4 ms·
Talk about removing non-STEM courses from university suggests a disagreement on what university is. IMO if you want to remove non-STEM courses, what you actual
by Qwertious 6y ago
Talk about removing non-STEM courses from university suggests a disagreement on what university is.
IMO if you want to remove non-STEM courses, what you actually want is a trade school. University is all about learning outside of the normal narrow viewpoint, so removing everything outside the narrow viewpoint defeats the point.
"But so what", you might say. Well, here's the problem: trade schools already exist, and nobody wants to hire from a trade school because it's seen as less classy.
I think this is the fundamental problem: People want a degree to primarily satisfy employers, and what employers want is to exclude people. You can't have an all-inclusive exclusive degree, it's an oxymoron.
Either you change employers' minds to match your vision of all-inclusive degrees, or you change the degrees to match employer's vision of exclusivity.
- robomartin 6y ago> University is all about learning outside of the normal narrow viewpoint PRECISELY! Watch this then and tell me I am wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKkNIOkGtnQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKkNIOkGtnQ We are funding and paying for a "narrow narrow viewpoint" to our detriment. This is isn't what universities are for. I am 100% in agreement with you in that regard. Watch the interview and think about what he is saying.
- coryrc 6y agoThis is a 1.5 hour video, you might want to summarize a bit...
- robomartin 6y agoBeing informed requires effort and some dedication. A bullet-point summary can't possibly capture what one can learn by taking the time to listen to a careful intellectual exchange with nuance and detail that escapes a summary. That said, the conversation, among other things, explores the mechanisms through which academia tends to self-radicalize (note I am not specifying a direction) as well as some of the consequences of such radicalization.
- burfog 6y agoThe problem is accreditation and standardization. We know roughly what is in a BS degree for CS or any typical engineering. The baseline is mandated by the accreditor. We don't value half the gunk that the accreditor demands, but universities like to make students pay for cheap filler gunk, and they get more influence over the accreditor than any normal employer would. It's really a cartel, with universities all colluding to waste about 2% of every student's life. For every 50 students, that's like a murder. Employers would jump at the chance to hire somebody with a 4-year degree that is like the MS minus the AA. Replace the cheap filler gunk with more-advanced STEM classes. Sadly that isn't offered, at least not in a widely-recognized way with standardization.