5 ms·

One of my professors made a point about college: it's not about getting a job or not, but rather, being a button-pusher or understanding what you're doing. It's

by brut 10y ago

One of my professors made a point about college: it's not about getting a job or not, but rather, being a button-pusher or understanding what you're doing. It's way too easy to become a "button-pusher". I am 100% confident that I could successfully perform a relatively complex cardiac surgery on a patient with about 2-3 weeks of training and some good staff. "Cut here, tie that together, done". The thing is, there is a HUGE difference between what I described and actually understanding what one is doing, in the deepest meaning of that word. That's what you go to college for: to pass on that deep knowledge. You don't go to college to "get a job". So the problem really is with employers: why do they insist on a college degree when they could ask for a technical school diploma, or whatever. There's nothing wrong with college per se, IMO, as I think you'll agree.

reneherse 10y ago
Unfortunately, IME, neither is "deep knowledge" gained by an average student during an average undergraduate education, despite practitioners' best intentions.
- brut 10y ago
  You are right. It is also my experience that some graduates from technical schools are much more knowledgeable than some graduates from college. But the point stands, the two types of schools are serving different needs. We need both.
donw 10y ago
If the goal of universities is to pass on "deep knowledge", then I would argue that the vast majority of such institutions are utter failures at their mission.
- brut 10y ago
  We might have a definition problem, where some institutions that offer what amounts to a technical education (i.e. with almost no mandatory "theoretical" courses) call themselves "colleges". In the workplace I definitely experience the difference between one who received a formal education, in the sense of raw theory, and one who studied how to "do" things. Both are useful, but they serve different purposes.
  - donw 10y ago
    From my experience working in management over the past decade, I can say with some confidence that most computer science programs excel at pushing out people that can not, in fact, code in the real world. Sure, they can solve ACM-style challenges and spit out Dijkstra on a whim, but I can't recall the last time I needed to deliver on a business objective that mapped to either of those things. This is not to say that understanding computer science is bad! Having a deep understanding of the underlaying theory and technology is a requirement to attain mastery. But being able to ship maintainable, well-factored, and properly-tested code in a collaborative environment is far more important to me than having memorized every algorithm in TAOCP. I mean, if I can have both skillsets, I'll totally take both skillsets, but given the choice between the two, I know that a wizard-level software engineer with very weak algorithms skills will, in general, bring a lot more value to a project than a wizard-level computer scientist that can't write code that the rest of the team can maintain. About the only time that a computer science wizard is useful to me, is if I already have a team of solid software engineers, so that they can mentor each other and lift the overall skill level of the team. What universities really need to start doing is including a multi-year track built into their curricula whereby students build and maintain production software over the course of their studies, with quarterly rotation between teams.
    - brut 10y ago
      I share your concerns, but I absolutely disagree with your last proposal: Universities should stay universities. There's a reason why civil engineers aren't pouring concrete and installing cables etc in a new hospital, for example. There are vastly more competent people for the tasks, and they all went to technical school (electricians, etc). I actually think Universities do a disservice to their students if they promise them a curriculum that "leads to a job". You should go to University if you want to continue your formal education, not "to get a job". If you just want to get a piece of paper that lets you get a job, mentor with someone, go to a technical college, learn to "do" something. But Universities should teach how to think, that's about it, IMO. If you can find a job after should have no impact on the curriculum.
      - 10y ago
- andrei_says_ 10y ago
  A part of which is the difference between information and experience. Schools attempt to cram as much information as possible in as little time in the overworked and overwhelmed minds of the students. The result is low retention and studying for the tests. Knowledge and deep understanding come with time and experience in the presence of awareness. The experiential parts of medical training for example are closer to hazing than anything else. We have enough research to know that the brain needs rest to process learning. Having people work for 24-36h straight does not do anyone a favor, is not sustainable and presents significant dangers to everyone involved.
remarkEon 10y ago
>There's nothing wrong with college per se, IMO, as I think you'll agree. Yep, I'd absolutely agree. I suppose my problem here is cultural, in a way. I didn't mean to say that I don't think young people (am I old? Maybe I am) shouldn't have to take history classes that are exogenous to whatever they end up doing later in life. I think what I'm trying to say is that there's a lot of room to make specific skills that employers look for separate from the horribly expensive University system. This has to be possible, but maybe I'm wrong.
bdavisx 10y ago
>I am 100% confident that I could successfully perform a relatively complex cardiac surgery on a patient with about 2-3 weeks of training and some good staff. "Cut here, tie that together, done". And what if something goes wrong?

by brut 10y ago

reneherse 10y ago

Unfortunately, IME, neither is "deep knowledge" gained by an average student during an average undergraduate education, despite practitioners' best intentions.

brut 10y ago
You are right. It is also my experience that some graduates from technical schools are much more knowledgeable than some graduates from college. But the point stands, the two types of schools are serving different needs. We need both.

donw 10y ago

If the goal of universities is to pass on "deep knowledge", then I would argue that the vast majority of such institutions are utter failures at their mission.

brut 10y ago
We might have a definition problem, where some institutions that offer what amounts to a technical education (i.e. with almost no mandatory "theoretical" courses) call themselves "colleges". In the workplace I definitely experience the difference between one who received a formal education, in the sense of raw theory, and one who studied how to "do" things. Both are useful, but they serve different purposes.
- donw 10y ago
  From my experience working in management over the past decade, I can say with some confidence that most computer science programs excel at pushing out people that can not, in fact, code in the real world. Sure, they can solve ACM-style challenges and spit out Dijkstra on a whim, but I can't recall the last time I needed to deliver on a business objective that mapped to either of those things. This is not to say that understanding computer science is bad! Having a deep understanding of the underlaying theory and technology is a requirement to attain mastery. But being able to ship maintainable, well-factored, and properly-tested code in a collaborative environment is far more important to me than having memorized every algorithm in TAOCP. I mean, if I can have both skillsets, I'll totally take both skillsets, but given the choice between the two, I know that a wizard-level software engineer with very weak algorithms skills will, in general, bring a lot more value to a project than a wizard-level computer scientist that can't write code that the rest of the team can maintain. About the only time that a computer science wizard is useful to me, is if I already have a team of solid software engineers, so that they can mentor each other and lift the overall skill level of the team. What universities really need to start doing is including a multi-year track built into their curricula whereby students build and maintain production software over the course of their studies, with quarterly rotation between teams.
  - brut 10y ago
    I share your concerns, but I absolutely disagree with your last proposal: Universities should stay universities. There's a reason why civil engineers aren't pouring concrete and installing cables etc in a new hospital, for example. There are vastly more competent people for the tasks, and they all went to technical school (electricians, etc). I actually think Universities do a disservice to their students if they promise them a curriculum that "leads to a job". You should go to University if you want to continue your formal education, not "to get a job". If you just want to get a piece of paper that lets you get a job, mentor with someone, go to a technical college, learn to "do" something. But Universities should teach how to think, that's about it, IMO. If you can find a job after should have no impact on the curriculum.
    - 10y ago
andrei_says_ 10y ago
A part of which is the difference between information and experience. Schools attempt to cram as much information as possible in as little time in the overworked and overwhelmed minds of the students. The result is low retention and studying for the tests. Knowledge and deep understanding come with time and experience in the presence of awareness. The experiential parts of medical training for example are closer to hazing than anything else. We have enough research to know that the brain needs rest to process learning. Having people work for 24-36h straight does not do anyone a favor, is not sustainable and presents significant dangers to everyone involved.

remarkEon 10y ago

>There's nothing wrong with college per se, IMO, as I think you'll agree. Yep, I'd absolutely agree. I suppose my problem here is cultural, in a way. I didn't mean to say that I don't think young people (am I old? Maybe I am) shouldn't have to take history classes that are exogenous to whatever they end up doing later in life. I think what I'm trying to say is that there's a lot of room to make specific skills that employers look for separate from the horribly expensive University system. This has to be possible, but maybe I'm wrong.

bdavisx 10y ago

>I am 100% confident that I could successfully perform a relatively complex cardiac surgery on a patient with about 2-3 weeks of training and some good staff. "Cut here, tie that together, done". And what if something goes wrong?