4 ms·

Got the same impression. The narrative presented indicates the writer has minimal appreciation for what degrees in fields other than their own actually provide

Got the same impression. The narrative presented indicates the writer has minimal appreciation for what degrees in fields other than their own actually provide. Good luck being able to practice engineering if you haven't got a degree! The licensing bodies for professions won't care a fig about your life experience.

lordnacho 5y ago
OTOH, I actually have an engineering degree and I can't build a bridge, a radio, or a robot, despite having looked at all those things during the course. People who can actually do it have done it for a lab or a business, and then get accredited. My impression of the engineering degree is that it's basically a certificate in being able to deep dive into... something. Whether that's actual bridges or financial derivatives or trading systems, a degree basically says you haven't given up on some large pile of math-heavy topics, so an employer should bet on you being able to learn their thing. It's also the case that there isn't enough time to learn a whole business, so really it's testing that you stuck with the introductory parts of a wide variety of techie things.
- ulrashida 5y ago
  Entirely fair. I've worked as an engineering manager for both professional engineers and non-degreed technicians / technologists. My observation (such as it is) is that the degreed engineers had a stronger framework to be able to connect ideas and learn new skills. On the other hand, technologists were able to do tasks just as well as engineers but had trouble generalizing the concepts. Importantly, the degree (combined with professional guidance) also helps you appreciate the things you don't know. For example, a geotechnical engineer may be perfectly able to assess an abutment or design a blast but they wouldn't certify a dam foundation and would reach out for help in doing so. It's probably worth sharing that I hated my undergraduate education with a burning passion. I've only recently begun to appreciate it more -- turns out those old farts who did the accreditation might have known a thing or two about what you need to know later in your career.
  - sage92 5y ago
    Thanks for this. As someone who also hates undergrad with a burning passion (taking classes that seem irrelevant) you helped frame this in a way I can appreciate and reconsider.
ceeplusplus 5y ago
There is very little that an undergraduate degree in gender studies, media studies, history, etc. provides, even if these subjects can be considered useful in general. On the surface you are learning about the humanities but in practice the classes have such low standards that you learn neither the writing and argumentation skills needed to excel in academia nor the deep understanding of past works that is the reward of the humanities. I say this as someone who went to a school with highly ranked humanities programs. My business communication class taught me more about communication than any rhetoric/history/media studies class. My high school AP English Language class taught me more about persuasive writing than any writing class in college. If undergrad humanities programs are to be taken seriously they need to drastically increase their rigor and actually instill skills in their students.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Liberal arts schools will provide you with a liberal arts education in the topic you choose. Liberal arts schools are not and never have been vocational training institutions. They are academic in nature.
  - ceeplusplus 5y ago
    I'm saying liberal arts schools fail to provide you with a liberal arts education. You do not learn how to write better nor do you dive deep into the works that you study nor do you learn how to think. Instead, you learn surface level facts about random things without any pressure to go deeper and actually understand what you're studying. Very rarely will you actually analyze a primary source in depth and you definitely won't analyze multiple in depth. I went to a school that had top ranked humanities departments across the board. There is zero desire for rigor in any humanities courses or departments. It's a way for people to show up to class and get a degree without effort so they can party all day.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Ah, yeah. I think there has been a shift to this as 'customer demand' has tilted in that direction. In my experience at a large state school, students could sign up for rigorous humanities courses if they wanted to. (e.g. by avoiding the 'popular' courses in auditorium rooms, etc.). Although it's a bit of a shame that it's not universal, and that the student culture often demands "the easy gen-eds" At the end of the day, I think this is a cultural problem in some humanities departments. It's not unheard of for some STEM departments to fail 50% of their incoming students. I guess the appetite to hold the same standard in other departments just isn't there?

lordnacho 5y ago

OTOH, I actually have an engineering degree and I can't build a bridge, a radio, or a robot, despite having looked at all those things during the course. People who can actually do it have done it for a lab or a business, and then get accredited. My impression of the engineering degree is that it's basically a certificate in being able to deep dive into... something. Whether that's actual bridges or financial derivatives or trading systems, a degree basically says you haven't given up on some large pile of math-heavy topics, so an employer should bet on you being able to learn their thing. It's also the case that there isn't enough time to learn a whole business, so really it's testing that you stuck with the introductory parts of a wide variety of techie things.

ulrashida 5y ago
Entirely fair. I've worked as an engineering manager for both professional engineers and non-degreed technicians / technologists. My observation (such as it is) is that the degreed engineers had a stronger framework to be able to connect ideas and learn new skills. On the other hand, technologists were able to do tasks just as well as engineers but had trouble generalizing the concepts. Importantly, the degree (combined with professional guidance) also helps you appreciate the things you don't know. For example, a geotechnical engineer may be perfectly able to assess an abutment or design a blast but they wouldn't certify a dam foundation and would reach out for help in doing so. It's probably worth sharing that I hated my undergraduate education with a burning passion. I've only recently begun to appreciate it more -- turns out those old farts who did the accreditation might have known a thing or two about what you need to know later in your career.
- sage92 5y ago
  Thanks for this. As someone who also hates undergrad with a burning passion (taking classes that seem irrelevant) you helped frame this in a way I can appreciate and reconsider.

ceeplusplus 5y ago

There is very little that an undergraduate degree in gender studies, media studies, history, etc. provides, even if these subjects can be considered useful in general. On the surface you are learning about the humanities but in practice the classes have such low standards that you learn neither the writing and argumentation skills needed to excel in academia nor the deep understanding of past works that is the reward of the humanities. I say this as someone who went to a school with highly ranked humanities programs. My business communication class taught me more about communication than any rhetoric/history/media studies class. My high school AP English Language class taught me more about persuasive writing than any writing class in college. If undergrad humanities programs are to be taken seriously they need to drastically increase their rigor and actually instill skills in their students.

kube-system 5y ago
Liberal arts schools will provide you with a liberal arts education in the topic you choose. Liberal arts schools are not and never have been vocational training institutions. They are academic in nature.
- ceeplusplus 5y ago
  I'm saying liberal arts schools fail to provide you with a liberal arts education. You do not learn how to write better nor do you dive deep into the works that you study nor do you learn how to think. Instead, you learn surface level facts about random things without any pressure to go deeper and actually understand what you're studying. Very rarely will you actually analyze a primary source in depth and you definitely won't analyze multiple in depth. I went to a school that had top ranked humanities departments across the board. There is zero desire for rigor in any humanities courses or departments. It's a way for people to show up to class and get a degree without effort so they can party all day.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Ah, yeah. I think there has been a shift to this as 'customer demand' has tilted in that direction. In my experience at a large state school, students could sign up for rigorous humanities courses if they wanted to. (e.g. by avoiding the 'popular' courses in auditorium rooms, etc.). Although it's a bit of a shame that it's not universal, and that the student culture often demands "the easy gen-eds" At the end of the day, I think this is a cultural problem in some humanities departments. It's not unheard of for some STEM departments to fail 50% of their incoming students. I guess the appetite to hold the same standard in other departments just isn't there?