11 ms·

> Kindly point out where I said that. You can't. Because I did not. I interpreted you as being upset that a class about Karl Marx being required, which I inter

> Kindly point out where I said that. You can't. Because I did not. I interpreted you as being upset that a class about Karl Marx being required, which I interpret as about communism, as being unacceptable. Am I wrong in that assumption? What's your complaint here? > I was reading Plato, Kant and Descartes, while my US counterparts were, well, fucking off. > Today, I have to supplement my kids' education by exposing them to such topics. And you're unhappy about them being exposed to Marx? I'm not sure what your actual complaint is, since you think I didn't address it clearly earlier, but it sure sounds like you want the education system to expose students to only specific works, since you've given examples of what's okay (above) and what isn't (information about Karl Marx). > Universities should be devoted to what the person wants to study and the professional field they have chosen. That is not the sole purpose of universities, as much as you want it to be. There's a reason why there's a "general education" part of the curriculum. That's also the part of the curriculum you'll see both classes about Marx and about Descartes, unless you major deals with them specifically. > There are at least two ways to look at this: One, we could graduate people a year earlier --and with far less debt-- if we focused on what matters. The other is to say: If I am going to pay $50K for a year in school, the courses I take outside of those directly related to my major should be my choice. If I do not want to take humanities and focus on another year of specialized engineering coursework, that should be my choice. It's my money. There are plenty of schools that function exactly as you want. Trade schools. They teach you a specific trade. There are plenty that do computer science, as well. Why are you trying to make universities trade schools? Universities are for continuing general education and choosing a focus. As much as you want them to be a trade school, that's not what they are. > Last I checked, there are no job postings out there (in tech fields) that list specific non-tech coursework as requirements. It is OK for people to study anything they want outside of their major --with an emphasis on "they"-- not forced. We are making people spend tens of thousands of dollars on stuff that, in most cases, has zero career value. No, but they list four year universities, with the understanding that means you've also gone through the general education portion of the school, and have not failed out of general math and English classes and should have a base level of competency. Those jobs that don't expect that may not require a university. Knowing that someone is competent enough in the general fields a university requires to be able to communicate in text in long-form has value. It has value in explaining intricate details and concepts to others in a way they can understand, it allows for a base level of knowledge in how to categorize data into a form that may work for documentation. It allows for people to have thought about others that may not have similar life experiences so they can communicate with them more accurately rather than making base assumptions that may be very wrong due to complete inexperience with certain topics. > . If general education at a university level has value --return on investment-- the MARKET will make that decisions and students will willingly CHOOSE and seek that coursework...because it will be of value to them. The market very clearly wants college graduates, and college includes general education, so I'm pretty sure the market has spoken. I'm not sure what benefit it does you to completely ignore the evidence at hand because it goes against your view that this education is useless and nobody wants it. Businesses want it, or they would advertise for trade schools or some other equivalent. Students want it because businesses want it (and in some cases because they like the idea of learning more). The entire market is clearly built around wanting exactly this thing you think has no value and isn't wanted by the market, so I'm very confused by your reasoning.

robomartin 3y ago
> I interpreted <snip> which I interpret as <snip> assumption Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions. That's why people can't have conversations. They hear what they want and read what they want into what others are saying. My problem isn't at all with a class about XYZ. It's about being FORCED to take a class that has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of study. It's also about wasting people's time and adding tens of thousands of dollars in debt that will never be useful to them. If this XYZ is useful, by all means, make it available as a degree-enhancing class to be chosen freely and not as a condition for graduation. If someone just wants to get a bachelors in three years and go to work, they should be able to do it. This is where European education diverges from the US. In Europe (and other parts of the world) kids exit high school having covered more material and ready for university. Next, once at Uni, they focus 100% on degree-relevant coursework. No English (language), History or almost anything that isn't relevant to the degree. They are organized to receive a quality education before university. A bachelors degree in the US is four years, in Europe, typically three. We make them waste a whole year to make-up for what our secondary schooling failed to deliver. No employer in the STEM fields values this at all. In this country there's a severe failure to understand that our system of education is seriously broken. A high school graduate should be useful to society right out of school. We graduate ignorant young adults who are barely good enough to stack boxes at a warehouse or make coffee. I was just in Singapore visiting a friend for couple of weeks. The level of education his 15 year old is receiving in state-run high school is nothing less than mind-blowing when compared to a 15 year old in the US. The system of education in this small country puts the US to absolute shame. It's embarrassing, really, truly embarrassing. We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening, or we can be honest in assessing how we have gone wrong and fix it. Your trade-school vs. university argument is empty. Universities in throughout Europe manage to graduate Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Software Engineers, Biologists and myriad other STEM professionals in three years...because they cut out the bullshit and provide quality education before university. We have a problem.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  American universities can be more competitive than European and even Asian ones. The stories of Singaporean uni students going to Stanford on an exchange and getting caught cheating are not rare. It’s a weird contradiction, where we have the worst and best schools at the same time.

robomartin 3y ago

> I interpreted <snip> which I interpret as <snip> assumption Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions. That's why people can't have conversations. They hear what they want and read what they want into what others are saying. My problem isn't at all with a class about XYZ. It's about being FORCED to take a class that has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of study. It's also about wasting people's time and adding tens of thousands of dollars in debt that will never be useful to them. If this XYZ is useful, by all means, make it available as a degree-enhancing class to be chosen freely and not as a condition for graduation. If someone just wants to get a bachelors in three years and go to work, they should be able to do it. This is where European education diverges from the US. In Europe (and other parts of the world) kids exit high school having covered more material and ready for university. Next, once at Uni, they focus 100% on degree-relevant coursework. No English (language), History or almost anything that isn't relevant to the degree. They are organized to receive a quality education before university. A bachelors degree in the US is four years, in Europe, typically three. We make them waste a whole year to make-up for what our secondary schooling failed to deliver. No employer in the STEM fields values this at all. In this country there's a severe failure to understand that our system of education is seriously broken. A high school graduate should be useful to society right out of school. We graduate ignorant young adults who are barely good enough to stack boxes at a warehouse or make coffee. I was just in Singapore visiting a friend for couple of weeks. The level of education his 15 year old is receiving in state-run high school is nothing less than mind-blowing when compared to a 15 year old in the US. The system of education in this small country puts the US to absolute shame. It's embarrassing, really, truly embarrassing. We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening, or we can be honest in assessing how we have gone wrong and fix it. Your trade-school vs. university argument is empty. Universities in throughout Europe manage to graduate Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Software Engineers, Biologists and myriad other STEM professionals in three years...because they cut out the bullshit and provide quality education before university. We have a problem.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
American universities can be more competitive than European and even Asian ones. The stories of Singaporean uni students going to Stanford on an exchange and getting caught cheating are not rare. It’s a weird contradiction, where we have the worst and best schools at the same time.