College is broken
rianjs.net
rianjs.net
1. Have classes year 'round
2. Let students test out of any class in the curriculum
3. Get rid of mandatory, off-topic courses
4. Get rid of unnecessary computer labs
5. Offer all courses that can be reasonably be offered online, online
6. Make co-op mandatory, and based on ability as measured by progress through the program (see #2)
7. Reward teaching excellence rather than research excellenceNo thanks.
To take the above points:
1. Down time is useful for, oh, things like co-ops.... It's also part of the research university way of doing things, which 7 wants to abolish.
2. Some places like MIT let you test out of many/most classes; if appropriate, you can take the final and that counts, whatever the result.
3. "Mandatory, off-topic courses" are all part of the ideal of a liberal vs. vocational education. While I feel that's been mostly perverted into modern liberal/radical indoctrination and note that outside of MIT and Caltech the reverse doesn't hold (as of the late '80s the math "requirement" at Harvard was proving you could do algebra), I strongly believe there's value to it and would prefer reform to abolishing the concept if that looks at all practical.
4. From my science, CS, programming and sysadmin background I can't comment on this one.
5. Offline is an increasingly interesting option, but I think we're a long way from it being a substitute for good versions of the real thing (a involved student body, people with a clue doing the teaching, etc.; plus there's the issue that US broadband is a less than ideal platform to attempt this from).
6. Co-op is again vocational in focus, and one wonders if the author is aware that taking all this too far will be eating our seed corn by not producing the next generation of academics.
7. In my and my friends experience, a real world class researcher who's also serious about undergraduate education (if not always entirely competent in doing it) is vastly superior to mid-tier school professor who's research is nothing to write home about and who envies his betters. At the "bottom", the community colleges and their one step about 4 year equivalents where the professors are their to teach with no pretenses about doing serious research can provide some truly excellent education in well established areas.
But with the following caveats:
In the case of those needing post-graduate education (e.g. for those fields where a Ph.D. is the minimal level of education), the single most important thing is that those doing the graduate school admissions to know who's recommending a student.
In new fields like CS where we don't agree on which end is up, the results are likely to be very mediocre. E.g. do you want to go to a Javaschool or one which will teach you the foundations that will allow you to learn the languages and paradigms de jour as needed?
Bottom line: fix what's broken rather breaking everything and starting from scratch. There's going to serious leverage here as the US higher education bubble starts popping and I suggest ruthless use of that.
Most students have no interest in doing research. Most students have no interest in grad school, aside from paying the idea lip service. Higher education needs to reflect this reality. (And of course accomodate those that who are legitimately interested in these things. It's not really a one or the other thing.)
I'm also not proposing "no vacation". You could easily have 4 week breaks between each of the trimesters, for example. I think having no breaks at all would be a disaster.
"2. Some places like MIT let you test out of many/most classes; if appropriate, you can take the final and that counts, whatever the result."
Most students don't go to MIT, and most schools don't allow students to test out of anything except intro classes, and even that's only through the AP program, which is not available in all high schools. Choosing a university that educates maybe 1/10 of 1% of college students and holding it up as though this is readily available to everyone else isn't terribly useful. And it doesn't indicate that the majority of the system is broken.
"3. "Mandatory, off-topic courses" are all part of the ideal of a liberal vs. vocational education. While I feel that's been mostly perverted into modern liberal/radical indoctrination and note that outside of MIT and Caltech the reverse doesn't hold (as of the late '80s the math "requirement" at Harvard was proving you could do algebra), I strongly believe there's value to it and would prefer reform to abolishing the concept if that looks at all practical."
You lost me at "liberal/radical indoctrination".
Anyway, the point was that taking classes doesn't make you well-rounded, because those that have a hunger for knowledge will pick it up anyway, and those that don't, won't. In short, it's a waste of time for both parties.
"5. Offline is an increasingly interesting option, but I think we're a long way from it being a substitute for good versions of the real thing (a involved student body, people with a clue doing the teaching, etc.; plus there's the issue that US broadband is a less than ideal platform to attempt this from)."
US broadband (or lack thereof) is largely a red herring. It doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to be good enough. And it is, for most of the population. There are rural areas that are underserved, sure, but most people have access to broadband if they want it.
"6. Co-op is again vocational in focus, and one wonders if the author is aware that taking all this too far will be eating our seed corn by not producing the next generation of academics."
Doing co-op does not preclude becoming an academic. In any event, there are far more grad students who hope to be professors than there are slots for them on the other end.
"7. In my and my friends experience, a real world class researcher who's also serious about undergraduate education (if not always entirely competent in doing it) is vastly superior to mid-tier school professor who's research is nothing to write home about and who envies his betters. At the "bottom", the community colleges and their one step about 4 year equivalents where the professors are their to teach with no pretenses about doing serious research can provide some truly excellent education in well established areas."
Yes, this is the point.
"In the case of those needing post-graduate education (e.g. for those fields where a Ph.D. is the minimal level of education)"
Are the tiny minority of students.
"Bottom line: fix what's broken rather breaking everything and starting from scratch. There's going to serious leverage here as the US higher education bubble starts popping and I suggest ruthless use of that."
That's not a particularly fun thought exercise. ;)
I think so, at least in those fields where cargo cult science/engineering/humanities/etc. don't have a strong hold. Professors who are doing real world stuff have a variety of advantages ... then again, in too many schools too much instruction is handled by callow grad students.
2. I use MIT as an example as an example. I.e. what's your excuse for not doing this (directed at those schools that don't do it). We are talking about reform, so I'm drawing on my knowledge of what works and what doesn't.
3. We'll have to agree to disagree.
5. I'm not so sure enough of the country has it, especially if this further saturates the overloaded satellites that serve a lot of rural folks.
I don't think it's a red herring, I think you should acknowledge it's an issue that needs quantification and workarounds. E.g. satellite learning centers that have good connections that those who don't have broadband or good enough broadband (which includes more than you'd think of Silicon Valley) can go to each day when they need that much bandwidth.
However, the above compromise loses the ... immersive aspect of residential undergraduate education that I think good broadband could provide a version of.
6. If co-op is mandatory is precludes e.g. doing real research in a professor's lab during the summer. Which could be addressed by defining co-op to include that.
Let's take my major, chemistry. One friend did a co-op at Exxon working on figuring out why one of the four huge oil coking ovens they had built was producing "gunk". She learned a lot, found it valuable. I would have preferred doing academic research, since that was the path I was going on. She wasn't wrong and I probably wasn't either.
7. I'm not sure acquiring a Ph.D., or at least a Masters, is only for a tiny minority of students. There are a lot of engineering fields that need more than four years of instruction. In the sciences, not getting the Ph.D. relegates you to a dead end of lab work at the direction of others. However, in these fields you do get paid to do your post-graduate work, which tells us something.
In other fields I don't know, but we can be sure many are producing too many doctorates. Or undergraduates for that matter. But if someone wants to pay their own way, who are we to deny them? Many of the current excesses there should get rung out as the higher education bubble pops.