5 ms·

> 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 bec

by 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.
    - shanusmagnus 12y ago
      "Let's unbundle them and give people a choice." They're already unbundled, and people already have a choice -- for the trade school thing you want, there are trade schools, 2 year colleges, etc, that require no (or far fewer) of those useless classes for creating an informed citizenry; and a burgeoning explosion of online offerings that are quite good, especially for the price. And there's nothing stopping you from getting into a small liberal arts school and majoring in feminist theory, if you don't want to be tainted by practical skills of any kind. And you can find any position along that gradient, for any dollar figure. I'd say the issue isn't lack of choice; the issue is that people want contradictory things, and that the 'ambiguous message' is less a message universities are sending than a misunderstanding of what universities are really providing, which is the signaling power of their credential. The practical, no-fat skills acquisition you describe is there for the taking, if that's really what you want. If you're willing to spend the money you can have the best of both worlds at the cost of more time, which is the same as everything else in life. I don't feel that bad for people who buy a Honda Civic and wish it were a Tesla, or vice-versa. There are certainly plenty of options to get either one, and plenty of information to know which one you're getting. But if you want the Tesla, but only want to pay for the Honda? Too bad.

by mhurron 12y ago

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.
  - shanusmagnus 12y ago
    "Let's unbundle them and give people a choice." They're already unbundled, and people already have a choice -- for the trade school thing you want, there are trade schools, 2 year colleges, etc, that require no (or far fewer) of those useless classes for creating an informed citizenry; and a burgeoning explosion of online offerings that are quite good, especially for the price. And there's nothing stopping you from getting into a small liberal arts school and majoring in feminist theory, if you don't want to be tainted by practical skills of any kind. And you can find any position along that gradient, for any dollar figure. I'd say the issue isn't lack of choice; the issue is that people want contradictory things, and that the 'ambiguous message' is less a message universities are sending than a misunderstanding of what universities are really providing, which is the signaling power of their credential. The practical, no-fat skills acquisition you describe is there for the taking, if that's really what you want. If you're willing to spend the money you can have the best of both worlds at the cost of more time, which is the same as everything else in life. I don't feel that bad for people who buy a Honda Civic and wish it were a Tesla, or vice-versa. There are certainly plenty of options to get either one, and plenty of information to know which one you're getting. But if you want the Tesla, but only want to pay for the Honda? Too bad.