Do technical degrees limit you?

Student Lounge College Life
261

<p>I think the best situation (and soon-to-be likely, in my opinion) would be the following:</p>

<ul>
<li>Broad-based education, along with skills for making it in the job market, whether through entrepreneurship or “jobs” would belong in high schools.</li>
<li>Access to a variety of courses and educational resources would be available online. A system of certification tests can provide credentials, if necessary.</li>
<li>Engineering, nursing, architecture, etc. that require specific hand-on skills would belong in “technical schools.”</li>
<li>A focused education (as in, future professors) on liberal arts, etc. would belong in the “university”.</li>
</ul>

262

<br>

<br>

<p>I didn’t make it personal. I’ve seen a lot of software engineers starting out, with small kids, big kids, and moving into retirement. I made a generalization on what people want from their majors, degrees, jobs and lives.</p>

263

<p>Pandem:</p>

<p>Your system actually sounds pretty reasonable. Of course the details would have to be hashed out but I don’t think I’d have a major problem with that system.</p>

<p>However, and I forget who said it recently, and I forget the exact wording, but I’ll give it a shot. Good intentions and logical arguments don’t change the world; money and guns do.</p>

<p>BCEagle:</p>

<p>Maybe I read too much into your post, or read your post too literally.</p>

264

<p>“If all majors earned the same starting salary after college graduation, do you think there would be the same proportion of people studying engineering?”

  • An interesting point, JamesGold. What do you think? I know what I think and I’m thinking we’re thinking the same thing.</p>
265

<p>I think there would be less people studying engineering. You’d have to be really passionate about engineering to endure its ultra-rigorous courseload without any promise of financial reward after graduation. This sort of system would weed out all the people who only study engineering for the financial reward rather than for a love of the subject.</p>

<p>But this begs the question: Is it really a bad thing if a person goes into a field he’s uninterested in just for the money? For the individual that does this, yes, he will not enjoy his career. But society as a whole benefits from people who slave away at their jobs just for the money. Think of janitors, strawberry pickers, and people who work in sewage plants. Do you think they enjoy their job? No, of course not. But they make a living doing it, and, as an added bonus, society benefits from their labor.</p>

<p>The same thing applies to engineering. If someone goes into engineering just for the money, he won’t be happy, but he will be competent. You have to be competent to keep your job. Competent engineers means quality products, and society again benefits from their labor.</p>

<p>Now someone mentioned earlier that the rigors of the engineering curriculum weed out the people who are only in it for the money. While this is true to an extent, the challenging engineering curriculum won’t weed out the truly desperate for money. People have overcome much greater obstacles in pursuit of money.</p>

266

<p>“If all majors earned the same starting salary after college graduation, do you think there would be the same proportion of people studying engineering?”</p>

<p>Actually, the effect might be more interesting than the disaster you’re pointing at…
On the top end of engineers:

  1. We’d attrition some to the riskier fields of the fine and performing arts. Many of the best engineers are also rather artistically talented–not in the crass, pop culture sense, but in the high culture, truly talented/technically polished sense. Top notch musicians, artists etc. They’d get to pursue their passion…and might actually bring some real/better art into the world.
  2. OTOH, we might (and probably will) gain some truly creative and talented minds who’d love to make/design things and solve interesting structural/organizational problems from the currently far more lucrative financial world. Some of those hedge fund managers would contribute more to society by doing robotics…</p>

<p>Overall, interesting question. Unsustainable, and doesn’t take into account human nature, but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. With that said, more egalitarian distributions of salary might actually bring some balance to the medical field; we’d hopefully get more general practitioners and fewer (thank goodness) plastic surgeons. </p>

<p>On the lower end of engineers, those who were never predestined to be the frontline pioneers…we’d probably lose even more to useless pursuits such as ‘celebrity.’ At least with the top-end engineers/artists, you’d get profound works. Here…they lose all value to culture and society.</p>

267

<p>Pretty sure that it’s the complete opposite.</p>

268

<p>I think the best situation (and soon-to-be likely, in my opinion) would be the following:</p>

<ul>
<li>Broad-based education, along with skills for making it in the job market, whether through entrepreneurship or “jobs” would belong in high schools.</li>
<li>Access to a variety of courses and educational resources would be available online. A system of certification tests can provide credentials, if necessary.</li>
<li>Engineering, nursing, architecture, etc. that require specific hand-on skills would belong in “technical schools.”</li>
<li>A focused education (as in, future professors) on liberal arts, etc. would belong in the “university”. ~ Pandem</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>What you are advocating is impossible. Universities would lose millions of dollars per year because some of their most distinguished programs are no longer taught at colleges, rather “technical schools.”</p>

<p>Think about it, how in the world would you convince every school in the nation to drop engineering, nursing, Architecture, CS, ect? Do you have any idea how much money they have invested in these programs? For example, about 7 years ago WVU built a brand new life science building that costed mega millions, and they have an entire “engineering campus” dedicated to guess what? Engineering!</p>

<p>Do you think Pitt would ever drop it’s nursing program? A program that is ranked in the top 5 nationally? Please, they would never give up those programs, not a chance.</p>

<p>Schools would have to lay off have of their staff, including tenure positions - good luck with that.</p>

<p>You post is a good example of how you just don’t understand how the world works yet.</p>

<p>Also, why would colleges drop profitable majors that bring in mega research dollars (AAU money) for LA majors that can’t bring in any research bucks?</p>

269

<p>Here is a good article about how higher education is trending.</p>

<p>LA programs are on the wane and many schools are shutting down their programs due to lack of enrollment and shrinking profits.</p>

<p>On the other hand, majors that provide job training are on the rise.</p>

<p>[Losing</a> Liberal Arts – In These Times](<a href=“http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/]Losing”>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/)</p>

270

<p>

</p>

<p>I fear your proposal leads to all fields harboring any hope of practicality to be stigmatized to “technical schools,” leaving us ultimately with “universities” consisting exclusively of philosophy majors.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This would only be recognizing what already exists. What’s the point–and is it even possible–to provide a “liberal arts” education to those who can’t think their way to wal-mart to buy a paper bag, much less out of one?</p>

271

<p>

</p>

<p>And what’s wrong with this? It solves the problems of both the engineering majors who hate having to take random GEs and the philosophy majors who hate engineers looking down on their choice of major.</p>

272

<p>

</p>

<p>The university, as I understand it, endeavors to teach its students how to think. The separation you propose is based on those who can do, and those who sit around and think. I said your university would be exclusively philosophy majors because the faculties of social science, natural sciences, and the rest of the humanities would be kicked out because of their ability to obtain other jobs. The university need not be an ivory tower.</p>

<p>What would you suggest for medical school and law school? In both, the student must fundamentally learn how to think, which leads them to how to do. These schools are not focused on the acquisition of knowledge or mastery of a trade, but in the ability to think. The usefulness of a degree does not preclude an academic foundation. Why are math, science, and psychology “academic,” while engineering is not?</p>

<p>I think the problem is that we have colleges popping up on every corner, and students who gravitate toward humanities and social sciences because they are made easy. The average person is not going to be able to do much with a classics or philosophy major. The average person won’t make much out of general education. </p>

<p>We kid ourselves when we take this liberal idea that we provide some much freedom by allowing people to make their own decisions–but at the extent of providing any context. We need to bring back technical programs, and raise our standards for the accreditation of colleges and universities. Many BA and BS degrees are not improving human capital.</p>

273

<p>

</p>

<p>That really doesn’t make any sense.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d like to think Med students are taught how to be doctors, learn the parts of the human body, etc.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Because math and science is primarily based on the pursuit of knowledge, whether it is expressly applicable or not. Engineering concerns making things for real use, and for many undergrads studying it, it is essentially job training.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And the average person is going to do what with a science degree? Marge Simpson on not studying calculus: “Ever since that day, I haven’t been able to do any of the calculus problems I’ve encountered in my daily life.” </p>

<hr>

<p>I’ve seen all of the following said in this thread (generally by people that seem to be on the same side of the debate). Somehow they seem mutually contradictory:</p>

<p>1) People that aren’t in math/science/engineering generally avoid it because it’s too difficult
2) We need more people doing math/science/engineering
3) We need to raise accreditation standards</p>

274

<p>

</p>

<p>Perhaps if you’d read the relevant parts of the conversation it would.</p>

<p>

Insomuch as to provide context.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But to the extent you’d move engineers to a separate school with mechanics, nurses, et al.?</p>

<p>

Admire it on his or her friend’s wall–namely, not receive one.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If many schools didn’t make social sciences and humanities fields so much easier than science and mathematics then those who might do well in math and science with a little more work would be more likely to stay in math/science/engineering. Further, we wouldn’t be paying for so many people to go to McUniversity and earn their Criminal Justice/Psychology degree to make assistant manager at wal-mart.</p>

<p>I believe there are three kinds of people in college: those who will graduate with marketable skills, whether through engineering, nursing, or (more rarely) on their own; those who have the ability to make use of others, inspire others, etc.; those who are will have neither any particularly usable skill or other ability, and for whom college was likely not the best choice.</p>

275

<p>First off, it wouldn’t just be philosophy majors, at least as the current system is implemented. In a sense all majors would be philosophy at a true university because the point in a university is to instill a love of knowledge and learning and to educate rather than to train. However it wouldn’t have to be people discussing ethics and logic and metaphysics all the time… mathematics can be, and in the current system is to a large extent (but not entirely) a philosophical subject. Computer science, at least the part in which I’m interested (and in my opinion the only real “computer science” material), is philosophical. Physics can also be taught philosophically. I believe that even business and engineering can be taught philosophically, as opposed to making them job training programs. It’s not inherently a matter of the material (well, I guess unless you want to be a car mechanic) but a matter of presentation and teaching philosophy.</p>

<p>To whomever said that the current system would never (voluntarily) change because it would mean universities making less money: I agree completely. We need the government to step in and mandate what is acceptable. We need accreditation standards and accountability and proper funding. Maybe some day it will change but sadly I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. But it certainly can change, and we shouldn’t abandon the dream because it is hard to realize.</p>

<p>Doctors and lawyers? That’s a pretty weak example because already they have separate professional (technical, vocational) schools for that. Now as far as prerequsite material is concerned, why not have them go to a true university if they want to and then switch to vocational/technical/professional training? I see no problem with that, if that’s how the system works out. In fact, I don’t see a problem with every student starting in a true university and then, maybe in the fourth year, switching to a rigorous vocational training program or an apprenticeship with a company or something. In fact I think that a year of on-the-job training is more valuable professionally than four years of academics teaching students how to make companies money.</p>

<p>It’s all a question of specialization. Clearly specialization has made our lives more efficient so far, and I think that a little more concerning education would be a good thing. I don’t only want to see a change because I’m some snotty kid that thinks LA is better than engineering… I think engineering and LA would become stronger if a separation were to take place. That’s honestly how I see it.</p>

<p>And you know, maybe don’t even separate the technical schools from the universities. With a little tweaking they could do both! You could have BA/BS degrees for the university students and BE/BB/etc. degrees for engineers, business students, etc. That way universities wouldn’t lose any money at all, necessarily. There could even be significant faculty overlap, in the right situation.</p>

276

<p>This is the most pretentious argument I’ve ever heard…</p>

<p>Kick out all the students who don’t major in Philosophy or some other major that is out dated just so the snobby LA majors don’t have to feel bad about having their studies looked at as second class. Stupid.</p>

<p>As I said before, this would never ever happen. I have a better chance of waking up tomorrow morning with my head sown to the carpet (Chevy Chase reference). </p>

<p>Did anyone take the time to read the article I posted? LA programs are becoming a cost center to universities. Some schools are giving the programs the axe while some LA colleges are being forced to shut down completely. What IS making the schools money is technical majors. All technical majors are based in some sort of science, and you are going to have a hard time telling Stephen Hawking that his disciplines “aren’t in the pursuit of knowledge” ditto with BioMedical engineering.</p>

<p>Technical majors and the sciences are what’s moving universities forward, providing them research money to research the important issues facing our society (disease, energy) and you think the government needs to step in and stop that?</p>

<p>Pffffsshhh, the dumbest thing I ever heard. The only programs that will be getting the axe are more and more LA programs. They are dated and have no utility for corporate entities.</p>

<p>Do you have any idea what a major blow something like this would be to cancer research (any medical research), energy exploration practices, environmental sciences (no more funds to study wildlife), lol…you people are stupid.</p>

<p>If anything like this ever occurred, it would be the reverse and you know it. Because it’s already starting. Students and employers are voting for what they want with their pocket book and it’s not looking good for LA majors.</p>

<p>LA majors, last one out - turn off the lights, thanks!</p>

277

<p>

</p>

<p>@AuburnMathTutor: You know that line is an invitation for all the free-market libertarians to attack to you right? Haha. I would venture that a large number of our LA-bashers are libertarians in the first place…</p>

<p>In any case, my position is that I like the idea, but I don’t want the federal gov (or even state) to get involved. There are too many competing interests, and what you’d get is a gross distortion, or watered-down version of what you’d want anyway. </p>

<p>Rather, I think the ideal solution would be for like-minded people to raise money from like-minded funders; they have to exist…wealthy individuals who share a passion for knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Start an alternative university model. It would take time, but if it’s successful 10-20 years down the road, there would be others trying to imitate it. </p>

<p>With that said, my bigger pet peeve in higher education is not the liberal arts/vocational divide…I think the bigger problem is the research/education divide. When properly integrated, faculty research can be very beneficial to students—but generally unlikely if the priorities of students (even some) are on job training and marketability. When most students trying to maintain the best possible GPA or take this or that ‘skills’ class, who cares about interesting faculty research! (sarcasm)</p>

<p>In any case, this alternative model would have to be free, or largely subsidizes, by private grants and scholarships to whoever attends, so they can focus on the intellectual side of things. Students would also be carefully selected, to craft a genuinely interesting class. Of course, this would be no different than how top schools currently select for the large majority of their student body.</p>

278

<p>What needs to be done (and is critical for the survival of LA programs) is to make them more vocational.</p>

<p>For example, take political science and treat it as a “vocational program” for government work.</p>

279

<p>I had a bunch of chats with a former coworker that was a professor. He emigrated from Eastern Europe and his undergraduate studies were there. He received the liberal arts stuff in high-school and his undergraduate studies had little to none of the arts. He went straight into a Phd program because he essentially got all of the technical and theoretical courses equivalent to a bachelors + masters in the US.</p>

<p>One thing that he told me about was the huge number of students that majored in a particular area that was mostly useless in the job market. He also didn’t like the attitude that grades = success. Students would do anything to get good grades or get the diploma in the belief that the piece of paper is what got them jobs. Students weren’t interested in learning and understanding. They weren’t even interested in really understanding technical information. And this is why he went to work in industry. Eventually the model of students and parents spending huge amounts of money with huge loans for training that wasn’t very useful will fail for large numbers of students.</p>

<p>We also talked about the liberal education and he said that it’s nice if your family is wealthy and you have time and money for bachelors and masters but the average person can’t afford that without big loans.</p>

280

<p>

</p>

<p>Yet you surely don’t understand how the world works. Colleges will and are dropping liberal arts majors. The money train isn’t going to run forever, and once more and more people realize that their degree isn’t worth anything, they’ll stop paying 20k a year to get it. It’s simple economics. This is already happening with online courses, online degrees. me-too colleges, etc. The internet is a huge factor that most people aren’t recognizing.</p>

<p>This leaves essentially the same situation I proposed; albeit with different names.</p>

<p>The “technical school” is basically just the college filled with technical majors. Sure, top schools with top programs in liberal arts programs will keep them (think Pitt or Rutgers with Philosophy). But the vast majority of the majors would be technical in nature, as less and less people are willing to pay big bucks for a meaningless degree.</p>

<p>The “university” are schools in the Ivy League, top LACs, etc. that aren’t going to drop their liberal arts majors anytime soon. They’ll just be filled with the rich and the academically elite. </p>

<p>Also, every time you put a childish insult into your post, everyone here takes you less seriously. Grow up already.

</p>