The Education System

[cbd98]

Who even cares about having a degree? All it is is a framed certificate. There's a huge difference between education and application. You might have gone through ten years of med school, but when it comes right down to it, it doesn't matter how much you know about open heart surgery if you can't perform it in an actual situation. I really dislike the idea of using your level of education to gauge success and intelligence, because there are plenty of examples of people who never got a full education, and yet they still made more than others who had supposedly surpassed them.

 

[Kanzler]

"Free" education often isn't.
And besides, even if there was no such thing as college tuition, how do you propose colleges be funded? Tax dollars?

Also, most of those who rack up large debts at four year universities, while they are certainly living outside their means, are doing so because the prevailing voice is that doing so will be worth it in the long run. All fine and good, except when there are few careers to be had at this point. I wouldn't really be concerned about this given that economies are generally cyclical, but the actions Federal Government(and the Federal Reserve)are making recovery difficult at best. There are a lot of factors to look at here, and I'm not sure they're all being looked at.

I see raising the educational level and ability of the workforce to be a national strategic undertaking, so of course it should be funded by tax dollars. Also, you're going to spend almost fifty years in the workforce. A university education will take you through all fifty years. That's more than a few economic cycles, and is what you consider the long term, ie, this is applicable:

I think the US economy is still very vibrant and capable of growth - it's huge, it's diversified, it won't suffer population crises, and it has world leading industries and companies.

Who even cares about having a degree? All it is is a framed certificate. There's a huge difference between education and application. You might have gone through ten years of med school, but when it comes right down to it, it doesn't matter how much you know about open heart surgery if you can't perform it in an actual situation. I really dislike the idea of using your level of education to gauge success and intelligence, because there are plenty of examples of people who never got a full education, and yet they still made more than others who had supposedly surpassed them.

There's not a huge difference between education and application, application is part of education. It's a false distinction to separate one from the other. I think you're buying into a false impression that university is for learning about things, and other education pathways are for learning about how to do things. Just because university is relatively more intellectually demanding doesn't mean that it is absolutely less application-oriented. Certain degrees and schools are more application-oriented than others, but again that's a reflection on the different levels of application within university, not on university education taken as a whole. I think this ivory-tower conception of university is anti-intellectual and frankly a stereotype.

I really dislike the idea of gauging success and intelligence in general, as it's very subjective, so using one's level of intelligence as the criteria isn't really the problem. When people use the word "examples" I usually think "exceptions", as that's usually the case. You wouldn't have to point out examples if you could demonstrate the trend, which is that university is an intellectually stimulating experience that also increases one's earning power. People can succeed without university, but if that was the trend, then everybody would be doing it.

 

[twocows]

"Free" education often isn't.
And besides, even if there was no such thing as college tuition, how do you propose colleges be funded? Tax dollars?

Also, most of those who rack up large debts at four year universities, while they are certainly living outside their means, are doing so because the prevailing voice is that doing so will be worth it in the long run. All fine and good, except when there are few careers to be had at this point. I wouldn't really be concerned about this given that economies are generally cyclical, but the actions Federal Government(and the Federal Reserve)are making recovery difficult at best. There are a lot of factors to look at here, and I'm not sure they're all being looked at.

There is plenty of demand for experts in STEM positions, and there is significant demand in plenty of other fields, too (MBA-related positions, nurse practitioners, lawyers, etc.).

As for funding it with tax dollars, that's what we did with primary education a few hundred years ago and it's what other countries that implement this system do (and they don't appear to be caving in upon themselves from debt). We're the only major first world player I know of that doesn't subsidize education and instead shifts the cost (often times tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars) onto students, making a large class of people who are slaves to paying off their student loans. Scholarships help some, but not everyone. This is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Who even cares about having a degree? All it is is a framed certificate. There's a huge difference between education and application. You might have gone through ten years of med school, but when it comes right down to it, it doesn't matter how much you know about open heart surgery if you can't perform it in an actual situation. I really dislike the idea of using your level of education to gauge success and intelligence, because there are plenty of examples of people who never got a full education, and yet they still made more than others who had supposedly surpassed them.

You realize that many degree programs have, as a requirement, internship programs or other real-life applications of learned material? When I got my CS degree, I had to create something substantial based off of what I had learned in the degree program, plus I had to do an internship. As for med-school students (not all of which are surgeons, mind you), they have a similar program: those who are focusing on surgery do significant practice on cadavers, watch probably hundreds of taped surgeries, sit in on probably more than one live surgery, and probably also have to do an internship on top of that. It's not like they just hand you your degree for listening to some old guys talk for a few months. There is significant effort involved and a lot of it is in the form of real-world application. A degree represents years of hard work and focus on a particular subject and is one way to prove that you are qualified to be employed in a particular field. It's not the only way to demonstrate expertise, of course, but nobody is saying that it is (though with your example, it might be; you're not going to be a surgeon without an education in surgery). That doesn't make it worthless.

I had to try really hard here not to crank the sarcasm up to 11 because what you said is pretty silly.

 

[Kanzler]

What you conjectured about medical students was pretty ridiculous to say the least. After a medical degree you need to obtain your license, which means you have to gain experience under the watchful eyes for a more experienced doctor first. Then you become a resident, and it's pretty much the same thing, long hours under watchful eyes.

My cousin's participated in a couple of surgeries already, she's still doing her medical degree though. So that's evidence of practice, ie getting your hands dirty, even in the "educational phase". Keep in mind that this is China and thus educational standards must be higher.

 

[cbd98]

You realize that many degree programs have, as a requirement, internship programs or other real-life applications of learned material? When I got my CS degree, I had to create something substantial based off of what I had learned in the degree program, plus I had to do an internship. As for med-school students (not all of which are surgeons, mind you), they have a similar program: those who are focusing on surgery do significant practice on cadavers, watch probably hundreds of taped surgeries, sit in on probably more than one live surgery, and probably also have to do an internship on top of that. It's not like they just hand you your degree for listening to some old guys talk for a few months. There is significant effort involved and a lot of it is in the form of real-world application. A degree represents years of hard work and focus on a particular subject and is one way to prove that you are qualified to be employed in a particular field. It's not the only way to demonstrate expertise, of course, but nobody is saying that it is (though with your example, it might be; you're not going to be a surgeon without an education in surgery). That doesn't make it worthless.

I had to try really hard here not to crank the sarcasm up to 11 because what you said is pretty silly.

Sorry I used a hypothetical situation to prove my point when I should obviously only use cold hard facts (Malpractice is obviously not an issue at all once you get a degree of course). Should I instead talk about business majors who have run businesses into the ground? Or maybe teachers who simply cannot work with their students and teach them? Or maybe all the drafters and designers who have had one of their buildings collapse? Because with what you're saying, in theory, is that once you've been an intern or had a slight bit of real-world application, you're golden. For example, student teachers often sit in on classes and sometimes even teach the class themselves as a substitute, but that doesn't at all guarantee that they'll be a good teacher.

"I had to try really hard here not to crank the sarcasm up to 11 because what you said is pretty silly."

What you conjectured about medical students was pretty ridiculous to say the least. After a medical degree you need to obtain your license, which means you have to gain experience under the watchful eyes for a more experienced doctor first. Then you become a resident, and it's pretty much the same thing, long hours under watchful eyes.

My cousin's participated in a couple of surgeries already, she's still doing her medical degree though. So that's evidence of practice, ie getting your hands dirty, even in the "educational phase". Keep in mind that this is China and thus educational standards must be higher.

I do admit the medical student example was a little extreme, but it was mostly just to get my own opinion across. I'm sure most doctors know what they're doing, but not all, which is what I was attempting to say.

 

[LoudSilence]

You all have some pretty interesting viewpoints, just wanted to chime in and share some thoughts:

The significance of a college degree is entirely a social construct. Whereas it might have been a measure of competency in the past, nowadays it is indicative of nothing but good grades and (possibly) a good work ethic. Interviews are the still by and large the primary yardstick for judging work ability, which with dedication could be obtained without a diploma...however, applicants would at many times would not even have their ability considered unless they had the diploma first! Doesn't this strike anyone else as unfair?

Perhaps I'm simplifying the matter greatly, but I personally can't see the necessity of this archaic, ineffective criterion. I could perhaps understand it if the process to obtaining a degree involved some more practical methods of study and did not seem so divisive in its status (the unfair association of the word "education" to college, and not having gone to college being socially frowned upon).

Add to that the fact that the cost of attending a university being so high that a high-paying job (usually those that require a degree!) is necessary to fund it and you have a system that screams backwards and illogical. Either your parents/some benefactor has to support you or you take a loan and spend years paying it off afterwards, with interest. Entering the "real world" with a large debt and most likely no savings, having spent tens of thousands on a document which does not really guarantee you anything...how are we okay with this, exactly?

I think this massive business we know as "college" needs to be taken off its pedestal to make way for more practical approaches like apprenticeship or vocational schooling. I also have an issue with secondary school (btw guys this means "high school", not college), but I can save that for another rant haha.

 

[twocows]

Sorry I used a hypothetical situation to prove my point when I should obviously only use cold hard facts

Just now, you provided a Google link to malpractice cases and a few anecdotes. I'm not really sure how this proves that a university education is meaningless.

(Malpractice is obviously not an issue at all once you get a degree of course).

I'm not sure what point you're making here. That hiring fresh grads is responsible for high instances of malpractice? You do realize that new grads are usually supervised, right? And it's not like there's an alternative; degree programs already provide as much real-world experience as can be reasonably expected. Medical doctorates are already eight-year programs plus a nontrivial amount of time doing some sort of supervised work. If we start heaping on more requirements, we're going to have a higher dropout rate even among the better students; it'll just get too costly, time-wise, money-wise, and effort-wise. You can't expect people to dedicate a quarter of their adult life to training. There'll be a shortage of doctors in no time. I guess that would kind of cut down on malpractice suits. Wouldn't help as much with the whole "people dying" part, though.

Should I instead talk about business majors who have run businesses into the ground?

There are plenty of Fortune 500 companies (if not most) whose status is thanks to one or more MBAs and I'm equally as sure that plenty of would-be companies have floundered due to the helm being operated by someone without adequate business knowledge. Now, I'm sure you can find the occasional exception on either side (the uneducated man making it big because he has good business sense or the Harvard grad whose business went south), but those are exceptions. Generally speaking, business majors do a pretty good job operating the business of their business and this is quite likely a result of a good education. Otherwise, failing corporations would be the norm, not the exception.

Or maybe teachers who simply cannot work with their students and teach them?

They have mandatory courses on how to interact with kids as a requirement of an educational degree that is meant to deal with this very problem. Again, these degree programs are usually designed by people with experience in the field and they're quite aware of the problems involved. This problem is probably even worse among people who haven't gone through the relevant coursework on this problem.

Or maybe all the drafters and designers who have had one of their buildings collapse?

Again, this is pretty obviously not resultant from the fact that they went to a university, especially for something like this where there is supposed to be a review process before green-lighting construction.

Because with what you're saying, in theory, is that once you've been an intern or had a slight bit of real-world application, you're golden.

No, I said that once you've gone to several years of schooling on a topic and had a semester of real-world experience, you're qualified for a supervised, entry-level position in the field you studied. Requiring anything more would lock people out entirely from getting jobs in that field to begin with. In fact, that's kind of the situation in computer science (my field) right now. I graduated from GVSU with a 3.4 in computer science and a semester of experience and still had trouble finding a position because everyone wanted people with 5-6 years of experience in the field and nobody was willing to give it. What, exactly, am I supposed to do, then? Magic myself those five years of experience? Work for free and starve for several years? Perhaps you have a remedy for people who are in the situation I was in several months back (luckily, I was able to get an internship, because apparently I'm so unqualified that I can't even get an entry-level position... they upgraded me to an entry-level position later, though).

For example, student teachers often sit in on classes and sometimes even teach the class themselves as a substitute, but that doesn't at all guarantee that they'll be a good teacher.

No, it doesn't. That's why you supervise new employees. What a degree does show is that you had the work ethic to get through your program and know at least the basics (and probably the more-than-basics) of your field, which is the bare minimum required to qualify for such a job. Now, that's not to say there aren't other ways you can show qualification, but that's the standard path and it's the only viable option for many people (and it's the only option in certain fields, like medicine). It's not a green-light to treat them as an all-knowing expert and I never said it should be (and no competent employer will; as I said, it's quite the opposite, in my field, they'll treat you as incompetent until you have 5+ years).

"I had to try really hard here not to crank the sarcasm up to 11 because what you said is pretty silly.

If something I said was silly, then by all means tell me what didn't make sense.

 

[Kanzler]

I think we can condense several of the previous posts by saying:

You aren't going to disprove the rule by highlighting the exceptions. There will always be people who screw up. However, that doesn't discount everybody else who /doesn't/ screw up, nor does it presume that there aren't screw-ups in other walks of life, whether it be college or high school graduates or apprentices, so on.

Also, I think he means that you're being excessively snarky.

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

LoudSilence basically summed up a lot of the points I've been trying to make, minus the social construct thing. Granted, some of the careers that require a college degree is shifting in that direction, but there are some things I've learned in college that I might not have picked up on otherwise. That being said, the whole thing is excessive in both required classes and cost. And I wouldn't have any reason to have any issues with that whatsoever if it wasn't for the fact that having that college degree(and the attached debt)was not only expected by society, but downright required by so many jobs. This doesn't help a situation when no one can afford to pay their debts and there aren't many jobs to be had even if you do have a degree.

 

[LoudSilence]

LoudSilence basically summed up a lot of the points I've been trying to make, minus the social construct thing.

By "construct" I mean specifically the fact that it's considered so necessary to have. It's important because we decided it should be, not because work ability absolutely requires a 4 year degree.

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

I only say that because some careers exist where having a significant amount of expertise is a little more necessary. A lawyer or doctor is going to need more time and study to know their particular field than, say, someone going into business administration or graphic design.