3 ms·

Is there a corporatism that is hidden? For IT, a master CS degrees (+5 years after highschool) have still not proven to be better than 2 years of apprenticeshi

by SFJulie 10y ago

Is there a corporatism that is hidden? For IT, a master CS degrees (+5 years after highschool) have still not proven to be better than 2 years of apprenticeship. (Sackman/grant 197x) The global cost of not working (wasted potential outcome hence taxe) is ~ 10% of the potential cumulated income a nation could have. Then, STEM is also used as a regulative barrier to some jobs hence a de facto limitation on competition of workforce to access a market, thus diminishing the competition. Least but not last, the access to the data of employability per diploma is not accessible to future graduated creating an opaque market which access is based on your capacity to either be born rich or to have a crippling loan. It is then creating a market where some workers because of their vulnerability are in poor position for negociating their earnings (thus diminishing the overall potential wages of all workers). And, least, the non reproducibility of scientific experiments yielded by STEM education is growing up, being a clear signal of a «cheating» that arise when stakes are too high in a competition. I would say there is neither a STEM crisis or surplus, but bank and university are clearly fueling a «diploma bubble».

rimantas 10y ago
I think the first thing to do would be to start differentiate between science and vocational training again. Otherwise we will be looking at studies how astrophysics degree has little advantage over 2 years of apprenticeship in telescope building.
- SFJulie 10y ago
  Trained in hard science. Most of the «lessons» are just about learning «math recipes» that are highly suspicious (like lambda calculus in pertubation theories) that works in one and only one case and avoiding the «generic methods» like Hamiltonians. So basically most of my «scholarship» was about learning more than one way to do the same thing other and other again in up to 4 distinct notations (Einstein with 4D vectors), Nabla operators, quaternions ...) Whereas working in labs was a total different story. It was basically «telescope building». I learned computer programming for physicists and to be honest most of CS are pretty clueless about memory, and how to make flow of data kick computers in the balls. So, I really think that even «hard» science as an heavy load of «apprenticeship» and that scholarship have an heavy load of fat vs muscle. If we «optimized» training not to achieve a social status based on how much more years someone studied but based on what is required, the whole society would be improved. So I stick to my gun, for me studies and their indirect cost of «non availability» on the market is excessive and every one (except banks and universities making an awesome lot of money out of it) are losing.

by SFJulie 10y ago

rimantas 10y ago

I think the first thing to do would be to start differentiate between science and vocational training again. Otherwise we will be looking at studies how astrophysics degree has little advantage over 2 years of apprenticeship in telescope building.

SFJulie 10y ago
Trained in hard science. Most of the «lessons» are just about learning «math recipes» that are highly suspicious (like lambda calculus in pertubation theories) that works in one and only one case and avoiding the «generic methods» like Hamiltonians. So basically most of my «scholarship» was about learning more than one way to do the same thing other and other again in up to 4 distinct notations (Einstein with 4D vectors), Nabla operators, quaternions ...) Whereas working in labs was a total different story. It was basically «telescope building». I learned computer programming for physicists and to be honest most of CS are pretty clueless about memory, and how to make flow of data kick computers in the balls. So, I really think that even «hard» science as an heavy load of «apprenticeship» and that scholarship have an heavy load of fat vs muscle. If we «optimized» training not to achieve a social status based on how much more years someone studied but based on what is required, the whole society would be improved. So I stick to my gun, for me studies and their indirect cost of «non availability» on the market is excessive and every one (except banks and universities making an awesome lot of money out of it) are losing.