<p>BIGeastBEAST: I think we’re done talking, right? If not, I would ask how “What needs to be done (and is critical for the survival of LA programs) is to make them more vocational” is different from “What needs to be done (and is critical for the survival of native American heritage) is to make them more European.”</p>
<p>WindCloudUltra: The ironic part is that in most ways I would consider myself a libertarian, but not in this one. Even still, the thought of wealthy individuals starting alternate universities had crossed my mind, but I tend to shy away from that because I don’t have the money to do it, and I don’t necessarily feel comfortable asking people for money to do it either. Still, I think that could work. On the other hand, I don’t see a big problem with the government stepping in. I mean, it’s not like they haven’t stepped in before and done things to… rectify?.. the free market. Some government intervention is necessary, as any libertarian (should) tell you (well, unless you want anarchy, an idea to which I’m not completely contrary, but in the context of this discussion I’m not sure that even makes sense).</p>
<p>A good point, to be sure, but not everybody can get into or afford top schools. I am of the opinion that LA-style education should be available for those who want it, provided that they are reasonably well-qualified, and at a cost that is reasonable or can be subsidized. Also, as I imagine would be the case with CS at the least, there may not be a corresponding LA curriculum at these schools, so that essentially the study of theory in CS becomes a useless appendage to programming training. That is a scary thought to me.</p>
<p>also, I think you’re missing a greater result that may occur. This is just a possible scenario, of course.</p>
<ul>
<li>Schools become focused on programming and not theory</li>
<li>Students realize that they can learn programming via online courses and other, inexpensive resources</li>
<li>Students stop paying the uni. fees and learn programming on their own</li>
<li>Schools are forced to provide the theory - skills that are worth a degree</li>
</ul>
<p>@AuburnMathTutor. Fair enough…though my hunch is if you and I have similar thoughts on this topic, chances are, there are some wealthy individuals who have similar ideas. I don’t have a problem asking people for money, esp if it’s already something they’re inclined to support. </p>
<p>Re top schools. While it is true that not everyone can get into (and to a lesser but nonetheless significant extent, thrive in) top schools, the schools are increasing more affordable to lower and even middle income family students who are academically, or otherwise highly talented due to generous financial aid packages and scholarships. There are tons of problems with elite school admissions to be sure, from affirmative action policies, legacy and athletic policies etc, and so on…but if you can get in, chances are you will be able to afford it (even with the economic downturn, at least some of the top schools have not yet gutted their FA programs) and my advice is to go. Find what you’re passionate about and study that. Or do engineering…can’t beat Stanford/Princeton EE/MechE…</p>
<p>@pandem. High school education is in the ditches. How do you revamp that? The good schools are still great. The bad ones really haven’t improved much despite all the rhetoric from the education community, the reformers or the politicians? Suggestions? haha</p>
<p>“I think that asking for a low-cost LA education is going to be harder and harder to justify.”
Lots of things are hard to justify, but we as a society have decided that we need to do them anyway. I think it would be worth it to have this option available for those who wish to pursue it. </p>
<p>“The solution is to revamp high school education.”
This is certainly necessary, but I don’t think it is sufficient. If nothing else there’s not enough time to learn enough, and call me crazy but I don’t think HS kids have the maturity to learn material as deep as even what an undergraduate can learn.</p>
<p>"also, I think you’re missing a greater result that may occur. "
Of course that’s assuming students are in it for the knowledge they gain. Most people I know in CS did it for the piece of paper at the end, and they probably would have twiddled their thumbs for four years to get it, and paid $20k/yr.</p>
<p>PS. I think we should institute something like the gymnasium system a la Germany. Early tracking. If you can’t cut it in academic work, you’re put on a vocational track. Not everyone’s little angel is special, and the earlier parents get that message, the better off.</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. ~ Pandem</p>
<hr>
<p>Go back and read POst #256.</p>
<p>I already made that point, you are just regurgitating my words.</p>
<p>So, if we are in agreement that LA majors are on the down, why would you also advocate for making universities all LA majors and forcing technical majors into separate vocational schools?</p>
<p>You are contradicting your own opinions.</p>
<p>Tech/Science based majors are huge assets for colleges. If you want an example look at your own school Pitt and their medical programs, those are really what makes the blood pump at Pitt. They bring in huge research dollars, LA majors really don’t bring in any research dollars, at least nothing of significance.</p>
<p>The AAU distributions BILLIONS of research dollars to 61 academic institutions based primarily in science and technology. If you think schools are going to give up this gravy train so they can have a LA cirruculum that will put them in the red - think again.</p>
<p>I think you are just playing word games, “University”, “Technical School”, really doesn’t make a difference what they are called. Having Ivy Schools as “Universities” and other schools as “Technical” is just semantics.</p>
<p>^ I’d be cautious about this. I think it’s a fundamentally good idea, but I’m not intimately familiar with the system. I would want there to be some sort of optional appeal process for students who were funneled early to jump the tracks, so to speak, later in life. It’s sad to me that kids can get pigeonholed by their performance before they’re even legally able to give consent… well, I know that happens everywhere to some extent, but the German system seems especially dangerous in this respect.</p>
<p>You contradicted your original point. But you’re right, it is all semantics. If you had read what I wrote, I was saying that current universities would (and are already becoming) engineering and technical colleges. </p>
<p>I never advocated ‘kicking out tech. majors’ so I’m not sure why you continue to argue for their existence. That point was assumed years ago.</p>
<p>The idea is that universities (read: state schools) are better off being research-oriented science and tech schools. Meanwhile, those students who want a liberal arts education will have to look at LACs and higher ranked humanity-focused schools. They’ll probably have to pay for it (either via cash or with their academic prowess).</p>
<p>Oh sure. We don’t have to copy the exact system, and I’m certainly up for giving people second, and third and fourth chances in life. Not everything works out so perfectly, and sometimes bad things happen for unfortunate reasons through no fault of our own. And sometimes people make bad decisions. There should be remedies for situations like that. Still, I can’t but help think that a larger percentage of people would be guided towards both what they’re good at, capable of doing earlier and thus, wasting less time. Once they’ve limited their options, hopefully they’d find something they would be interested in. </p>
<p>Heck, I have a BA, generally happy about it, and wouldn’t think twice of doing it again and even I can think of some vocations I’d happily do if I didn’t have a uni degree.</p>
<h2>@pandem. High school education is in the ditches. How do you revamp that? The good schools are still great. The bad ones really haven’t improved much despite all the rhetoric from the education community, the reformers or the politicians? Suggestions? haha ~ WindUltra</h2>
<p>A possible solution is Vouchers.</p>
<p>We need to funnel money directly into the hands of families and allow them to make a decision on which school (HS) to send their child too.</p>
<p>Keep the government cash flow out of the direct hands of the schools, and let a free market decide which schools get the money from the parents. This would force schools to actually compete for the dollars, not just be content to sit back and enjoy local property tax dollars. </p>
<p>Comeptition is realy the only thing that will spur improvements, and right now our system is setup to avoid competition. Therefore, there is no incentive for schools to actually improve, because they get the dollars regardless of how the school performs.</p>
<p>It’s not so much the schools as the programs that I’m worried about. Clearly any university could be a trade school and any trade school a university, depending on what went on inside. In fact I don’t even think that technical programs need to be separate from LA ones… keep the universities the way they are now, just separate the programs more clearly than they are now. The added cost would likely be reasonable.</p>
<p>Ahhh AMT, why did you have to go and mention libertarianism and wreck your nice online persona ? Although obviously you are of the ad-hoc variety.</p>
<p>A higher education system that only exists to fill corporate demands is a nation in rapid decline. Basic research happens at universities, NOT corporates where only applied R&D based on anticipated short term profits is supported.</p>
<p>It is true that American universities are becoming more vocational by the day, and it is true that the vast majority of students belong in vocational training – whether simple like nursing, or complicated like CS. Like AMT, I don’t care where the vocational training occurs, but I get petty when nursing is called “hard science.” The most demanding tier of professional/technical fields does benefit from a strong liberal arts basis, and in that respect fields such as medicine or engineering have their place in universities. Not necessarily all practitioners have to be funneled through this channel, just the ones who will benefit the most. I am thinking of people who are able and may continue into grad school. Some physicians obtain concurrent PhDs, some engineers switch into basic science after undergrad. Both require strong undergrad liberal arts training. The training is intellectual, not problem sets.</p>
<p>Intellectualism drives technical progress, although sometimes a lag of decades if not centuries can obscure the connection.</p>
<p>“Ahhh AMT, why did you have to go and mention libertarianism and wreck your nice online persona ? Although obviously you are of the ad-hoc variety.”
Yeah, sorry. Nobody’s perfect. At least, like you said, I am “ad hoc”. I guess it’s more accurate to say I have an appreciation for libertarian ideals than to say I am one… I’m not sure I’m messed up enough to actually be 100% libertarian.</p>
<p>What of the poor schools filled with financially-educated families? Also, this will only result in schools teaching for test scores ~ Pandem</p>
<hr>
<p>What exactly do you mean a “poor school filled with financially-educated families?”</p>
<p>As far as teaching for test scores, I don’t believe that would be the case. It would push schools not only to push for higher standards, but push for greater investment.</p>
<p>For example, if schools were actually in competition with each other, they would be forced to re-invest in their facilities, which many are currently in a state of serious decay.</p>
<p>This would also save local governments big money by not having to fund new school buildings for school systems that are entirely broken and have no plan for improvement. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.</p>
<p>If you knew that your school depended on “recruiting” rather than “funneling” students, you’d have no other choice than to beef up your technology, closer evaluate your staff, raise academic standards, and provide a better quality SERVICE.</p>
<p>The intellectually honest libertarians (UChicago economists e.g. come to mind) look at the economic collapse of this decade and the gulf disaster and realize that their ideology is deeply flawed. Even Bernanke, Paulson, and Greenspan had to look into camera and pretty much say “*** was I thinking ?” Too bad their voices are drowned out by tea baggers.</p>