5 ms·

> If a university is not providing both they are failing everyone. Why? > A pure university education without considering is this degree useful in the real wo

by duped 3y ago

> If a university is not providing both they are failing everyone. Why? > A pure university education without considering is this degree useful in the real world is a disservice to education. I think this line of thinking is a much bigger disservice to higher education. It was very tiresome as an undergraduate to be surrounded by people that thought this way - and detrimental to everyone's education. "I'll never use this knowledge" is the single worst thing you can say as a student, and it needs to be beaten out of undergrads' heads. Not encouraged.

sneed_chucker 3y ago
I agree with you in principle, but it's very easy to have this attitude when the education isn't obscenely expensive. Which is why the "I'm never going to use this, what a waste of time" feeling among American undergrad students is so common. If you fix the affordability problem and bring it back to where is was in the mid 70s (inflation adjusted) I think things would be a lot better.
- duped 3y ago
  My point is that higher education isn't job training and doesn't pretend to be, and people who think it is or should are the ones that need education the most because they don't seem to get it.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >My point is that higher education isn't job training and doesn't pretend to be, and people who think it is or should are the ones that need education the most because they don't seem to get it. That was true 50 years ago, but employers turned it into job training. My father in law retired a well off businessman with a History degree from Yale he got in the 50s. You know what a History degree from Yale qualifies you for today? Teaching History and maybe writing some books. The degree didn't change and Yale didn't change.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    > and doesn't pretend to be I'm not sure about this part... A very common pattern in my conversations with working class friends and family from my parents' generation is: "we were told that if we sent our kids to college, they'd have better lives than we did, but instead we all just ended up with more debt than we could handle". It's tricky! If you tell teenagers and their parents the truth - this purely academic program will not train you for any job besides pure academia, which, while it can be a fantastic career, is a super risky hits business in which only a few will truly succeed - then that's only going to sound like a reasonable risk to take for wealthy families. But then you've badly limited your pool of academic researchers to this extremely small and honestly often not as promising set of rich kids. Maybe one solution (which is not workable in the real world) would be: any academic program that does not have a viable "job training" component should only accept students on academic scholarship, regardless of their own means. If some neutral party thinks they are promising enough in that field to pay their way, they get to go for free, otherwise they don't get to go at all. The programs that do graduate people with directly marketable job skills could keep working the current mercenary way. The reason this wouldn't work in reality is that the wealthy would still just game the scholarships in some way. Alas.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      There is a big difference in value between different degrees in the real world. Yet the costs are similar. What someone studies is very important and universities do not do a good job of telling people that. There is nothing wrong with art/music/history. If you are interested by all means take a lot of courses in them. You can learn a lot of valuable skills which is why good universities required a diverse background of "generals" that these (and many more) fit into. However they give far more degrees in these things than are needed. (even physics gets more degrees than the world needs - but most getting a physics degree can better pivot to something else well paying).
    - duped 3y ago
      > I'm not sure about this part... If you want to know what a university will teach your kids, ask them. They'll even tell you without asking them - it was pretty obvious to me as a dumb high school kid on campus visits what the emphasis of one program or another was going to be.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
  No, I don't think that's it. I think it is simply that you have to put an awful lot of people through the explore part of the learning loop, to get a handful who will reach the exploit part of the loop, for any given subject. 99% of what we all learn in college is a waste of time for us. But we all have a unique 1% that is vital to who we become. Over time I expect that 1% to become 0.1%, then 0.01%, and for that vitality to become ever more concentrated in that sliver.
bluGill 3y ago
Because like it or not most people are going to university to get a better jobs. Companies like university educated people because they learn deep thinking. However they often come out lacking important skills that are needed. Sure there are a few going to university just for the fun of it. However most are expecting a job. Thus universities should train and emphasize thinking in more specific areas. > "I'll never use this knowledge" is the single worst thing you can say as a student, and it needs to be beaten out of undergrads' heads. Not encouraged. This is tricky. I agree undergrads say this all the time when they are wrong but they don't know it. They have no clue what they will use and what they won't. This is something universities should figure out so they push people to avoid things they won't use. OTOH, a lot of what they are really teaching isn't the specific skill, but how to research and analyze data to find complex answers - it doesn't matter if you look at data from art or from science, what you are really learning is how to think and the specific knowledge gained is isn't important or the point (I think this is the point you were trying to make?).
- duped 3y ago
  > However they often come out lacking important skills that are needed. Companies that offer the jobs are the ones that need to offer the job training. > (I think this is the point you were trying to make?) Not really, it's that university education is kind of meta/self serving (the goal is not to train X number of students to do Y jobs, it's to give every student at the institution what that institution defines to be an education). But like you said, the fact this produces better workers is a second-order effect. It's not the goal of most institutions. But not all institutions; some define "well educated" to have lots of industry practicum, and if you want that, go study at those institutions. My main point is that it's not a "disservice" to eschew practicum or industry training as an educational institution.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    What society needs is the second order effect though. I don't care about education for the sake of education, I can for what education can do for me/society. Now some of what most institutions define as a good education is good for society (the ability to think is very useful), but I don't value/support education because of arbitrary definitions that an institution might come up with. I value/support education because people who have education tend to show specific abilities in society that I want more people to have. The more universities are in line with that and try to produce that the more I value/support them. (note that I didn't not formally define what those things are - this is a tricky topic that I'm sure to get wrong if I tried!) When institutions allow student to take degrees that society finds less valuable (art,music...) they are doing society a disservice by not producing what society needs. Now if the student is wealthy (not rich) enough to afford that the price then I don't care: I don't need to impose my values on anyone else. However most people in a university are not that wealthy (most are young) and so if the degree granted isn't valuable to society the university robbed that student.
iamthepieman 3y ago
Strongly disagree with this. If a class (at any level) is strictly teaching "the subject" then that is a very good issue to raise by a student or anyone else. Great teachers don't just teach the subject though, they teach the skills necessary to engage with the subject and then apply them to said subject. Unfortunately many programs are not designed this way and learning the appropriate skills is left as an exercise to the student usually in a sink or swim approach. So some students come out with the meta skills that a university education is touted for and others do not. I do agree that "I'll never use this knowledge" can be a miserable attitude to have or engage with - especially when it's just a proxy for "I'm not interested in learning, just in getting good grades" but the idea itself is valid.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>"I'll never use this knowledge" is the single worst thing you can say as a student, and it needs to be beaten out of undergrads' heads. Everyone will think differently. I've never truly be research-minded and there's very much a bunch of odd classes that felt like a waste of my money (something to consider as education gets more expensive). But I do agree that there should be a space to foster researchers and especially one to overall round out a student, even if that space is more niche. I just don't think that everyone needs to go far into debt for that experience if they just want job training. So I too desire a more explicit divide than "research university vs. industry university" and wish there were some better trade schools focused on software (not 6 month boot-camps. Think of a condensed university program without requirements of electives and maybe less supporting classes). But no one seems to be protesting this much.

by duped 3y ago

sneed_chucker 3y ago

I agree with you in principle, but it's very easy to have this attitude when the education isn't obscenely expensive. Which is why the "I'm never going to use this, what a waste of time" feeling among American undergrad students is so common. If you fix the affordability problem and bring it back to where is was in the mid 70s (inflation adjusted) I think things would be a lot better.

duped 3y ago
My point is that higher education isn't job training and doesn't pretend to be, and people who think it is or should are the ones that need education the most because they don't seem to get it.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >My point is that higher education isn't job training and doesn't pretend to be, and people who think it is or should are the ones that need education the most because they don't seem to get it. That was true 50 years ago, but employers turned it into job training. My father in law retired a well off businessman with a History degree from Yale he got in the 50s. You know what a History degree from Yale qualifies you for today? Teaching History and maybe writing some books. The degree didn't change and Yale didn't change.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  > and doesn't pretend to be I'm not sure about this part... A very common pattern in my conversations with working class friends and family from my parents' generation is: "we were told that if we sent our kids to college, they'd have better lives than we did, but instead we all just ended up with more debt than we could handle". It's tricky! If you tell teenagers and their parents the truth - this purely academic program will not train you for any job besides pure academia, which, while it can be a fantastic career, is a super risky hits business in which only a few will truly succeed - then that's only going to sound like a reasonable risk to take for wealthy families. But then you've badly limited your pool of academic researchers to this extremely small and honestly often not as promising set of rich kids. Maybe one solution (which is not workable in the real world) would be: any academic program that does not have a viable "job training" component should only accept students on academic scholarship, regardless of their own means. If some neutral party thinks they are promising enough in that field to pay their way, they get to go for free, otherwise they don't get to go at all. The programs that do graduate people with directly marketable job skills could keep working the current mercenary way. The reason this wouldn't work in reality is that the wealthy would still just game the scholarships in some way. Alas.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    There is a big difference in value between different degrees in the real world. Yet the costs are similar. What someone studies is very important and universities do not do a good job of telling people that. There is nothing wrong with art/music/history. If you are interested by all means take a lot of courses in them. You can learn a lot of valuable skills which is why good universities required a diverse background of "generals" that these (and many more) fit into. However they give far more degrees in these things than are needed. (even physics gets more degrees than the world needs - but most getting a physics degree can better pivot to something else well paying).
  - duped 3y ago
    > I'm not sure about this part... If you want to know what a university will teach your kids, ask them. They'll even tell you without asking them - it was pretty obvious to me as a dumb high school kid on campus visits what the emphasis of one program or another was going to be.
hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
No, I don't think that's it. I think it is simply that you have to put an awful lot of people through the explore part of the learning loop, to get a handful who will reach the exploit part of the loop, for any given subject. 99% of what we all learn in college is a waste of time for us. But we all have a unique 1% that is vital to who we become. Over time I expect that 1% to become 0.1%, then 0.01%, and for that vitality to become ever more concentrated in that sliver.

bluGill 3y ago

Because like it or not most people are going to university to get a better jobs. Companies like university educated people because they learn deep thinking. However they often come out lacking important skills that are needed. Sure there are a few going to university just for the fun of it. However most are expecting a job. Thus universities should train and emphasize thinking in more specific areas. > "I'll never use this knowledge" is the single worst thing you can say as a student, and it needs to be beaten out of undergrads' heads. Not encouraged. This is tricky. I agree undergrads say this all the time when they are wrong but they don't know it. They have no clue what they will use and what they won't. This is something universities should figure out so they push people to avoid things they won't use. OTOH, a lot of what they are really teaching isn't the specific skill, but how to research and analyze data to find complex answers - it doesn't matter if you look at data from art or from science, what you are really learning is how to think and the specific knowledge gained is isn't important or the point (I think this is the point you were trying to make?).

duped 3y ago
> However they often come out lacking important skills that are needed. Companies that offer the jobs are the ones that need to offer the job training. > (I think this is the point you were trying to make?) Not really, it's that university education is kind of meta/self serving (the goal is not to train X number of students to do Y jobs, it's to give every student at the institution what that institution defines to be an education). But like you said, the fact this produces better workers is a second-order effect. It's not the goal of most institutions. But not all institutions; some define "well educated" to have lots of industry practicum, and if you want that, go study at those institutions. My main point is that it's not a "disservice" to eschew practicum or industry training as an educational institution.
- bluGill 3y ago
  What society needs is the second order effect though. I don't care about education for the sake of education, I can for what education can do for me/society. Now some of what most institutions define as a good education is good for society (the ability to think is very useful), but I don't value/support education because of arbitrary definitions that an institution might come up with. I value/support education because people who have education tend to show specific abilities in society that I want more people to have. The more universities are in line with that and try to produce that the more I value/support them. (note that I didn't not formally define what those things are - this is a tricky topic that I'm sure to get wrong if I tried!) When institutions allow student to take degrees that society finds less valuable (art,music...) they are doing society a disservice by not producing what society needs. Now if the student is wealthy (not rich) enough to afford that the price then I don't care: I don't need to impose my values on anyone else. However most people in a university are not that wealthy (most are young) and so if the degree granted isn't valuable to society the university robbed that student.

iamthepieman 3y ago

Strongly disagree with this. If a class (at any level) is strictly teaching "the subject" then that is a very good issue to raise by a student or anyone else. Great teachers don't just teach the subject though, they teach the skills necessary to engage with the subject and then apply them to said subject. Unfortunately many programs are not designed this way and learning the appropriate skills is left as an exercise to the student usually in a sink or swim approach. So some students come out with the meta skills that a university education is touted for and others do not. I do agree that "I'll never use this knowledge" can be a miserable attitude to have or engage with - especially when it's just a proxy for "I'm not interested in learning, just in getting good grades" but the idea itself is valid.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>"I'll never use this knowledge" is the single worst thing you can say as a student, and it needs to be beaten out of undergrads' heads. Everyone will think differently. I've never truly be research-minded and there's very much a bunch of odd classes that felt like a waste of my money (something to consider as education gets more expensive). But I do agree that there should be a space to foster researchers and especially one to overall round out a student, even if that space is more niche. I just don't think that everyone needs to go far into debt for that experience if they just want job training. So I too desire a more explicit divide than "research university vs. industry university" and wish there were some better trade schools focused on software (not 6 month boot-camps. Think of a condensed university program without requirements of electives and maybe less supporting classes). But no one seems to be protesting this much.