Universities can’t fulfil the myth, but can’t become vocational schools either
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Here's the thing, which I've written about before (http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/paying-for-the-part... and http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/beer-and-circus-how...): universities are actually bundles of very different things, especially in terms of major. People who do hard science, CS, or engineering have very different experiences and earnings outcomes from people who do some of the majors that have evolved for those who don't want or need to do much (think majors like tourism management, sociology, some of the weaker business schools), and even they have different experiences from people who major in the real liberal arts (history, philosophy, English—the ones Lee cites).
Lumping all those "college" degrees together makes very little sense, since they're actually accomplishing very different purposes.
I wish more articles on the subject would emphasize this point, and I wish I could explicitly tell every incoming college student this, instead of waiting for them to figure it out on their own.
Universities have never met the ideal that we hold them to but, on balance, I think they are better than the alternatives
What "we" really need is less stigma against vocational schools and related college alternatives. Not everyone likes sitting still at a desk and doing abstract symbol manipulation (http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/the-problem-with-ju...). And that's okay! Right now we don't have very good systems for those people, and vocational schools are stigmatized.
I'm an engineering student and by now my brain has learned to tune out whenever the words "rigor", "proof" or similar are uttered. I really, sincerely don't care about the formal stuff. If I get the intuition then I'm satisfied, and I'm sick of the formal stuff. Someone's got to do it, but I don't want to be one of them. This doesn't mean I don't want to learn about advanced stuff; it just means that I'm fine with a shallower treatment with an emphasis on implementing and intuitive understanding rather than proving. I would like a school more to my tastes, but university is where all the smart kids go, so I go there as well. I would like an alternative, and I think I'm not alone.
Reality kindda bitchslapped me later. Turns out the theoretical understanding of even the most basic and otherwise fundamental aspects of my slice of engineering (EE) is pretty much essential whenever you need to design something that is non-trivial and not previously implemented by someone else and available on the Internet. All those circuits I tweaked and combined were great study material, but when it came to doing something on my own that I couldn't quite find elsewhere, which had to respond to actual hard requirements (no more than this many mV of ripple on this signal and THD below this margin), it wasn't an enjoyable ride. And then there are whole branches of EE where you don't really get to prototype stuff on a breadboard; at one point I thought I wanted to get into microelectronics (programming got the best of me though). There are literally thick books about how transistors behave, and you literally need to understand that stuff if you want to make anything slightly more reliable than a 741.
To this day, I still value intuitive understanding more than the bland math. It's the idea percolator that makes you come up with clever designs and lean, elegant solutions, but it's the bland math that actually enables you to turn it into something that can be reliably manufactured and exploited.
In other applications , value comes through integration, managing complexity ,smart component selection, and rapid development and combining multiple knowledge domains.One such example is smart watches. Some of the theory is less valuable there.
Understanding the math behind those simulations is absolutely crucial to not getting bit by them.
> One such example is smart watches. Some of the theory is less valuable there.
The experience of working on low-power devices with engineers that do not understand the theoretical fundamentals of the devices they work with is an experience I can only describe as very, very painful. Smart watches are an excellent illustration of this, yes. "Smart" component selection with no understanding of the underlying complexity of the technology is a sure way to ensure you end up with crap that's 30% more expensive and 50% more power hungry than it should be.
Can you please expand on that ?
I.e. Charls University and Czech Technical University in Prague, Masaryk University and Technical University in Brno, Kommenius University and Slovak Technical University in Bratislava, and I think I'd probably find more examples.
Usually, the technical ones brand themselves as being more "practical". For example, I studied CompSci at regular uni, my friend at technical and while we had a mandatory two semster algebra course and mandatory two semester discrete math course, they had these two combined in one course, first semester only. But it was more of a rule of a thumb, I know that their math-analysis course was as rigorous as ours. They still had better partnerships with local businesses.
I have to admit, that I was reasonably fond of all the theoretical stuff (although not very good at it :) The two semesters of group-theory certainly made my decision to do my masters in kryptology and information security much easier :P
Having people with such capabilities is highly useful in many startups, especially at the early stages, and startup access is percieved as a chance to wealth, so it seems such a degree would have significant marketing value and differentiation, maybe to a degree that would surpass it being online.
Amen. Not everyone is good at it, or suited for it, either. Some of the 'blue collar' workers I know are earning more than the college-degree holding workers in my circle, but societally somehow we 'look up' to the office-y professions, regardless of the value/merit of the job.
Why? So if you chose one option you aren't so tightly "locked in" later in life, if you desire a change (in either direction).
I'm guessing this is what you're referring to, I found the idea interesting. Do you know where I can get access to this story? I'm willing to pay if necessary.
Amazon has it: http://www.amazon.com/Nightfall-Other-Stories-Isaac-Asimov/d...
A PDF seems to be available online as the first Google result for it: https://www.google.com/search?q="Nightfall+and+Other+Stories...
This may explain why some articles fail to mention that the value of a college degree depends on the nature of the degree.
It might be symptomatic of a cross wiring of people's sense of what should be, and what is. They believe that a college education should be free, so they behave as though it is. Where a college education free, then getting a relatively worthless degree would be perfectly fine. However since college is currently very expensive, getting a worthless degree is a very poor decision unless you are already wealthy.
Asking people to separate their beliefs about how reality should be from their knowledge of how reality currently is, tends to make them angry.
I don't know. I'm getting my university education for free, but I still have living costs (which may be mitigated by a part-time job) and "losing" five years that could be invested in some relevant work experience. So if I was going for a useless degree, career-wise, I would be at least be a little worried.
I guess some people think that people like me should be living it up while they can, and not worrying so much about the future. But there might be a mortgage to worry about in 5-10 years, and buying your own apartment/house is becoming more and more expensive (which might change in 10 years, for better or worse). And even though I am well-off by world standards, the future seems more unsure then ever; having some sort of economic independence seems like something that is worth working towards.
A resume with a huge number of course hours for somebody basically didacting their way through their interest areas doesn't get anywhere near the weight of somebody with a degree that's composed of many fewer study hours, but the degree holding person will likely get the hiring advantage.
I was talking with a freshly minted math teacher yesterday at the soccer field. He was as enthusiastic as one might imagine a 23 year old would be after a year spent with middle achieving suburban Atlanta kids in a 10th grade math class. His first response when I asked how he liked teaching, 'It's a job. It's not like my internship [in a university town] was.' He likes math; teenagers not so much.
I have pretty bad ADHD and I'm certain that I would've repeated my patterns of poor performance, procrastination, etc. if I had gone to University.
I much prefer working in an environment where I get immediate and direct feedback, and I work directly on things that make sense (in terms of relating how what I do puts food on the table, a roof over my head, and makes a difference to others).
If I could've skipped junior college and started work earlier, I'd have done that instead.
Also worth recalling that the Oxford riots of 1355 started because the local townspeople were pissed off with the Seminary students for chasing women (among other things). Some things never change.
Luckily for me my aptitude made college easy. The majority of my uni experience was about the first time freedom and responsibility of living on my own.
Sigh.
I am strongly in favour of legalising drugs. Warning people about the risks of mental health problems is a calm, sensible, evidence based bit of advice and is not anti-drug propaganda.
It is disappointing to see so many advocates for better drug laws ignore or even argue against this advice. They are harming the campaign for better drug laws and they are ignoring the risks that people face.
From both personal experience and from observing various kinds of drug users close to me , I get the distinct impression that the danger of drugs is often not inherent to the drug itself (as in, 'drug has irreversible effect X'), but rather more to do with the fact that if you are a regular drug user, you're essentially wresting control away from your 'natural' functions, and taking matters into your own hand. This is just my experience and observation; I'm perfectly happy to be told that I'm completely wrong.
Regardless of whether you are mentally 'fit' to begin with or not, taking control of things that normally are managed more, eh, organically carries specific kinds of risks. Especially if it is not entirely clear what these particular 'things' or bodily functions are.
I think this applies to drugs in the broadest sense.
Take, for example, someone using sleep medication to fall asleep. If this person gets used to this medication, the first problem is that his body might 'forget' how to naturally fall asleep. Even worse, this person might get used to eating a huge meal or drinking a coffee every evening. While 'naturally' this kind of habit can disrupt sleep, the 'managed sleep', through medication, removed this problem.
When the person stops using this medication, his first challenge is to give the body time to learn how to fall asleep by itself again. But the bigger challenge is to learn (or even just realize) that he should not eat a big meal or drink coffee late at night.
Now with sleep medication you at least have a decent idea of the effects. But if your medication is weed or alcohol (for example), the effects are more varied and unpredictable.
I think legalization doesn't necessarily 'solve' the problems that a substance can present, as alcohol is arguably one of the worst drugs one can use. Cigarettes aren't that great either.
But being able to reason about a substance is crucial. Talking about smoking or drinking, and associated dangers, was a part of my upbringing. Talking about other drugs (MDMA being a popular one over here currently) just didn't happen, in large part because they're illegal to begin with. If things are illegal, why have a reasonable conversation about it with your kids/students/peers/etc.?
www.rollsafe.org , easiest website, straight to the facts, what they need to know. Stuff like this is what we need. If you're gonna 'harm' at least 'harm reduction' to maximize.
What you said needs to be said as a hedge to my statement and that's all good. It's the vague sentence that is not good. We need effective people and effective info with the information hedge.
The key problem is this: whatever a university is, it's too expensive for the ability of the average student to pay back. That means it's a bad deal for both the student and society. Paying for more of it is just going to continue the spiral.
I have a different question. We know that training for future jobs is a requirement of some post-secondary institution. That's just a given for many fields with the complexities of modern life. So what about a good, solid, liberal arts education? The one thing that universities were supposed to be masters of for centuries? The one thing that allows each of us to participate in and enjoy life to its fullest? Where does society go for that?
We can't go to the universities, because we'll end up in a long, pointless argument about what the purpose of universities are. And, frankly, there's a lot of jumping on the bandwagon going on at most institutions, just google silly college courses.
Can we offload that to local tutors? Teach online? Is there some delivery mechanism for a liberal arts background that we haven't considered yet?
Europe. Reduce your university fees by an order of magnitude or two, study for longer with less emphasis on grades, and enjoy a bit of culture on the side. I'm only half-joking.
The printing press?
I don't mean to be snarky, but it does occur to me that the heyday of the liberal arts education was also a time when traveling to the university was necessary in order to have physical access to the sources of knowledge.
Any liberal arts college?
On the other hand, there's an anti-college "movement" that itself could just be a fad, or even fueled by a political "wing" that has always relentlessly attacked public education and higher education. The skill area that's often mentioned as accommodating of people with alternative training (Internet programming) may very well be a major bubble right now.
Edit: Removed gratuitous snark.
So while I'm willing to give lip service to experiments in alternative education for 18-22 year olds, I'll probably hedge my bets and advise my own kids to attend college while offering them a dose of realism about what they're getting into.
It's kind of silly, really. For one, it seems an awful waste to not take advantage of 12 or 13 years of opportunity to expose kids to these elements. Secondly, compressing such important experiences into only 4 years seems insufficient, especially given that they are supposed to also be preparing for a vocation during this time and not just "mind expansion".
Finally, it's a very expensive time in a kid's educational career. Why wait until then to impart these "soft skills"? Economically (i.e. from an "ROI" perspective), it makes more sense for such an expensive education to focus solely on the skills that would make them viable in the labor market.
You have been through primary and secondary school, where the function is pretty clear: you are children, so you need to be somewhere supervised by adults; you need to learn to socialise with other children; and you need to learn basic skills like arithmetic, reading, composing essays, studying, punctuality. Then you go off to university which doesn't seem to make any sense. I think it depends on your course - it will be much better if you already have a strong, realistic idea of what you want your career to be, and find yourself among like-minded students.
How about abstract mathematics? I would argue that these days those might be the only courses where you learn those skills.
Which, of course, perfectly describes abstract mathematics... just not the sort that non-majors ever get to.
Many of the interesting parts of mathematics (and, I should add, computer science!) are all about coming up with the mental framework and abstractions needed to look at a problem, give you a new perspective and ultimately come up with a solution. Choosing or coming up with the logic to treat a situation is exactly what you'd be doing.
It's also particularly good at illuminating the underlying structure of different domains and giving you tools to recognize similarities between them that may not be readily apparent. This goes well beyond what most non-mathematicians regard as "mathematically accessible": just look at all the various modal logics[1] both for the breadth of their applications (belief, knowledge, time...) and their internal similarities.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
Moreover, I would argue that mathematics goes further than most fields in talking about and working with its own limitations. Metamathematics and logic as fields are all about this—with greater clarity than the fuzzier subjects, in the usual mathematical style. Mathematics is also great for consistently and rationally accounting for uncertainty and limitations of other systems, fundamental to probability and any sane treatment of risk.
Mathematics, as practiced by mathematicians, also teaches another really important idea: having different levels of rigor, as appropriate. Often, an argument only needs to be convincing, and many of the important details can be left out. However, in math, this is always done with the understanding that those details can be filled in, and the understanding that you should be able to fill them in given enough time.
I figure the focus on clarity, thorough introspection and different levels of rigor, abstractions and logic all make mathematics qua mathematics one of the ultimate "humanities". The problem is that classes for non-majors (and, perhaps, many undergraduate classes for majors) often don't teach mathematics for itself; instead, they teach mathematics as a tool for engineering or solving specific problems or getting a specific result. And that, certainly, could be fairly described as "data analysis within a framework".
But mathematics in general? Much deeper!
That said, as I understand it, mathematics in the deep sense you describe gives great tools to specify patterns and how they repeat, but it breaks down somewhat when specifying exceptions to those patterns. For example, consider the debates around 'natural kind' in modal logic (Is a cat with three legs still a cat? How about Lewis Carroll's Cheshire Cat?). Wrestling with what becomes part of the 'data analysis within a framework' is essential. As it turns out, philosophy has lately turned toward the tools of mathematical logic to specify these things, while its concerns remain essentially human. That's at least one reason why I think the author preferred philosophy to mathematics in the choice of majors suggested.
Without recognizing the limits of mathematics and its abilities to describe what occurs in the real world, mathematicians are prone to being caricatured as the physicist is in the XKCD cartoon the author links.
My own experience with university has been a mixed bag. I've loved the lecturers who have challenged my ideas and not just presented solutions. However others I feel encouraged wrote learning through the way they presented courses and a lot of exams are question guessing to gear up to pass. However on the whole I think I have come out of it with more logical basis and reasoning for things, it's definitely been at least beneficial intellectually and I love that. I think that part is wasted on quite a lot of people though who go to uni merely as the done thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it...
Basically, you go to college in America or you risk being poor for the rest of the your life. Sure, some coders / entrepreneurs can do it without college. And maybe college is the selection process for these success traits. But with this size of differential on a very large sample size, I think its pretty hard to say, at least in earnings power, universities are not fulfilling the myth.
The average is ridiculously high because a very small percentage of people get most of the income in our society, and all of them do higher ed and send their kids to higher ed. So all the Doctors, lawyers, MBA exec types, pro (post college) athletes, engineers...
WRT the median, its a lottery ticket purchase. It turns out that the lifetime financial value of a PHD Divinity degree is negative in the pool of potential seminary students, and its not a terribly high number for most students in general. If you (or your parents) win the lottery ticket of life, you probably went to university, but the vast majority of people not only aren't going to win, but are going to take on enormous debt. This is probably not a wise long term societal policy.
The point is there exists a pro football player who earned $100M thus the average "value of a degree" for him and 99 philosophy grads is $1M on average, but that doesn't mean a philosophy degree is automatically a ticket to unlock uncountable piles of gold coins. It merely means rich people (and this is almost certainly not going to be you) did get a degree.
Necessary but not sufficient.
In short, my view, from my experience as a student, is that the best teacher is essentially always the best researcher. Why? Because he (she) knows the most about the subject, thus, has the best judgment about what's important in the subject, has the deepest and most mature view of the subject, likely knows where the subject is headed for the next 5-10 years, and is likely one of the brightest and hardest working guys around. For his ability at 'teaching', I learned not to care: It's just not very important for the learning. That is, I didn't really need the polished, practiced, proven, trained, highly developed 'pedagogical techniques'; instead, what the best researcher brings is much more important and, really, enough for 'pedagogy'. Sorry 'bout that.
Next, the universities are the source of crucial parts of essentially all important research in our civilization, and research has a long history, back at least to Newton, of being by a wide margin the most valuable activity for civilization, the economy, standards of living, return on investment, etc. So, for anyone who wants to learn, apply, or add to such research, start at a good college and get for teachers the best researchers can get.
I've seen 'teachers' who were good with pedagogy, and I've seen good researchers; the mere teachers far too often just didn't know the subject well enough, and hands down the researchers were the much better deal. Or, it's (A) high quality pedagogy of low quality content or (B) high quality content from someone who really understands the subject and is a good teacher because of that understanding; I've seen both, and I'll take (B) any time. Or, to heck with the pedagogy; instead, I'll just study some of the best texts and papers; in that, a good researcher can help me pick the texts and papers and help me find the most important points, and a mere teacher just can't, especially for material close to the leading edge of research.
Yet somehow US and UK universities seem to beat continental schools by most metrics and ratings. They don't set on teaching skills and science but that they also do successfully.
People that didn't go to college likely put more value on not going to college in order to defend the fact that they don't have a degree.
Anecdotal of course. But college will increase your chances of success due to the connections you make. It will not, however, by any chance in freezing hell, guarantee it.
The author lives in Netherlands so he uses the UK spelling 'fulfil' instead of US 'fulfill'.