to a "liberal" view of history. Of course, we live in an age when a biologist, climatologist and geologist explaining the evidence from their fields are also liberals, so it does make sense.

    You can still choose which facts to present and have a skewed perspective as a result. Everything Was Fine Until White Men Showed Up is one option, which I think redx is getting at. Other options include the traditional White Men Civilized Backwards Savages, which you can find in a 1950's classroom or any modern book with "politically incorrect" in the title. As a non-history major, I tend to assume that pretty much everybody was seriously fucked up by modern standards anyways, even if it sounds a bit tautological.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    TheNomadicCircle is an experiment in what a person would be like if what we all assume SpaceKungFuMan is was real.

    Because universities have been around for centuries. I myself went to one that has been around since 1583, and while the "nobility" often went to university, so did the burgeoning new class of businessmen, scientists, and scholars that built our shiny new enlightenment.

    Again, you are taking in a Western concept where this "new class" could emerge with no noble backing. It was another matter completely in the rest of the world until the advent of the Colonial empires.

    It's been a really long time since I had any humanities classes. They were all sort of taught from a liberal apologist point of view. Opium wars, slavery, spheres of influence, slavery, oppression of cultures, slavery, and the rape of natural resources.

    Though maybe a more middle eastern outlook would have been better for my cultural self-esteem. Like I keep reading this and can't help thinking, w00t western imperialism.

    As a history major, I find it infinitely amusing how many people call a simple laying out of the facts of the last couple centuries equates to a "liberal" view of history. Of course, we live in an age when a biologist, climatologist and geologist explaining the evidence from their fields are also liberals, so it does make sense.

    You can still choose which facts to present and have a skewed perspective as a result. Everything Was Fine Until White Men Showed Up is one option, which I think redx is getting at. Other options include the traditional White Men Civilized Backwards Savages, which you can find in a 1950's classroom or any modern book with "politically incorrect" in the title. As a non-history major, I tend to assume that pretty much everybody was seriously fucked up by modern standards anyways, even if it sounds a bit tautological.

    I think it is fascinating that anyone who has spent any serious time studying history would claim that it is ever a "simple laying out of the facts." You are always choosing what to include.


    "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
    SKFM annoys me the most on this board.
  • TheNomadicCircleTheNomadicCircle Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »

    You can still choose which facts to present and have a skewed perspective as a result. Everything Was Fine Until White Men Showed Up is one option, which I think redx is getting at. Other options include the traditional White Men Civilized Backwards Savages, which you can find in a 1950's classroom or any modern book with "politically incorrect" in the title. As a non-history major, I tend to assume that pretty much everybody was seriously fucked up by modern standards anyways, even if it sounds a bit tautological.

    I think the "Everything Was Fine Until White Men Showed Up" is the most valid option when considering the history of Iran, South Asia and Inner/Central Asia
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The New Yorker has a piece on one of the bigger threats to higher education today - massive open online courses (MOOCs).
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Nox+Aeternum.gif
    Damn straight and I'm not giving up any of my crazy ground to some no talent hack.
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Registered User regular
    Marty81 wrote: »
    This argument is one I've been having with multiple number of people over the last year (2012/13 school year) about the schooling system and how it should be setup.

    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.

    $$$$$$$$$$$

    He is subsidizing your education, to a certain extent.

    If by subsidizing his education, you mean subsidizing the football team then you probably have a point.
    steam_sig.png
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    The New Yorker has a piece on one of the bigger threats to higher education today - massive open online courses (MOOCs).

    Yay! Your Education: Brought to you by Clear Channel.

    I laugh when I see the 'free or nearly free' part. Education is second pretty much only to a house as the largest 'purchase' in most people's lives. I find it unlikely that is going to get devalued anytime soon.

    Online courses are going to be a thing, but last time I checked I pay the same $ / credit hour for online courses I pay to attend in person (PLUS a tech fee).
    steam_sig.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    The New Yorker has a piece on one of the bigger threats to higher education today - massive open online courses (MOOCs).

    Yay! Your Education: Brought to you by Clear Channel.

    I laugh when I see the 'free or nearly free' part. Education is second pretty much only to a house as the largest 'purchase' in most people's lives. I find it unlikely that is going to get devalued anytime soon.

    Online courses are going to be a thing, but last time I checked I pay the same $ / credit hour for online courses I pay to attend in person (PLUS a tech fee).

    MOOCs are the higher education form of "education reform".
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Nox+Aeternum.gif
    Damn straight and I'm not giving up any of my crazy ground to some no talent hack.
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    The philosophy department at SJSU recently published a pretty interesting open letter on why they refused to incorporate a Harvard MOOC into their curriculum.

    http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-Open-Letter-From/138937/
  • HefflingHeffling Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    These kids made it to their mid 20s without ever being a people, without asking what they're doing and why they are doing it.

    That is a problem.

    Yes, using language like "ever being a people" is definately a problem. Especially in a thread about education. =-)

    Speaking as an Engineer (with an MS), my degree taught me critical thinking skills and opens doors for me. It didn't teach me to be an engineer any more than a doctorate of medicine makes you a medical doctor. As was noted previously, there's a path that must be followed in order to become a licensed engineer much like there is for a medical doctor.

    I work for a large company that employes a huge engineering force. Only about 30% of our engineering workforce is doing engineering functions, however. The rest are in finance, inventory, etc.

    What I do is considered Engineering work, but all I really do is technical review of contracts and customer support. So, I'm not using the technical knowledge of my degree at all. In fact, the most important part of my degree for my job other than the critical thinking skills is probably the speech and two english classes I took as a freshman.

  • Muse Among MenMuse Among Men Suburban Bunny Princess? Its time for a new shtickRegistered User regular
    MOOCs are great in theory but I don't think they will work for a really large chunk of the student population. You can argue that you don't actually learn that much in a classroom environment . . . but online courses are a different beast. It is really easy to check in and check out. Being around other people, and having to go out of your way to attend class, puts you in a different mindset. Online classes are definitely a part of education reform, but it will require a level of will and dedication that a lot of students are still developing. They are certainly welcome for those that can handle it but I've always preferred real classes to online classes because the latter just doesn't feel very scholarly. I like feeling like I am in school, even when the commute is a bitch.
Sign In or Register to comment.