3 ms·

You quote me inaccurately where you disagree, I actually said: >If we have a STEM graduation problem, I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM depa

by Hyena 15y ago

You quote me inaccurately where you disagree, I actually said: >If we have a STEM graduation problem, I place the blame squarely where it belongs: on STEM departments. And then proceed to state that we need a redesign. The comment was already too long, so I left out any detail about what that would be. I have in mind a long-cycle plan that culminates in a master's in 5-6 years, using early semesters to bring people up to the workload level and spending the additional time gained getting fundamentals (calculus, thermo, statistics, structure of computer programs, etc.) right. We can then proceed with the 4+2 or 5 year models often used in architecture.

losvedir 15y ago
I apologize for misquoting you. I think your solution sounds like a reasonable way for universities to allow students to recover from a poor high school education. As I type that, I realize that's important. My concern is it draws out the education period of someone's life even further. I'm looking at this from the perspective that people should have a solid grasp of calculus and the other fundamentals you mention in high school. Currently many do not. One solution is to fix the problem at the university by giving students extra time to learn the fundamentals there. The other solution is to find a way for students to learn them back in high school. What happens in your plan if someone still doesn't learn the fundamentals when they're given the extra semesters in your long-cycle plan? Are they dropped from the program? Are they given extra tutoring? Why can't these things happen earlier, and if so, isn't that similar to the system we have now?
- Hyena 15y ago
  Why would anyone ever be dropped from a program? If they want to withdraw, they can. What this system does is it flattens the learning curve by drawing it out some but using its still substantial late trajectory to grant master's degrees without a loss of quality.

by Hyena 15y ago

losvedir 15y ago

I apologize for misquoting you. I think your solution sounds like a reasonable way for universities to allow students to recover from a poor high school education. As I type that, I realize that's important. My concern is it draws out the education period of someone's life even further. I'm looking at this from the perspective that people should have a solid grasp of calculus and the other fundamentals you mention in high school. Currently many do not. One solution is to fix the problem at the university by giving students extra time to learn the fundamentals there. The other solution is to find a way for students to learn them back in high school. What happens in your plan if someone still doesn't learn the fundamentals when they're given the extra semesters in your long-cycle plan? Are they dropped from the program? Are they given extra tutoring? Why can't these things happen earlier, and if so, isn't that similar to the system we have now?

Hyena 15y ago
Why would anyone ever be dropped from a program? If they want to withdraw, they can. What this system does is it flattens the learning curve by drawing it out some but using its still substantial late trajectory to grant master's degrees without a loss of quality.