12 ms·

Personally, I think part of the purpose of a degree is to testify that one can plausibly function in the workplace. Part of that includes being able to interac

by wyager 10y ago

Personally, I think part of the purpose of a degree is to testify that one can plausibly function in the workplace. Part of that includes being able to interact socially and work in groups. I dislike group projects because I feel like there are huge efficiency losses to coordination that usually outweigh the benefit of more people working. However, I respect their utility as a way of testing and improving one's capability for teamwork.

noobiemcfoob 10y ago
The problem is the coupling of that testing a student's teamwork ability with testing their understanding of Extracted Quantum Datatypes or what have you. And now you have a grade that accurately reflects nothing.
- wyager 10y ago
  Almost no jobs allow you to be a shut-in with an obsessive focus on one task. You're right, degrees don't always indicate one's aptitude for such things.
  - noobiemcfoob 10y ago
    I'd disagree. Most jobs are highly solitary with minimal social interaction. Ask a farmer. However, sure, many workspaces don't. You're missing my point as I'm not talking about degrees but individual class grades. The moment a grade for a class in Nuclear Physics incorporates a group project, that grade no longer accurately reflects that student's understanding of Nuclear Physics but a hybrid of that understanding and the necessary social skills. A degree can and should represent a wide array of skills from technical to social within a domain. This is accomplished by having classes in a wide array of technical to social skills. A class in Nuclear Physics. A class for Group Presenting. Maybe even a combined course if the coupling of the two is actually important for the degree program. It's the blending of two topics into a course under the guise of "it's a good life skill" that infuriates me.
  - jokoon 10y ago
    You're exaggerating. The problem comes up when you prioritize teamwork over work. Consensus and common goals are not always a good thing. Democracy and sharing don't necessarily have a place in the workplace. And even if workers have an obsessive focus for one task, market principles would dictate that those people have their place on the work place. There is no point in making communication mandatory. Ultimately it can become a matter of discrimination at the personality level. Refusing introversion is like putting a big emphasis on communication, and none on the actual work.

by wyager 10y ago

noobiemcfoob 10y ago

The problem is the coupling of that testing a student's teamwork ability with testing their understanding of Extracted Quantum Datatypes or what have you. And now you have a grade that accurately reflects nothing.

wyager 10y ago
Almost no jobs allow you to be a shut-in with an obsessive focus on one task. You're right, degrees don't always indicate one's aptitude for such things.
- noobiemcfoob 10y ago
  I'd disagree. Most jobs are highly solitary with minimal social interaction. Ask a farmer. However, sure, many workspaces don't. You're missing my point as I'm not talking about degrees but individual class grades. The moment a grade for a class in Nuclear Physics incorporates a group project, that grade no longer accurately reflects that student's understanding of Nuclear Physics but a hybrid of that understanding and the necessary social skills. A degree can and should represent a wide array of skills from technical to social within a domain. This is accomplished by having classes in a wide array of technical to social skills. A class in Nuclear Physics. A class for Group Presenting. Maybe even a combined course if the coupling of the two is actually important for the degree program. It's the blending of two topics into a course under the guise of "it's a good life skill" that infuriates me.
- jokoon 10y ago
  You're exaggerating. The problem comes up when you prioritize teamwork over work. Consensus and common goals are not always a good thing. Democracy and sharing don't necessarily have a place in the workplace. And even if workers have an obsessive focus for one task, market principles would dictate that those people have their place on the work place. There is no point in making communication mandatory. Ultimately it can become a matter of discrimination at the personality level. Refusing introversion is like putting a big emphasis on communication, and none on the actual work.