Why are US grads not awarded masters degrees after 4 years of college?

[Sankaku]

I am a bit strange but I think choice is the key all the way through.

Students in High-School should have choice to specialize or not. i.e They should not be forced into a system like English A-Levels, but to have it available. The IB and AP programs are a decent attempt at this, but they could be better and they are not offered everywhere.

Students in University should have choice to do many general subjects or to specialize, if they wish. There is no time-limit on learning. The only artificial constraint is whatever the system has decided is needed for a piece of paper. Make it more flexible and stop trying to make all degrees from all Universities in the whole world look the same. A fine arts degree is radically different than a Science degree (they both have their place). Why do they all have to take the same amount of time?

The whole phenomenon of people going to University for 3 or 4 years just for a piece of paper is a complete disgrace. I doubt it is possible to reverse, but we should try anyway. People have mistaken the finger for the moon.

Go to university to learn. Take as much time as you need to learn it properly.

 

[Jokerhelper]

The whole phenomenon of people going to University for 3 or 4 years just for a piece of paper is a complete disgrace. I doubt it is possible to reverse, but we should try anyway. People have mistaken the finger for the moon.

Go to university to learn. Take as much time as you need to learn it properly.

No offense but I think you're being too naive. When students have to invest tens of thousands of dollars with loans and lines of credit into their education, it's hard to ask them to only care about what they're learning without worrying about the monetary value of their degree.

 

[cristo]

We only studied history in primary school and it's shame that I've forgotten most of it. Hopefully that should change within the coming years, while trying to sort my act out, I'm going to find some time to catch up on that.

That's a problem with your school, not with the system. I took two humanities subjects at GCSE level (geography and history) along with maths, physics, chemistry, biology, french, english lang and lit.

That would, however, also result in nearly the same flaw the English system have - specialisation before university/college.

I don't see that this is a flaw. You're taught a wide range of subjects up to the age of compulsory education (16) and then narrow down to 4 or 5 subjects for two years after that. Those who are able, then go on to university to specialise further.

 

[Mépris]

I am a bit strange but I think choice is the key all the way through.

Students in High-School should have choice to specialize or not. i.e They should not be forced into a system like English A-Levels, but to have it available. The IB and AP programs are a decent attempt at this, but they could be better and they are not offered everywhere.

This would mean having to have more, much more teachers and paying them. (obviously) Generally, bigger institutions have more choice available. I've heard of schools in the UK offering both the IB and the A-Levels. I'm not sure how they go about to doing it though. I know of a local school which is currently trying to implement that and by the look of things, it's going to fail. I hope not but both have fairly different syllabi and teaching Standard Level Maths with AS Maths is just not going to work. Although it does have more chances of working than HL Maths with A2 Maths. Not with that school anyway. Why? They don't have enough teachers. Not enough competent teachers anyway, it seems.

As someone who's had experience with both IB and A-Levels, I don't think neither is the better choice. While the IB provides room for more breadth of study, it does not mean that you get to take these subjects up for further study at university. Only your three higher level subjects matter. If you go to a small school, you won't have enough choice. In my five month stint in the IB, the only languages I could choose from were English as First Langauge and French as Second Language; no Japanese, German, Italian, Spanish or Mandarin. No Economics. I couldn't do History because it clashed with my Physics class.

Also, saying A-Levels cannot provide breadth is wrong. I've heard of people doing 4-5 subjects at A2, some of whom do subjects from a fairly broad range. The key is a more flexible time table which can exist if there is a sufficient number of teachers.

Students in University should have choice to do many general subjects or to specialize, if they wish. There is no time-limit on learning. The only artificial constraint is whatever the system has decided is needed for a piece of paper. Make it more flexible and stop trying to make all degrees from all Universities in the whole world look the same. A fine arts degree is radically different than a Science degree (they both have their place). Why do they all have to take the same amount of time?

The whole phenomenon of people going to University for 3 or 4 years just for a piece of paper is a complete disgrace. I doubt it is possible to reverse, but we should try anyway. People have mistaken the finger for the moon.

Go to university to learn. Take as much time as you need to learn it properly.

This sounds like an interesting idea. Various courses available, one can choose as many/little as they want across the board. Then, depending on the courses they've chosen; which category/field (physics; neurobiology; sculpture; or even something as broad as 'science') these courses fit into and if they've gotten enough credits, are awarded 'x' or 'xy' degree. Wait...this sounds like a more "liberal" approach to the US college system, no? Then again, I might be wrong, considering I've not yet had an inside look to how university/college functions.

 

[Mépris]

No offense but I think you're being too naive. When students have to invest tens of thousands of dollars with loans and lines of credit into their education, it's hard to ask them to only care about what they're learning without worrying about the monetary value of their degree.

True, true.

That's a problem with your school, not with the system. I took two humanities subjects at GCSE level (geography and history) along with maths, physics, chemistry, biology, french, english lang and lit.

No, system. If you'd have paid more attention, you'd have noticed I was talking about another country (former British colony) whose education system is based on that of the English.

I don't see that this is a flaw. You're taught a wide range of subjects up to the age of compulsory education (16) and then narrow down to 4 or 5 subjects for two years after that. Those who are able, then go on to university to specialise further.

Again, it depends on whether the choice is available. I doubt all schools would have as wide a range. Mal4Mac, who by the looks of it, is in the UK, didn't seem to have the choice at his school.

 

[cristo]

No, system. If you'd have paid more attention, you'd have noticed I was talking about another country (former British colony) whose education system is based on that of the English.

Well then that's not a problem with the English system, but rather with the system in your country.

Again, it depends on whether the choice is available. I doubt all schools would have as wide a range. Mal4Mac, who by the looks of it, is in the UK, didn't seem to have the choice at his school.

I can't comment on that, but I went to a state school. I know lots of schools that provide a wide range of A level subjects.

 

[Klockan3]

There is some evidence that gen ed science requirements for non-science majors do produce results.


However, it is possible that not everyone will believe that these results are unbiased.

According to it Sweden is far ahead of the US and we don't have gen ed requirements in college. We do however have compulsory physics, chemistry and biology in middle school.
http://www.arcsfoundation.org/pittsburgh/JMiller.pdf

 

[Mépris]

Well then that's not a problem with the English system, but rather with the system in your country.

My main complaint I suppose is something like that: "If you're going to base your education system on that of England, at the very least, you might want to get it right repugnant imbeciles."

Eh.

I can't comment on that, but I went to a state school. I know lots of schools that provide a wide range of A level subjects.

That's good then. The main problem here, in my opinion, with regards to specialisation, is that it's very unlikely that youth, in general, have any sort of clue of what to study and if they actually would genuinely like to further their studies in any way and I believe that the system restricts choice.

Personally, I don't mind the additional year spent for a bachelor's degree, I would rather much do that and still have the choice to do pretty much anything I want. ;)

 

[Andy Resnick]

I would assume the 4 year bachelor in the US, gen ed ads time required to take the degree but aren't providing any tangible reward.

But how do gen ed do this better than for example science courses? Dismantling statements/arguments and analyzing their parts is important and trained in every subject and it is more emphasized the higher up you get.

This reasoning is perfectly fine for the student that already knows what they want to be when they grow up. For the vast majority of students, this is not the case. Already, hypercompetitive medical schools select for students that decided they want to be doctors when they were in middle school, and have built up a resume/CV specifically for this purpose over 10+ years. Does this make them better doctors?

Universities should not be in the business of churning out thoughtless robots.

 

[Andy Resnick]

In that case, then the addition of a, possibly optional, thirteenth year in high school, for those wanting to go to college, wouldn't be a bad idea. That would, however, also result in nearly the same flaw the English system have - specialisation before university/college.

I agree- and one strategy to deal with a shorter BS program is to make more use of Community Colleges. For example, a high school graduate takes their freshman year/gen ed classes at a community college. Is that good? I say no.

 

[cristo]

Eh.

Are you speaking English now, or just grunting?

That's good then. The main problem here, in my opinion, with regards to specialisation, is that it's very unlikely that youth, in general, have any sort of clue of what to study and if they actually would genuinely like to further their studies in any way and I believe that the system restricts choice.

Maybe that's something to do with your culture, but I don't think we should be treating 16/17 year olds like 8 year olds and telling them that they are unable to make a decision as to whether they want to further their education. No, instead, at the end of compulsory education you should be given the choice as to whether you wish to stay on in education or not. If so, then you choice to reduce the breadth of your study by about a half in order to study in more detail. Students are given help with these decisions; it's not like people just toss a coin.

 

[cristo]

This reasoning is perfectly fine for the student that already knows what they want to be when they grow up. For the vast majority of students, this is not the case. Already, hypercompetitive medical schools select for students that decided they want to be doctors when they were in middle school, and have built up a resume/CV specifically for this purpose over 10+ years.

This isn't a comparison that can be made (presuming we're still talking about the original question), since medicine in the UK is an undergraduate degree.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This isn't a comparison that can be made (presuming we're still talking about the original question), since medicine in the UK is an undergraduate degree.

In the US, medical school is a professional version of graduate school, much like Law, Nursing, Dentistry, or Business. Typically, "pre-med" (undergraduate) students major in biochemistry, biology, etc.

My point is that shortening the time-to-degree will preferentially select for students who decided on their career early in life, prior to entering college. This may be fine for the majority of PF posters, but this is not fine for the majority of college students (or people in general). Furthermore, it's debatable whether selecting for "early career adopters" is good for *any* profession.

 

[Mépris]

Maybe that's something to do with your culture, but I don't think we should be treating 16/17 year olds like 8 year olds and telling them that they are unable to make a decision as to whether they want to further their education. No, instead, at the end of compulsory education you should be given the choice as to whether you wish to stay on in education or not. If so, then you choice to reduce the breadth of your study by about a half in order to study in more detail. Students are given help with these decisions; it's not like people just toss a coin.

I take it you had particularly good career/further education guidance? In my experience, it was rubbish. For the most part.

And this:

This may be fine for the majority of PF posters, but this is not fine for the majority of college students (or people in general).

 

[Klockan3]

This reasoning is perfectly fine for the student that already knows what they want to be when they grow up. For the vast majority of students, this is not the case. Already, hypercompetitive medical schools select for students that decided they want to be doctors when they were in middle school, and have built up a resume/CV specifically for this purpose over 10+ years. Does this make them better doctors?

Universities should not be in the business of churning out thoughtless robots.

It is not like you can't take courses offered in high school later on in life just like you do in the US, why are you so narrow minded? Most colleges offer a year of high school physics/maths/chem to get eligible for science degrees. But a large majority of those who chose to study science went for the science track in high school which is a common track for most since it makes you eligible for every college track while for example the social science track don't.

Also the over-competitiveness over medical school is not like this at all, it is due to the supply for medical education not satisfying the demand which presses up the wages of physicians, which in the end means that they are basically overpaid in terms of how hard it is to get that position. Thus people put in ridiculous amount of work getting those golden seats in the classroom since that seat is worth so much. If you instead supplied seats to everyone interested and then had much stricter rules once you were there all of those problems would be gone.

My point is that shortening the time-to-degree will preferentially select for students who decided on their career early in life, prior to entering college. This may be fine for the majority of PF posters, but this is not fine for the majority of college students (or people in general). Furthermore, it's debatable whether selecting for "early career adopters" is good for *any* profession.

Honestly, what is the difference between this and the current American system where you already can choose to study calculus, physics, chemistry and biology in high school? Why not just make that curriculum the norm instead with some gen ed on the side? Then you would have the Swedish high school, even in the science track we still have to study history, geography, Swedish, English, a third foreign language(you start with it in middle school), social science and then some electives. Our high school isn't any more specialized than yours, it is just standardized in such a way as to make colleges able to require things out of their students while in the US all colleges have to assume that the arriving students don't know anything at all.

 

[Andy Resnick]

It is not like you can't take courses offered in high school later on in life just like you do in the US, why are you so narrow minded? Most colleges offer a year of high school physics/maths/chem to get eligible for science degrees. But a large majority of those who chose to study science went for the science track in high school which is a common track for most since it makes you eligible for every college track while for example the social science track don't.

I think you missed my point- the current Governor of Ohio is trying to decree that 60% of all 4-year BS/BA degree programs offered by state universities be changed to 3-year programs by 2014.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/04/kasich_asks_for_3-year_pathway.html

My question is simply "how can this be done while ensuring our graduates remain competitive with 4-year degree programs?" For self-driven students who (1) are fully prepared for college and (2) know what they want to major in prior to entering college, this is not a concern.

However, these students do not represent 60% of the college population. What then, of the underprepared student who wants to go to college? On one hand, there is the consumerist approach to a degree- you pays your money, you gets your parchment. It is arguable whether this person will be served by a 3-year program. On the other is the student who does not know what they want to do, but is willing to put in the time and effort needed to get an "education" and find out. How does a 3-year program give this student the ability to make a decision? Offering an extra year of remedial education goes directly against shortened programs. Making a 4+1 BS/MS into a 3+2 BS/MS is a possibility, but is likely to be considered a dodge.

 

[Sankaku]

No offense but I think you're being too naive. When students have to invest tens of thousands of dollars with loans and lines of credit into their education, it's hard to ask them to only care about what they're learning without worrying about the monetary value of their degree.

I agree - I am completely naive. Perhaps I would rather call it idealistic. The world doesn't change unless we have a bit of idealism floating around.

The problem is that many kids should not be in university at that point in their lives. Later, maybe, and when they have a better idea of what they want/need out of education and the understanding of its real costs.

I agree- and one strategy to deal with a shorter BS program is to make more use of Community Colleges. For example, a high school graduate takes their freshman year/gen ed classes at a community college. Is that good? I say no.

Why is this bad? Why not do away with the last 1 or 2 years of high-school and the first year of university (in the US and Canada) and call it 'early college' then let people of any age study what they need? Then Universities could be more strict about admitting people who were prepared for the next stage. This is somewhat like the old "Sixth-Form Colleges" in the UK (A-Levels), except I wouldn't force that kind of specialization.

All the general-education and survey courses could be pushed back to the 'early college' level where they belong. There are people teaching them now - why not just teach them somewhere else? Yes community college is part way there - we should just organize it better.

It is not like you can't take courses offered in high school later on in life...

Exactly. The whole age-lockstep idea of education has people confused. Why should every 18-year old get a Bachelor's degree? Someone in their 50's should feel comfortable just signing up for a course in History or Biology, because they realize they need it in their lives. I have sometimes mused that people should be prevented from going on to University until they have worked at least 3 years. Difficult for continuity, but great for maturity.

Yes, I am naive. But I think some of us need to start thinking outside the box.

 

[twofish-quant]

Maybe that's something to do with your culture, but I don't think we should be treating 16/17 year olds like 8 year olds and telling them that they are unable to make a decision as to whether they want to further their education. No, instead, at the end of compulsory education you should be given the choice as to whether you wish to stay on in education or not.

The trouble is that this is a "pseudo-choice." It's not a real choice. Also those choices have consequences that impact me. If people make some choices that cause the economy to get shot to hell and me to pay for it, then I think that I should have some input into their "choice."

 

[twofish-quant]

I agree - I am completely naive. Perhaps I would rather call it idealistic. The world doesn't change unless we have a bit of idealism floating around.

You also need some hard nosed cynicism to change things.

The problem is that many kids should not be in university at that point in their lives. Later, maybe, and when they have a better idea of what they want/need out of education and the understanding of its real costs.

Perhaps, but then we have to ask the question of where we put 18 year olds. In much of the world the university has turned into "young adult daycare." Maybe that's not the job of the university, but if a university doesn't do this, then we really have to find some other institution that does it. In the 1940's in the US and in a lot of other countries, it's the military.

There's also a chicken and egg problem. Universities provide a structured environment in which you can drink too much, sleep with the wrong people, and do generally stupid things without causing a huge amount of permanent damage. Doing stupid things and then getting in non-permanent trouble is part of how you grow up.

Why is this bad? Why not do away with the last 1 or 2 years of high-school and the first year of university (in the US and Canada) and call it 'early college' then let people of any age study what they need?

$$$$$

At 18 to 21, you can still count on your parents to pay for things. If you are 40 you can't. The other problem is that wealth creates wealth. If you start out at 21 with "stuff" you can use that "stuff" to get more stuff. If you wait until 30, then you don't have "stuff" that you can use to get more stuff.

One other thing is human biology. Around 30-40 you start having kids, and once you have kids, you are going to be spending two decades focusing on them. If you don't have a steady income by age 30, then when you have to raise kids, you aren't going to have much time or energy to do much else.

All the general-education and survey courses could be pushed back to the 'early college' level where they belong. There are people teaching them now - why not just teach them somewhere else? Yes community college is part way there - we should just organize it better.

Cynicism kicks in. If you want to move things to community colleges and then massively fund community colleges, than that's great. The trouble is that what is more than likely to happen is that you move stuff to community colleges, and then you don't fund the community colleges.

Exactly. The whole age-lockstep idea of education has people confused. Why should every 18-year old get a Bachelor's degree?

Because without that piece of paper their resume gets tossed in the trash, and then end up with the "losers of society". Education translates into social status, and having stuff let's you get more stuff.

One thing that I find interesting is that you have all of these reports saying that people don't have to get a college degree, but then I don't see any of the people writing those reports sending their kids to vocational school.

I have sometimes mused that people should be prevented from going on to University until they have worked at least 3 years. Difficult for continuity, but great for maturity.

Work where?

Yes, I am naive. But I think some of us need to start thinking outside the box.

I don't think the problem is thinking outside the box. There are a lot of interesting ideas, but the trouble is what happens when you hit the cynical world of money and politics.

Also, I think that part of the problem is that academia itself has a "now or never" mentality, and a lot of the social rigidity in academia is getting pushed into the general society. I do think that we are heading for a general "social crisis" in the United States, and the issues of education are just part of a social system that is broken.

 

[twofish-quant]

It is not like you can't take courses offered in high school later on in life just like you do in the US, why are you so narrow minded?

Except that in the US, once you hit age 30, you are going to be too exhausted by family and your job to learn anything new. One problem with the US system is that if you lose your job, you lose pretty much everything, so what happens is that people put a huge amount of effort into keeping their job, rather than do something "new."

So yes, you can't take courses once you start getting into child-bearing/child raising age.

Thus people put in ridiculous amount of work getting those golden seats in the classroom since that seat is worth so much. If you instead supplied seats to everyone interested and then had much stricter rules once you were there all of those problems would be gone.

The problem is that if doctors salaries go down then the debt that US students have in attending med school becomes unpayable.

Our high school isn't any more specialized than yours, it is just standardized in such a way as to make colleges able to require things out of their students while in the US all colleges have to assume that the arriving students don't know anything at all.

You aren't going to be able to standardize curriculum in the US. One thing about US schools is that they are funded locally, which means that people try very hard to keep their money going to their kids, and they scream once you move the money to other people's kids. This means that if you happen to be born in a place with a bad tax base, you are pretty stuck.

 

[twofish-quant]

What then, of the underprepared student who wants to go to college?

They get screwed. Let's be clear that a lot of these proposals to cut colleges are intended to save money by screwing over people. Increasing quality of education isn't very high on the list of priorities here.

 

[MATLABdude]

I think you missed my point- the current Governor of Ohio is trying to decree that 60% of all 4-year BS/BA degree programs offered by state universities be changed to 3-year programs by 2014.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/04/kasich_asks_for_3-year_pathway.html

My question is simply "how can this be done while ensuring our graduates remain competitive with 4-year degree programs?" For self-driven students who (1) are fully prepared for college and (2) know what they want to major in prior to entering college, this is not a concern.

However, these students do not represent 60% of the college population. What then, of the underprepared student who wants to go to college? On one hand, there is the consumerist approach to a degree- you pays your money, you gets your parchment. It is arguable whether this person will be served by a 3-year program. On the other is the student who does not know what they want to do, but is willing to put in the time and effort needed to get an "education" and find out. How does a 3-year program give this student the ability to make a decision? Offering an extra year of remedial education goes directly against shortened programs. Making a 4+1 BS/MS into a 3+2 BS/MS is a possibility, but is likely to be considered a dodge.

Maybe it'll just start the dominos rolling towards 3 year degrees everywhere? No, not with further high school prep, or more intensive programming, but just because nobody else will be offering 4 year ones.

 

[cristo]

The trouble is that this is a "pseudo-choice." It's not a real choice. Also those choices have consequences that impact me. If people make some choices that cause the economy to get shot to hell and me to pay for it, then I think that I should have some input into their "choice."

How is this a pseudo choice? At 16 years old, the age where compulsory education is over, a young person can choose whether to stay in school/college (the UK definition of the word) or leave and get a job. There's nothing pseudo about that! Why should you have a say in their choice?

 

[Klockan3]

Except that in the US, once you hit age 30, you are going to be too exhausted by family and your job to learn anything new. One problem with the US system is that if you lose your job, you lose pretty much everything, so what happens is that people put a huge amount of effort into keeping their job, rather than do something "new."

So yes, you can't take courses once you start getting into child-bearing/child raising age.

But that applies just as well to the current education system, what I mean is that putting some early courses in college as required courses in high school for certain majors instead doesn't hurt mobility later on.

The problem is that if doctors salaries go down then the debt that US students have in attending med school becomes unpayable.

Yes, you can't really change that one with a big sweeping reform, and it seems like medical studies are overly popular all over the world so I don't know if there is a good fix for it really.

You aren't going to be able to standardize curriculum in the US. One thing about US schools is that they are funded locally, which means that people try very hard to keep their money going to their kids, and they scream once you move the money to other people's kids. This means that if you happen to be born in a place with a bad tax base, you are pretty stuck.

But this is kind of the root of the problem, isn't it? Without some sort of standard in the education the colleges basically have to start over from the beginning since you can't rely on the students having any knowledge at all. A good example is that here every kid who graduates high school can speak English, thus there are no problems with having American course literature or classes taught in English. That wouldn't work if there were some schools which for some reason refused to teach that much English, instead we would be forced to use inferior literature and we wouldn't be able to use foreigners as TA's or lecturers.

 

[twofish-quant]

How is this a pseudo choice? At 16 years old, the age where compulsory education is over, a young person can choose whether to stay in school/college (the UK definition of the word) or leave and get a job.

That assumes that jobs exist, which for the most part they don't. If someone in the US graduates from high school and wants to get a job, I can't think of any jobs that will keep them at reasonable standards of living.

Also, any non-trivial job will require you to be constantly in school.

Why should you have a say in their choice?

Because whatever they do they will be doing it directly or indirectly with my money.

 

[Andy Resnick]

They get screwed. Let's be clear that a lot of these proposals to cut colleges are intended to save money by screwing over people. Increasing quality of education isn't very high on the list of priorities here.

I totally agree.

 

[twofish-quant]

But that applies just as well to the current education system, what I mean is that putting some early courses in college as required courses in high school for certain majors instead doesn't hurt mobility later on.

That assumes that the educational system is more flexible than it actually is. High schools need budgets to offer those courses and if you don't fund them then it's not going to work.

If you moved courses from colleges to high schools and then funded the high schools, I wouldn't have a problem, but more often than not when someone wants to move the problem from place A to place B, it's because they are in place A, and if the problem gets moved to place B, it's not there problem any more.

If you impose requirements and then put in restrictions that make it practically impossible to meet those requirements, then it's a bad thing.

But this is kind of the root of the problem, isn't it? Without some sort of standard in the education the colleges basically have to start over from the beginning since you can't rely on the students having any knowledge at all.

You can test for the knowledge, and if someone has knowledge X, then you let them in, and if they don't, you figure out a way of getting them knowledge X.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Maybe it'll just start the dominos rolling towards 3 year degrees everywhere? No, not with further high school prep, or more intensive programming, but just because nobody else will be offering 4 year ones.

Ok, but you have to then provide a 3-year curriculum that still gets a student ready for graduate/professional school. Or should the sciences be exempted from 3-year degrees? Personally, I don't see how we can cut 25% of the curriculum and still accomplish that.

 

[Andy Resnick]

How is this a pseudo choice? At 16 years old, the age where compulsory education is over, a young person can choose whether to stay in school/college (the UK definition of the word) or leave and get a job. There's nothing pseudo about that! Why should you have a say in their choice?

Who pays for the 16 year old who chooses to remain in school? What sort of job/career might a 16 year old qualify for?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Why is this bad?

There's nothing bad about it, if the various educational institutions involved somehow were able to ensure students were ready for the next step. They can't, and the financial support for the students isn't there either, so the reality of your idea is that more and more uneducated citizens are created.

 

[cristo]

Who pays for the 16 year old who chooses to remain in school? What sort of job/career might a 16 year old qualify for?

The taxpayer funds the education (for the most part), but that doesn't mean they get to dictate choices.

There's clearly a very skewed opinion that if you don't continue in school and then go onto university then you will make nothing of your life. Well, that's clearly not true. People who leave school at 16 have many choices: perhaps they want to go into a vocational career (plumbing, joining, etc) or something like accounting: something where you learn on the job, or through an apprenticeship. Remember, the academic way of learning is not for everyone, and imposing a one size fits all education will not work.


As for twofish-quant's point:

Because whatever they do they will be doing it directly or indirectly with my money.

This is clearly nonsense.

 

[Andy Resnick]

The taxpayer funds the education (for the most part), but that doesn't mean they get to dictate choices.

Yes, and recall we had a big fight with you regarding taxation without representation. Over here, we elect people to office to spend money on things we think are important; right now there's a lot of people elected to office with an implicit order to sharply curtail spending.

There's clearly a very skewed opinion that if you don't continue in school and then go onto university then you will make nothing of your life. Well, that's clearly not true. People who leave school at 16 have many choices: perhaps they want to go into a vocational career (plumbing, joining, etc) or something like accounting: something where you learn on the job, or through an apprenticeship. Remember, the academic way of learning is not for everyone, and imposing a one size fits all education will not work.

No-one (well, me anyways) is trying to impose anything on anyone- quite the contrary; changes to the educational curriculum are being imposed *on* me. People don't have a single job their whole life, people don't even have a single *career* their whole life. If a purpose of education is to prepare people for their lives, how does an increasingly narrow-minded focus on 'job training' prepare someone for multiple careers?

 

[Ryker]

I don't think the problem is thinking outside the box. There are a lot of interesting ideas, but the trouble is what happens when you hit the cynical world of money and politics.

I also don't think the problem is in thinking outside the box, and it's not as if politicians everyone hates so much haven't thought about the same things being suggested here (or at least have someone feed them the thought). It's just that these ideas are idealistic, and history has been all about going from pure idealism to something that works for the society as a whole. So for every person that holds such an idealistic view of education you'll find five that just don't care and would actually oppose this. I guess where I'm going with this is that while you can strive to go into one direction as opposed to the other, one shouldn't be using words as "thinking outside of the box" here. This namely - at least in my mind - implies that such thinking is supreme, while I would argue it's actually inferior, because it disregards completely the psychology of man and the needs of society as a whole to function properly.

Ok, but you have to then provide a 3-year curriculum that still gets a student ready for graduate/professional school. Or should the sciences be exempted from 3-year degrees? Personally, I don't see how we can cut 25% of the curriculum and still accomplish that.

Yeah, I agree, and there was a similar kind of problem with the demands of the Bologna process in the EU. Sure, you can cut some "majors", but I know my faculty had a lot of trouble coming up with a program that would satisfy the demands and still keep the education standard required to graduate at the level it needs to be.

 

[Shaun_W]

There's clearly a very skewed opinion that if you don't continue in school and then go onto university then you will make nothing of your life. Well, that's clearly not true. People who leave school at 16 have many choices: perhaps they want to go into a vocational career (plumbing, joining, etc) or something like accounting: something where you learn on the job, or through an apprenticeship. Remember, the academic way of learning is not for everyone, and imposing a one size fits all education will not work.

I'm afraid that that opinion very much is based on the facts.

16 year olds with only GCSEs (if that) have extremely little choice in today's jobs market. You say learning a trade, but there are extremely limited opportunities for this. Then you say accounting, but accounting is primarily a graduate profession nowadays and will be moving closer to a solely graduate profession once the rest of the big accountancy firms follow suit http://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=11361".

On the job learning is great, but a lot of it is aimed at graduates. See: graduate schemes. I believe this is because the jobs market is currently saturated with graduates and thus when companies want someone to answer the phone and use the photocopier there's a large enough pool of graduates to select from - graduates that are 21 and have been drinking and partying for three years now, not 16 year olds who have a lot of growing up to do.

Another problem with on the job learning is that it can often be very narrow and not prepare people for a wide range of careers. If you take up an apprenticeship as a joiner, then you can be a joiner and nothing else. If you go to university and get a degree, then you can become many things.

And people just don't want to be tradesmen. People want comfy middle class existences; you know, semi-detached house, two cars, holiday abroad each year, 2.2 kids, etc.

 

[twofish-quant]

Ok, but you have to then provide a 3-year curriculum that still gets a student ready for graduate/professional school. Or should the sciences be exempted from 3-year degrees? Personally, I don't see how we can cut 25% of the curriculum and still accomplish that.

It's worse than that. What gets cut are "useless" things like art, humanities, literature, and general education. The only things that will be taught are things that are immediately and obviously "relevant."

This is really bad because

1) if you just teach people to be bottle washers, then you'll have a too many bottle washers and too few bottle washing jobs, and the bottle washers can't do anything else

2) the big problems are those that need liberal arts thinking. While everyone is busy training to be bottle washers, people aren't asking themselves why they really want to be a bottle washer.

The reason this worries me is that I'm seeing a bad downward spiral. Cuts education -> less economic growth -> less money -> more cuts