8 ms·

>credit-fillers that students have to take in order to graduate. This structure works out well for everyone: the university ensures that students are getting a

>credit-fillers that students have to take in order to graduate. This structure works out well for everyone: the university ensures that students are getting a well-rounded education (as opposed to a trade-school degree) Do you really think the irrelevant classes are necessary at this level though? The student has had all of elementary through high school to be exposed to the broad subject range. By the time you enter university you should know what you're doing. None of my credit filler requirements have been especially enlightening or broadening; mostly just annoying. A Greek and Roman history class I took was interesting to me at least, but I don't see much value forcing another CS student to take it. If I have to take one more English class I might just drop out and start my own company. Do you really think universities believe in the "rounded education" goal, or do they just know that making you take more classes gets them more money?

mhurron 12y ago
> Do you really think universities believe in the "rounded education" goal This was the traditional role of Universities. It's only recently that they have become pressured to become trade schools and remove anything deemed 'unnecessary' or 'non-profitable.' Of course when Universities filled that role, you didn't have choices as to what to use as, as you term it, irrelevant classes. Everyone had to have a broader education with classes drawn from many different disciplines.
- hsitz 12y ago
  Yes, yes, yes. I think good universities (i.e, most of their faculty and administration) still believe strongly in the "rounded education" goal. As you say, historically universities sought to provide a liberal education, regarding subjects that "were considered essential for a free person (a citizen) to know in order to take an active part in civic life. . . . The aim of these studies was to produce a virtuous, knowledgeable, and articulate person." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts ] It's mostly the students now who don't believe in a well-rounded education, who just want to prepare themselves for a job. I'm fifty years old and I've observed the trend towards higher education becoming more and more like vocational education. It began before I was born, but it surely seems to be accelerating. Frequent articles on whether college can be "economically justified" are representative of this. Formerly, there was no question of whether a liberal arts (i.e., "well rounded") education would somehow "pay off". It was something desirable for its own sake, part of becoming a better person.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >It's only recently that they have become pressured to become trade schools and remove anything deemed 'unnecessary' or 'non-profitable.' They've come under this pressure because of the changed realities of the contemporary job market, combined with the rising cost of higher education. College is largely an economic decision for the vast majority of people who attend. Unfortunately, some only realize this soon after graduating, unemployable with a mountain of debt. So, this notion of churning out "well-rounded" students is an anachronism. Companies care about the hard skillset for which they are hiring. Period. In fact, they increasingly want people who are specialized beyond even a degree, let alone caring about what, say, a dev hire knows about biology. In short, a trade school approach is exactly what we need, as it most accurately reflects the realities of the new job market.
  - hsitz 12y ago
    "In short, a trade school approach is exactly what we need, as it most accurately reflects the realities of the new job market." Not sure who that "we" you're referring to is. Certainly the trade-school mentality helps the economy grow. Helping populate our country with thoughtful, well-informed citizens leading desirable lives, not so much.
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      >Certainly the trade-school mentality helps the economy grow. It helps people to eat. >Helping populate our country with thoughtful, well-informed citizens leading desirable lives, not so much. Is a college education at an average cost of $19K/year ($33K for private colleges) and rising the only way to become a "thoughtful, well-informed citizen"? Is it even an efficient way to achieve that goal? And it's difficult to have any kind of life, let alone a desirable one, when one cannot feed himself or provide for his basic needs. Higher education itself sends an ambiguous message. "Give us $100K+ and we'll prepare you to participate in the economy and we'll make you a well-rounded citizen". So, which is it? Because these two goals are increasingly at odds. And, how many takers do you think they'd have at $100K for the "well-rounded" bit alone? How many for the "learn an employable skill" bit? Right. So let's unbundle them and give people a choice. Look, I'm the first to agree that the manner by which our current economy assigns value and subsequently allocates rewards is terribly skewed. If it wasn't, then college would be free for everyone and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, unless and until the glorious day comes when we are provided with basic incomes and/or we are financially rewarded for being "thoughtful and well-informed", we need to stop doing our kids (and their parents) a disservice and prepare them for the real world that they'll actually be facing on graduation day+1. This, instead of breaking their backs with debt, only to have them unable to sustain themselves.
sliverstorm 12y ago
You'd probably be surprised by the number of non-engineering disciplines that can leverage moderate programming skill these days. A very easy example is biology. Many biologists may need to develop models or crunch data, and programming comes in handy. An even easier example is physics- one of the original uses for computers, along with finance. It goes beyond that too. I can't think of a good example at the moment, but any time you see somebody using a hundred different Excel spreadsheets, that's someone who might be able to benefit from some basic programming skill.
- omilu 12y ago
  Domain specific expertise combined with non-zero programming skills is a potent combination. But it's easier said than done for many, since the ability to solve problems with computers is a particular skill many just can't grasp (difficult both for programmers and non-programmers alike). Depending on your frame of reference this is either unfortunate or a godsend.

mhurron 12y ago

> Do you really think universities believe in the "rounded education" goal This was the traditional role of Universities. It's only recently that they have become pressured to become trade schools and remove anything deemed 'unnecessary' or 'non-profitable.' Of course when Universities filled that role, you didn't have choices as to what to use as, as you term it, irrelevant classes. Everyone had to have a broader education with classes drawn from many different disciplines.

hsitz 12y ago
Yes, yes, yes. I think good universities (i.e, most of their faculty and administration) still believe strongly in the "rounded education" goal. As you say, historically universities sought to provide a liberal education, regarding subjects that "were considered essential for a free person (a citizen) to know in order to take an active part in civic life. . . . The aim of these studies was to produce a virtuous, knowledgeable, and articulate person." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts ] It's mostly the students now who don't believe in a well-rounded education, who just want to prepare themselves for a job. I'm fifty years old and I've observed the trend towards higher education becoming more and more like vocational education. It began before I was born, but it surely seems to be accelerating. Frequent articles on whether college can be "economically justified" are representative of this. Formerly, there was no question of whether a liberal arts (i.e., "well rounded") education would somehow "pay off". It was something desirable for its own sake, part of becoming a better person.
unclebucknasty 12y ago
>It's only recently that they have become pressured to become trade schools and remove anything deemed 'unnecessary' or 'non-profitable.' They've come under this pressure because of the changed realities of the contemporary job market, combined with the rising cost of higher education. College is largely an economic decision for the vast majority of people who attend. Unfortunately, some only realize this soon after graduating, unemployable with a mountain of debt. So, this notion of churning out "well-rounded" students is an anachronism. Companies care about the hard skillset for which they are hiring. Period. In fact, they increasingly want people who are specialized beyond even a degree, let alone caring about what, say, a dev hire knows about biology. In short, a trade school approach is exactly what we need, as it most accurately reflects the realities of the new job market.
- hsitz 12y ago
  "In short, a trade school approach is exactly what we need, as it most accurately reflects the realities of the new job market." Not sure who that "we" you're referring to is. Certainly the trade-school mentality helps the economy grow. Helping populate our country with thoughtful, well-informed citizens leading desirable lives, not so much.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >Certainly the trade-school mentality helps the economy grow. It helps people to eat. >Helping populate our country with thoughtful, well-informed citizens leading desirable lives, not so much. Is a college education at an average cost of $19K/year ($33K for private colleges) and rising the only way to become a "thoughtful, well-informed citizen"? Is it even an efficient way to achieve that goal? And it's difficult to have any kind of life, let alone a desirable one, when one cannot feed himself or provide for his basic needs. Higher education itself sends an ambiguous message. "Give us $100K+ and we'll prepare you to participate in the economy and we'll make you a well-rounded citizen". So, which is it? Because these two goals are increasingly at odds. And, how many takers do you think they'd have at $100K for the "well-rounded" bit alone? How many for the "learn an employable skill" bit? Right. So let's unbundle them and give people a choice. Look, I'm the first to agree that the manner by which our current economy assigns value and subsequently allocates rewards is terribly skewed. If it wasn't, then college would be free for everyone and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, unless and until the glorious day comes when we are provided with basic incomes and/or we are financially rewarded for being "thoughtful and well-informed", we need to stop doing our kids (and their parents) a disservice and prepare them for the real world that they'll actually be facing on graduation day+1. This, instead of breaking their backs with debt, only to have them unable to sustain themselves.

sliverstorm 12y ago

You'd probably be surprised by the number of non-engineering disciplines that can leverage moderate programming skill these days. A very easy example is biology. Many biologists may need to develop models or crunch data, and programming comes in handy. An even easier example is physics- one of the original uses for computers, along with finance. It goes beyond that too. I can't think of a good example at the moment, but any time you see somebody using a hundred different Excel spreadsheets, that's someone who might be able to benefit from some basic programming skill.

omilu 12y ago
Domain specific expertise combined with non-zero programming skills is a potent combination. But it's easier said than done for many, since the ability to solve problems with computers is a particular skill many just can't grasp (difficult both for programmers and non-programmers alike). Depending on your frame of reference this is either unfortunate or a godsend.