education
SARAH CLARK
http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/spec.projects/planetcollegium/gigliotti.html
excerpt:
"The idea of a common culture veils the neo-conservative
program of "official knowledge," one set into motion, as Apple
points out, by putting in place national standards and then
national performance testing. This neo-conservative agenda is
linked to the neo-liberal agenda of reindustrializing education by
delineating its function as primarily economic and seeing students
as future employees. What I see, as does Apple, as the outcome
of these agendas is the continuing harm it will inflict on those
segments of the American population already suffering from little
if any links to economic, social or cultural power. Additionally, I
see these agendas contributing to a future for America that is
devoid of purposes and goals that are based on anything but the
requirements of life in a market culture."
Gene Douglas
SARAH CLARK wrote in message <389D936A...@hal-pc.org>...
>what do y'all think of this article:
>
>http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/spec.projects/planetcolle
gium/gigliotti.html
>
>excerpt:
>"The idea of a common culture veils the neo-conservative
>program of "official knowledge," one set into motion, as Apple
>points out, by putting in place national standards and then
>national performance testing.
That may be a false argument. The fact is, that 2 + 3 = 5 or 6 or so is a
constant, whatever our reasons for asking, and has a basic, universal
usefulness in education. Likewise, our ability to read a paragraph and
understand it. Schools have been known to graduate ignorami, just to say
the staff are doing their jobs, and to keep the state money flowing. They
have been known to consider certain categories of students hopeless, and to
give up on them before the job is begun. Holding schools accountable by
measuring the job they are doing is a reasonable response (in my opinion.)
This neo-conservative agenda is
>linked to the neo-liberal agenda of reindustrializing education by
>delineating its function as primarily economic and seeing students
>as future employees.
Worse, is seeing students as future non-employees. High school graduates
who can't fill out an employment application represent a major failure of
the educational system, and also represent a major burden on the welfare,
police, and prison systems.
What I see, as does Apple, as the outcome
>of these agendas is the continuing harm it will inflict on those
>segments of the American population already suffering from little
>if any links to economic, social or cultural power.
Meaning what? That requiring standards of both schools and students cheats
students out of jobs? How about just socially promoting them all, and
pretending that they are prepared to function as adults?
Additionally, I
>see these agendas contributing to a future for America that is
>devoid of purposes and goals that are based on anything but the
>requirements of life in a market culture."
>
It doesn't do much good to know high minded ideas, if one doesn't even know
the 3 R's. If the student can read and do sums, then he is prepared to
ponder the deeper meanings in history and philosophy.
Spammer bait: postm...@prodigy.net postm...@compuserve.com
-
Portal to un-mod UU group at: http://www.deja.com/~soc_religion_uu/
Remember: (current list) Rich Puchalski / Richard Kulisz / Gene Douglas
/ --------- / (Your name here)
New Un-Moderated group at alt.religion.unitarian-univ, or use URL to
go there.
-
"I quoted Rich Puchalski."
--
Remember half the people you know are below average.
--
"Justice will only be achieved when those who are not injured by
crime feel as indignant as those who are." - King Solomon
--
Cat: The Other White Meat
--
I am in shape. Round is a shape.
--
Stupidity got us into this mess -- why can't it get us out?
--
Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you...
--
You know you're getting old when you stoop to tie your shoes and wonder what
else
you can do while you're down there.
--
STEVEN BOTTS
SARAH CLARK <s...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:389D936A...@hal-pc.org...
> what do y'all think of this article:
>
>
http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/spec.projects/planetcolleg
ium/gigliotti.html
>
> excerpt:
> "The idea of a common culture veils the neo-conservative
> program of "official knowledge," one set into motion, as Apple
> points out, by putting in place national standards and then
> national performance testing. This neo-conservative agenda is
> linked to the neo-liberal agenda of reindustrializing education by
> delineating its function as primarily economic and seeing students
> as future employees. What I see, as does Apple, as the outcome
> of these agendas is the continuing harm it will inflict on those
> segments of the American population already suffering from little
> if any links to economic, social or cultural power. Additionally, I
> see these agendas contributing to a future for America that is
> devoid of purposes and goals that are based on anything but the
> requirements of life in a market culture."
It troubles me that the goal of education seems to be to qualify for a job.
that isn't education at all; it's training. Training, of course, isn't a bad
thing, but it should be preceded by education.
It seems to be fashionable to make jokes about liberal arts graduates who
end up flipping burgers and waiting on tables, but there's getting to be an
appalling number of people in responsible positions who know next to nothing
about science, history, any culture other than the here-and-now, or any
values other than making and spending money.
Steve
Gene Douglas
STEVEN BOTTS wrote in message
<87losj$c5su$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>
>SARAH CLARK <s...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
>news:389D936A...@hal-pc.org...
>> what do y'all think of this article:
>>
>>
>http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/spec.projects/planetcolle
g
>ium/gigliotti.html
>
>
>It troubles me that the goal of education seems to be to qualify for a
job.
>that isn't education at all; it's training. Training, of course, isn't a
bad
>thing, but it should be preceded by education.
>
It's rather the other way around. Without "training," there can be no
education. At a minimum, people must be able to understand a paragraph they
have read and do sums, before they can discuss "deeper" ideas. It's also
nice to have one's history straight, if one is to ponder its meaning.
>It seems to be fashionable to make jokes about liberal arts graduates who
>end up flipping burgers and waiting on tables, but there's getting to be
an
>appalling number of people in responsible positions who know next to
nothing
>about science, history, any culture other than the here-and-now, or any
>values other than making and spending money.
>
>Steve
>
I was one of those liberal arts graduates, and it wasn't funny. I wouldn't
wish such a fate on my children. My first degree was in sociology, with
minors in psychology and economics. One of my kids is now a computer tech
and takes care of his family very well. Another is doing well with a degree
in business. The third has a degree in art, and lives with his mother and
clerks in a store. It's easy to say that making money doesn't count, until
one isn't doing that.
At any rate, what do you think the standardized tests test? Science,
history, geography, etc. Why debate the cultural values of Tagmenestan if
you never heard of Tagmenestan?
Greg Shenaut
: >Steve Botts (I think) wrote:
: >It troubles me that the goal of education seems to be to qualify for a
: >job. that isn't education at all; it's training. Training, of course,
: >isn't a bad thing, but it should be preceded by education.
: >
: It's rather the other way around. Without "training," there can be no
: education. At a minimum, people must be able to understand a paragraph they
: have read and do sums, before they can discuss "deeper" ideas. It's also
: nice to have one's history straight, if one is to ponder its meaning.
Reading, writing, and rithmetic, not to mention history, are not
training in the above sense--they, and many other fact-filled,
content-filled things are parts of the traditional liberal education.
: >It seems to be fashionable to make jokes about liberal arts graduates who
: >end up flipping burgers and waiting on tables, but there's getting to be
: >an appalling number of people in responsible positions who know next to
: >nothing about science, history, any culture other than the here-and-now,
: >or any values other than making and spending money.
: I was one of those liberal arts graduates, and it wasn't funny. I wouldn't
: wish such a fate on my children. My first degree was in sociology, with
: minors in psychology and economics. One of my kids is now a computer tech
: and takes care of his family very well. Another is doing well with a degree
: in business. The third has a degree in art, and lives with his mother and
: clerks in a store. It's easy to say that making money doesn't count, until
: one isn't doing that.
It is very possible to get degrees in sociology, psychology, and
economics and still be far from a liberal education. Being a
"liberal arts" major of some sort, much less a "social science"
major, doesn't necessarily give you the kind of connection with
the past and with the present that should be the goal of a liberal
education. I think that it is a kind of fraud to suggest that
students can receive an adequate liberal education *and* adequate
job training in a single 4-year program.
I believe that since WWII, what started as attempt to jump-start
graduates into the booming job market by trying to include job-training
along with an education, has shifted until it is in danger of
mutating the entire purpose and orientation of the nation's colleges
and universities into specialized job training schools. The result
is that it is difficult to get an education in an American college
today. (But you can really get prepared to "enter today's job
market".)
: At any rate, what do you think the standardized tests test?
: Science, : history, geography, etc. Why debate the cultural
: values of Tagmenestan if you never heard of Tagmenestan?
Unless you are going into graduate school, all of the standardized
tests I've heard of test knowledge at the high school level, and
if I remember correctly, the graduate-entry tests test specialized
knowledge of the field. (And both make some attempt to test
logical/reasoning ability.) I am unaware of a standardized test
for those attempting to *leave* college or university.
For many years now, I have been in favor of eliminating all
undergraduate job training from academic universities, and replacing
it with the traditional liberal education common before WWII.
There would be no major in the current sense, but of course there
would be enough flexibility so that students could pursue their
interests and abilities. The same institutions could also offer
an independent job training program; this would result in acquisition
of job-specific skills roughly comparable to the current concept
of major/minor/certification (but no academic degree). The job
training study could be done before, after, or even (for those in
a terrible hurry) during the undergraduate course, but it would in
no way would be a part of the undergraduate course. There would
also be masters/doctorate style postgraduate study--this would not
be job training at all, but would consist of academic programs
aiming towards the ability to make an independent contribution to
a specific body of knowledge. I believe that this separation
of general education from job-specific training would greatly
enhance both endeavors--people would get much better educations,
and would be much better prepared for their careers.
Greg Shenaut
STEVEN BOTTS
Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:87mgiv$jqu$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> >It troubles me that the goal of education seems to be to qualify for a
> job.
> >that isn't education at all; it's training. Training, of course, isn't a
> bad
> >thing, but it should be preceded by education.
> >
> It's rather the other way around. Without "training," there can be no
> education. At a minimum, people must be able to understand a paragraph
they
> have read and do sums, before they can discuss "deeper" ideas. It's also
> nice to have one's history straight, if one is to ponder its meaning.
>
> >It seems to be fashionable to make jokes about liberal arts graduates
who
> >end up flipping burgers and waiting on tables, but there's getting to
be
> an
> >appalling number of people in responsible positions who know next to
> nothing
> >about science, history, any culture other than the here-and-now, or any
> >values other than making and spending money.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> I was one of those liberal arts graduates, and it wasn't funny. I
wouldn't
> wish such a fate on my children. My first degree was in sociology, with
> minors in psychology and economics. One of my kids is now a computer tech
> and takes care of his family very well. Another is doing well with a
degree
> in business. The third has a degree in art, and lives with his mother and
> clerks in a store. It's easy to say that making money doesn't count,
until
> one isn't doing that.
>
> At any rate, what do you think the standardized tests test? Science,
> history, geography, etc. Why debate the cultural values of Tagmenestan if
> you never heard of Tagmenestan?
> Gene
My point is not whether a young person would be well-advised to study art
history rather than computer science, if financial success is the goal, or
that money doesn't matter. What I am saying is that society undervalues real
education. Standardized tests, for the most part, evaluate students' ability
to burp up facts on demand and restate principles swallowed whole.
Being able to debate the cultural values of another society would at least
give
young people some perspective on their own culture. I hear people expressing
contempt for Asian society and Eastern religion because they haven't
conquered and dominated other countries to the extent Western society has
and
because they haven't brought forth the multiplicity of inventions that we
have. They seem blinded to the idea that there might be anything as
important as getting rich or anything more satisfying than gratification of
desires.
I have a B.S. degree(we know what that stands for, right?) in microbiology.
After spending a few years teaching high school, I tried to re-enter the
field professionally and found that my training was hopelessly outdated.
What real education I have had has come from bookstores, the public library,
and participation in and leadership of study groups. I find what I have
learned there to be very satisfying, even though it has never earned me a
nickel.
Still, I have some wide gaps in my education that I feel might have been
filled if I had not bought into the idea early in my life that the purpose
of school was to prepare me to take my place in the consumer society.
Steve
Richard Puchalsky
> For many years now, I have been in favor of eliminating all
> undergraduate job training from academic universities, and replacing
> it with the traditional liberal education common before WWII.
A big university protest in Mexico that was just broken up today revolved
around this kind of issue. The students said that the universtiy was
training technicians for the neoliberal new world order, when presumably it
should be teaching the traditional socialist education.
Your project might be possible, but it would run into serious class warfare
difficulties. Education is typically shaped by class structures, in
perception if not in reality. I always used to wonder why British
intellectuals were so much in favor of intellligence testing and measurement
until I realized that for many of them, it symbolized a meritocratic form of
access to education that had gotten them out of their class background.
Similarly I think that any attempt to replace cramming for a good computer
science job with a prerequisite of a lot of liberal arts courses is going to
run into serious challenge from people who think you're trying to restrict
upward mobility. Which I think that it would in fact end up doing; the
"general education" college degrees would be more prestigious and could
easily become a class marker that keeps out the lower class people who don't
have the time or money needed to take them.
Greg Shenaut
: Greg Shenaut <gr...@bogslab.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
: > For many years now, I have been in favor of eliminating all
: > undergraduate job training from academic universities, and replacing
: > it with the traditional liberal education common before WWII.
: Your project might be possible, but it would run into serious class warfare
: difficulties. Education is typically shaped by class structures, in
: perception if not in reality. I always used to wonder why British
: intellectuals were so much in favor of intellligence testing and measurement
: until I realized that for many of them, it symbolized a meritocratic form of
: access to education that had gotten them out of their class background.
: Similarly I think that any attempt to replace cramming for a good computer
: science job with a prerequisite of a lot of liberal arts courses is going to
: run into serious challenge from people who think you're trying to restrict
: upward mobility. Which I think that it would in fact end up doing; the
: "general education" college degrees would be more prestigious and could
: easily become a class marker that keeps out the lower class people who don't
: have the time or money needed to take them.
There is truth in this--a solid liberal education along with the
relevant training could (and should, IMHO) indeed give its possessor
an advantage--possibly even in the job market--over someone with
training but without the liberal education. But I do not agree
that this would necessarily keep relatively disadvantaged individuals
out, at least no more than recent ungodly hikes in in-state tuitions
are already doing.
I think that the shift toward job training and away from education
in our institutions of higher learning may have contributed to the
increased pricing. As long as the purpose of the state schools
was to produce an abstract "educated populace", then the value and
hence the price could also be fairly abstract. But once you tie
"getting a job" to "getting a degree", then it seems more reasonable
to charge more--otherwise, someone could be "getting a free ride".
Greg Shenaut
SARAH CLARK
Greg Shenaut wrote:
<snip>
> I think that the shift toward job training and away from education
> in our institutions of higher learning may have contributed to the
> increased pricing. As long as the purpose of the state schools
> was to produce an abstract "educated populace", then the value and
> hence the price could also be fairly abstract. But once you tie
> "getting a job" to "getting a degree", then it seems more reasonable
> to charge more--otherwise, someone could be "getting a free ride".
this was the very issue i was concrened about, and why i posted this
article.
I was a liberal arts AND sciences major in college, dividing
my time about 1/3 in science 1/3 in literature and 1/3 in
a handful of other things - government, law, history, statistics, etc.
I now am an accountant and i use the processes i learned in EVERY
one of those classes. I would be a much worse accountant if i had
taken only business.
My concern however was more for the young children.
Gene is absolutely correct, children need to learn the three R's
the question is what *else* do we teach them. I believe there's
ample time in K-12 for broad based education.
anyways i am so pleased this group is heating up.
--
Sarah
Gene Douglas
Greg Shenaut wrote in message <87mmro$nm0$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
>
>
>: At any rate, what do you think the standardized tests test?
>: Science, : history, geography, etc. Why debate the cultural
>: values of Tagmenestan if you never heard of Tagmenestan?
>
>Unless you are going into graduate school, all of the standardized
>tests I've heard of test knowledge at the high school level, and
>if I remember correctly, the graduate-entry tests test specialized
>knowledge of the field. (And both make some attempt to test
>logical/reasoning ability.) I am unaware of a standardized test
>for those attempting to *leave* college or university.
>
There is a test for business school and law school. The GRE tests basic
math, logic, and vocabulary, among a couple of other things. One can leave
the university by graduating, or by flunking out. There are definite
criteria for both.
>For many years now, I have been in favor of eliminating all
>undergraduate job training from academic universities, and replacing
>it with the traditional liberal education common before WWII.
What about the students who don't agree with that? Are you going to
complain about their collecting welfare checks when the time comes?
>There would be no major in the current sense, but of course there
>would be enough flexibility so that students could pursue their
>interests and abilities. The same institutions could also offer
>an independent job training program; this would result in acquisition
>of job-specific skills roughly comparable to the current concept
>of major/minor/certification (but no academic degree). The job
>training study could be done before, after, or even (for those in
>a terrible hurry) during the undergraduate course, but it would in
>no way would be a part of the undergraduate course.
Naturally, they'll all have the money to pay for that. There is currently a
collection of general courses which students are required to take, in
addition to their major and minor areas. In one college I attended, one
could either take a double major, or choose two minors in areas not
identical to the major.
There would
>also be masters/doctorate style postgraduate study--this would not
>be job training at all, but would consist of academic programs
>aiming towards the ability to make an independent contribution to
>a specific body of knowledge.
I would hope that the surgeon who works on me knows more about surgery than
philosophy.
I believe that this separation
>of general education from job-specific training would greatly
>enhance both endeavors--people would get much better educations,
>and would be much better prepared for their careers.
>
>Greg Shenaut
Greg Shenaut
: Greg Shenaut wrote in message <87mmro$nm0$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
: >Unless you are going into graduate school, all of the standardized
: >tests I've heard of test knowledge at the high school level, and
: >if I remember correctly, the graduate-entry tests test specialized
: >knowledge of the field. (And both make some attempt to test
: >logical/reasoning ability.) I am unaware of a standardized test
: >for those attempting to *leave* college or university.
: There is a test for business school and law school. The GRE tests basic
: math, logic, and vocabulary, among a couple of other things.
In my opinion, those things alone, while useful, do not constitute
an education. AFAIK, there is no test of basic knowledge given to
college seniors, and in any case, it is yet to be established
whether a standardized test would be adequate for the purpose.
The tests have generally been used to predict how well someone will
do in a particular kind of school to which they are applying, not
to evaluate how thorough and education they have achieved.
: >For many years now, I have been in favor of eliminating all
: >undergraduate job training from academic universities, and replacing
: >it with the traditional liberal education common before WWII.
: What about the students who don't agree with that? Are you going to
: complain about their collecting welfare checks when the time comes?
As you undoubtedly read after you wrote the above, I did not suggest
that there be no job training available, either in colleges or
elsewhere: what I advocate is separating this training from the
process of becoming educated, because the two things are fundamentally
different.
: >There would be no major in the current sense, but of course there
: >would be enough flexibility so that students could pursue their
: >interests and abilities. The same institutions could also offer
: >an independent job training program; this would result in acquisition
: >of job-specific skills roughly comparable to the current concept
: >of major/minor/certification (but no academic degree). The job
: >training study could be done before, after, or even (for those in
: >a terrible hurry) during the undergraduate course, but it would in
: >no way would be a part of the undergraduate course.
: Naturally, they'll all have the money to pay for that. There is currently a
: collection of general courses which students are required to take, in
: addition to their major and minor areas. In one college I attended, one
: could either take a double major, or choose two minors in areas not
: identical to the major.
Right, as you undoubtedly read below after you wrote that, I also
got into the money thing. The cost of a college education is going
up rapidly, in my opinion at least partially because of mixing job
training (which has a high market value) with education (which,
sadly, has little value in itself).
As for majors and minors, this is an attempt to objectify the
tendency of individuals to gravitate towards particular courses of
study. I don't think they are necessary at for undergraduates,
except perhaps at a very high level ("emphasis in science",
"concentration in Pacific languages"), and this should probably be
done ex post facto, as a kind of summary statement about the
individual's undergraduate accomplishments.
: There would
: >also be masters/doctorate style postgraduate study--this would not
: >be job training at all, but would consist of academic programs
: >aiming towards the ability to make an independent contribution to
: >a specific body of knowledge.
: I would hope that the surgeon who works on me knows more about
: surgery than philosophy.
What a strange hope. As long as he or she is a competent surgeon,
why would you care how much philosophy he knows? Personally, I
would want him to know as much about the liberal arts (history,
philosophy, the classics, languages, the belles artes, and so on)
as possible, and I think that the greater perspective this would
provide could make him a better healer in many ways.
Greg Shenaut
Richard Puchalsky
> There is truth in this--a solid liberal education along with the
> relevant training could (and should, IMHO) indeed give its possessor
> an advantage--possibly even in the job market--over someone with
> training but without the liberal education. But I do not agree
> that this would necessarily keep relatively disadvantaged individuals
> out, at least no more than recent ungodly hikes in in-state tuitions
> are already doing.
Tuition hikes in the present system are a perverted mixture of charging what
the market will bear and having the government prop up that market. The
government has pretty much declared that it's going to pay for scholarships
for needy but academically qualified people, no matter how much the
universities charge -- paying for education for the middle class is a
political favorite. So the universities charge a lot. It's very efficient
profit-maximizing; rich people pay a whole lot, everyone else pays the
maximum that they can afford, since the government asks about your family
income before deciding how much scholarship money you'll get. It's like
having to buy a car with the car dealer having no set advertised price, plus
perfect knowledge of how much money you have.
The government would do much better to limit maximum tuition by law, in the
same way that profits of public utilities are regulated. But that would be
socialist, so it's not going to happen.
STEVEN BOTTS
Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:87o2mk$bqf8$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
I would hope that the surgeon who works on me knows more about surgery than
> philosophy.
Do you have any reason to believe that a surgeon's knowledge of philosophy,
history, and the arts would in any way impair that doctor's competence as a
surgeon? Doctors make a lot of money and they carry a lot of clout in our
society.
There are a lot of people who believe that because doctors know a lot about
medicine, their social and political ideas are also well informed.
There are a lot of doctors who want to kill the National Endowment for the
Arts,
withdraw all funding for public broadcasting, teach creationism in schools,
and who support people like Gary Bauer for public office. This is their
right, of course, but I suspect that such beliefs are often inspired by
ideas that the doctors haven't thought much about since high school.
Steve
Gene Douglas
Greg Shenaut wrote in message <87o9vv$cuf$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>Gene Douglas (gene...@prodigy.net) wrote:
>: Greg Shenaut wrote in message <87mmro$nm0$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>: >tests I've heard of test knowledge at the high school level, and
>: >if I remember correctly, the graduate-entry tests test specialized
>: >knowledge of the field. (And both make some attempt to test
>: >logical/reasoning ability.) I am unaware of a standardized test
>: >for those attempting to *leave* college or university.
>: There is a test for business school and law school. The GRE tests basic
>: math, logic, and vocabulary, among a couple of other things.
>
>In my opinion, those things alone, while useful, do not constitute
>an education. AFAIK, there is no test of basic knowledge given to
>college seniors, and in any case, it is yet to be established
>whether a standardized test would be adequate for the purpose.
>The tests have generally been used to predict how well someone will
>do in a particular kind of school to which they are applying, not
>to evaluate how thorough and education they have achieved.
>
They're intended to estimate one's ability to succeed in graduate school.
Gene Douglas
STEVEN BOTTS wrote in message
<87pft1$2iuo$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>
>Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:87o2mk$bqf8$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
>I would hope that the surgeon who works on me knows more about surgery
than
>> philosophy.
>
>Do you have any reason to believe that a surgeon's knowledge of
philosophy,
> history, and the arts would in any way impair that doctor's competence as
a
> surgeon? Doctors make a lot of money and they carry a lot of clout in our
>society.
If a doctor's education in the arts an humanities impaired his amount of
study of medicine, his knife might slip because of insufficient training. I
wouldn't want to think that had been sacrificed so he could learn more about
Machiavelli. Likewise for my lawyer, tax accountant, etc.
STEVEN BOTTS
Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:87t53p$amvq$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> If a doctor's education in the arts an humanities impaired his amount of
> study of medicine, his knife might slip because of insufficient training.
I
> wouldn't want to think that had been sacrificed so he could learn more
about
> Machiavelli. Likewise for my lawyer, tax accountant, etc.
I've heard of excessive drinking causing that, but the idea of Machiavelli
being
responsible for shakey hands is a new one on me. Besides, I didn't suggest
that medical training be made less stringent to accomodate liberal arts
graduates.
It's just that medical competence gives doctors an undeserved aura of
wisdom in all areas of life. If people are going to insist on viewing them
that way, perhaps they should be better educated to fill that role at some
point in their academic careers. I still see no reason why a liberal
education
should make anyone incompetent in a given field of endeavor.
Steve
sarah clark
STEVEN BOTTS wrote:
in scotland the youth go to univ at 17 years old. the medical
program starts immediately and lasts for 5 years (as opposed to
here in us our dr's get an undergrad degree.
that means the dr's there are 22 years old when they start practicing
medicine (here, many are just starting med school at 22 years old!)
anyway i was very amazed at the level of specialization they had so early.
and if they chose a field that they didn't actually like it was very difficult
to change.
i much preferred our system
--
sarah
>
> Steve
Gene Douglas
STEVEN BOTTS wrote in message
>> history, geography, etc. Why debate the cultural values of Tagmenestan
if
>> you never heard of Tagmenestan?
>
knowledge, and had no paycheck? I dropped out of engineering to take
courses in philosophy, anthropology, economics, psychology, sociology, etc.
I was the first in my family ever to get a college degree, and thought if
you had a college degree, you were automatically on easy street, and all
that would take care of itself. WRONG. My kids too their own routes, and
they can learn about the rest of the world by the same route you did. My
daughter is a fundamentalist, and that suits me fine, so long as she has a
good life.
Gene
Lynn Calvin
continuous operation in the US... Harvard shut down for some long period
and shouldn't *really* count) says (in Latin) that I am educated in
Science, Rhetoric, Logic, Mathematics, and a few other things that I
forget. I like this thought.
Lynn Calvin
lca...@interaccess.com
UU Discussion also available on:
news://alt.religion.unitarian-univ for unmoderated discussion
UU-Community email list for moderated discussion on uua.org
UUS-L mailing list
Holding Lisa Hadler, Rich Puchalsky, and Richard Kulisz in my thoughts.
Gene Douglas
Greg Shenaut wrote in message <87nikl$loc$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>Richard Puchalsky (rpuch...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: Greg Shenaut <gr...@bogslab.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>: > undergraduate job training from academic universities, and replacing
>: > it with the traditional liberal education common before WWII.
>
warfare
>: difficulties. Education is typically shaped by class structures, in
>: perception if not in reality. I always used to wonder why British
>: intellectuals were so much in favor of intellligence testing and
measurement
>: until I realized that for many of them, it symbolized a meritocratic
form of
>: access to education that had gotten them out of their class background.
>: Similarly I think that any attempt to replace cramming for a good
computer
>: science job with a prerequisite of a lot of liberal arts courses is
going to
>: run into serious challenge from people who think you're trying to
restrict
>: upward mobility. Which I think that it would in fact end up doing; the
>: "general education" college degrees would be more prestigious and could
>: easily become a class marker that keeps out the lower class people who
don't
>: have the time or money needed to take them.
>
>relevant training could (and should, IMHO) indeed give its possessor
>an advantage--possibly even in the job market--over someone with
>training but without the liberal education. But I do not agree
>that this would necessarily keep relatively disadvantaged individuals
>out, at least no more than recent ungodly hikes in in-state tuitions
>are already doing.
>
when they had to consider survival, they had to settle for "any old thing,"
Likewise, I knew a photographer for a newspaper, working for a pittance, who
had a degree in philosophy. I wonder where he is now, 20 years later.
>I think that the shift toward job training and away from education
>in our institutions of higher learning may have contributed to the
>increased pricing. As long as the purpose of the state schools
>was to produce an abstract "educated populace", then the value and
>hence the price could also be fairly abstract.
The value was low because the demand was low. Fewer people wanted it.
However, one factor has been the democratization of education, through
student grants and loans. So long as you had to produce the cash to get an
education, fewer people were able to do that. Even with the small loans
that were available in the 60's, I dropped out of school three times, and it
took seven years to graduate. It still isn't easy, but financing an
education is somewhat easier now.
This was deliberate on the part of the lawmakers. Rather than subsidizing
the schools, such that tuition was $5 an hour, they provided loans to
students, such that the students subsidized the schools when they repaid
their loans. That lowered the burden on both the federal and state
governments, in comparison to simply granting more money to the
universities.
But once you tie
>"getting a job" to "getting a degree", then it seems more reasonable
>to charge more--otherwise, someone could be "getting a free ride".
>
>Greg Shenaut
If the colleges could have charged more back then, they would have. They
must consider the market the same as anybody else. Double the tuition,
reduce attendance. College administrators are interested in increased
attendance, because that increases their salaries. So while they are
complaining about overcrowding and underfunding, they are advertising for
more people to come there, promoting a football team because that creates
publicity, establishing an office for recruitment, and so on. Growth is
essential, and money is the name of the game.
Gene Douglas
STEVEN BOTTS wrote in message
>
>> If a doctor's education in the arts an humanities impaired his amount of
>> study of medicine, his knife might slip because of insufficient
training.
>I
>> wouldn't want to think that had been sacrificed so he could learn more
>about
>> Machiavelli. Likewise for my lawyer, tax accountant, etc.
>
>I've heard of excessive drinking causing that, but the idea of Machiavelli
>being
> responsible for shakey hands is a new one on me. Besides, I didn't
suggest
>that medical training be made less stringent to accomodate liberal arts
>graduates.
>
graduation, or you remove one course to replace it with another.
>It's just that medical competence gives doctors an undeserved aura of
>wisdom in all areas of life. If people are going to insist on viewing them
>that way, perhaps they should be better educated to fill that role at some
> point in their academic careers. I still see no reason why a liberal
>education
>should make anyone incompetent in a given field of endeavor.
>
Simple. While you're studying art, you're not studying math. You can't be
in both places at once.
>
>Steve
STEVEN BOTTS
>
> >Gene Douglas <gene...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> >news:87t53p$amvq$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> graduation, or you remove one course to replace it with another.
>
> Simple. While you're studying art, you're not studying math. You can't
be
> in both places at once.
Let me put it this way: You can study math and then go drink beer, you can
study art
and then go drink beer, or you can study art and math and drink a little
less beer.
Ten years hence, the math or art would probably be missed more than the beer
that didn't get drunk.
> >Steve
Greg Shenaut
: STEVEN BOTTS wrote in message
: > I didn't suggest that medical training be made less stringent
: > to accomodate liberal arts graduates.
: You have to make room somewhere. Either you lengthen the time to
: graduation, or you remove one course to replace it with another.
[I have a sense that several of us are supporting similar positions,
all containing the concept that "education" and "job training" are
different and should be separated in the higher education process.
If my use of the first person plural in what follows mischaracterizes
anyone's position, I apologize.]
Gene, I think you don't understand what we are saying. Having "job
skills", even very good ones, does not make you educated. Being
well-educated does not give you "job skills". Trying to cram the
acquisition of both things into the same four year program means
that neither will be done as well as it should be. Four years is
about right for the education part; attaining the skills necessary
for, say, surgery, should be *separate*.
If you've ever had the experience of hiring recent graduates in a
specialty field designed to give job skills, you may understand
better about the level of job skills acquired by university graduates.
For a while, when I worked in systems development, I periodically
needed to hire people for entry-level hardware or software positions.
I found that if I hired new grads, then I was into a significant
training period, but if I hired people with work experience, even
without a degree, I often could sit them at a bench, spend an hour
or two going over the job, and they would just do it. Education
versus job skills.
Of course, that's a very small sample, but I believe that I am not
alone in having had that experience. I also remember several
relevant matters from 20 or so years ago when I worked in an
electronics company. First, there were several people in the
company who were extremely competent, but who had never gone to
college. They were used heavily in projects, but never received
the pay; several went to college, and got an increase in salary as
a result. Also, when I came into the company, I was working on my
PhD in linguistics at the time, and I was more highly valued in
the company, because, I was told, customers liked to have "doctors"
working on their products (even though the PhD work had virtually
nothing to do with electronics). I was developing a consulting
business at the time, and worked (in computers) for the VA: when
I got the PhD, I magically went up to the GS13 level, again even
though the degree was not in a related field.
The fact is, competence in "job skills" is very important, but
people want to work with educated people as well. The company I
worked for was responding to what their customers wanted when they
put ABDs or PhDs into prominent positions on their projects; the
companies were responding to their experience that sometimes people
with better educations can add, often nonlinearly, things to their
work by having a greater perspective, or of being able to "look
outside the box", or perhaps simply by being in the same "class"
as most of the other engineers and executives in the company.
I personally think that much more "job skill" type training is done
"on the job" than is commonly supposed. The example of medical or
surgical training is an especialy good one: medical schools make
few presuppositions about specialized "job skills" among their
applicants: a solid, general, science-oriented undergraduate or
postgraduate degree is best. They assume that all job skills will
be learned in medical school and later in clinical training programs.
Medical school is *not* part of one's education in the sense we
are using the term, but rather is part of one's job training: this
is pretty much exactly what we are talking about. Would you like
to see the BS combined with the MD in the same four year program?
That is what the universities are up to in most other fields.
Greg Shenaut
sarah clark
Greg Shenaut wrote:
<huge snip>
> the
> companies were responding to their experience that sometimes people
> with better educations can add, often nonlinearly, things to their
> work by having a greater perspective, or of being able to "look
> outside the box", or perhaps simply by being in the same "class"
> as most of the other engineers and executives in the company.
>
> I personally think that much more "job skill" type training is done
> "on the job" than is commonly supposed. The example of medical or
> surgical training is an especialy good one: medical schools make
> few presuppositions about specialized "job skills" among their
> applicants: a solid, general, science-oriented undergraduate or
> postgraduate degree is best. They assume that all job skills will
> be learned in medical school and later in clinical training programs.
> Medical school is *not* part of one's education in the sense we
> are using the term, but rather is part of one's job training: this
> is pretty much exactly what we are talking about. Would you like
> to see the BS combined with the MD in the same four year program?
> That is what the universities are up to in most other fields.
I have three points to add:
1) in the US med school comes after your undergrad. Pre-med
can be taken in many universities in history, literature, so long as
you have the requisite science courses. I have always felt that
broad-based education at the undergrad level is very helpful
for practicing MD's because they have exposure to different
pov's. Moreso having seen the way it's done in scotland. there's
a lot of people and business skills involved in medical practice.
2) I am right now supervising a young man whose education is
solely business & accounting (in my undergrad school, you could
not get an undergrad business degree, so this a new concept to me)
The field is public accountancy.
He indeed has a very difficult time getting outside the box. This i
believe is partly due to his youth and partly due to the specificity
of his education (accounting only). From my pov he could do
with some bio and lit, he would be more flexible and grasp abstract
concepts better.
3) i believe i already stated but i summarize. Having taken
science, history, lit, math etc. during my undergrad career
gives me wonderful tools by dint of different ways to
look at things.
--
sarah
Gene Douglas
Richard Puchalsky wrote in message ...
>Greg Shenaut <gr...@bogslab.ucdavis.edu> wrote
>> There is truth in this--a solid liberal education along with the
>> relevant training could (and should, IMHO) indeed give its possessor
>> an advantage--possibly even in the job market--over someone with
>> training but without the liberal education. But I do not agree
>> that this would necessarily keep relatively disadvantaged individuals
>> out, at least no more than recent ungodly hikes in in-state tuitions
>> are already doing.
>
>Tuition hikes in the present system are a perverted mixture of charging
what
>the market will bear and having the government prop up that market. The
>government has pretty much declared that it's going to pay for
scholarships
>for needy but academically qualified people, no matter how much the
>universities charge -- paying for education for the middle class is a
>political favorite. So the universities charge a lot. It's very
efficient
>profit-maximizing; rich people pay a whole lot, everyone else pays the
>maximum that they can afford, since the government asks about your family
>income before deciding how much scholarship money you'll get. It's like
>having to buy a car with the car dealer having no set advertised price,
plus
>perfect knowledge of how much money you have.
>
>The government would do much better to limit maximum tuition by law, in
the
>same way that profits of public utilities are regulated. But that would
be
>socialist, so it's not going to happen.
>
It may be that expenses and competition set the market on tuition.
Limiting tuition by law would mean that the school has to operate in the
red, charge more, or put 100 people in the classrooms and turn the heat down
in the wintertime.
I like the idea of refunding tuition according to grades. Classes might be
rated by a difficulty quotient, in which the percentage of students dropping
out or receiving an F would be multiplied by two, that for those with D
multiplied by one, A multiplied by -2 and B multiplied by -3. Then when
those numbers are added up, one produces a number indicating a hard or easy
class.
Then, a student who earns an A in a class with a high difficulty quotient
would receive a 100% refund of tuition, applied to his next semester's
tuition. With a B he receives 75%, and so on.
If he earns an A in a medium difficulty class, he receives 75%, a B, 50%,
and so on.
Then students would have a powerful incentive to study, the laggards would
have a reason to shape up, ship out, or just pay more, and the universities
would do more of what they are there for.
P.S. Football wouldn't count.
Gene
Richard Puchalsky
> Let me put it this way: You can study math and then go drink beer, you can
> study art
> and then go drink beer, or you can study art and math and drink a little
> less beer.
> Ten years hence, the math or art would probably be missed more than the
beer
> that didn't get drunk.
I'm not so sure. I have a B.S. in Physics and an M.S. in Astrophysics and I
never use either of them. I think that time spent partying more would be of
more value both then and as memories now then the time I spent in most of my
advanced math classes. More art classes might have been good, but more time
spent doing art outside of class would have been even better.
The well-rounded people I know hardly ever got that way due to education.
They got that way because they were interested in many things and avoided
spending too much time being educated. Even current liberals arts
educations that supposedly aren't job-related are generally poor at produced
well-rounded people.
Gene Douglas
Richard Puchalsky wrote in message ...
When I was in college, I think much of my education came from dormitory bull
sessions. However, those bull sessions were fed by data we were receiving
in the classroom.
I have to admit to laziness. I am more likely to cover more material if I
am receiving credit for it, and then to concentrate harder if I'm under the
whip to make a deadline. I currently have to attend several seminars per
year to keep my license, and I tend to choose those nearest to home, with
the cheapest price. I wind up attending things like, should alcoholics
recieve liver transplants, and some other odd titles. And with no testing
involved, if the speaker is boring, I often don't hear most of what he says.
On the other hand, I've been rescued by A&E, Discovery and TLC. In one
city, I received something with a name like cable university or some such
thing. They have provided much of the entertainment I prefer, without the
perception of work. The internet has largely displaced TV now, and I far
less frequently turn it on.