<p>I read all the responses to my post, and I think you make very good points. However, I think many of you misunderstood me. I assume this is my fault, since everybody misunderstood. Let me retort.</p>
<p>“I disagree. For many people, college is vocational training.”
- Yes, I agree, but that doesn’t mean that’s how it “ought” to be, whatever that means.</p>
<p>“Most vocations have an element of “education” beyond practical matters, particularly writing, but each person’s needs and capabilities are different and many, if not most, are aimed at a job.”
- Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the content aimed at a specific job couldn’t be relegated to some training institution separate from colleges and universities.</p>
<p>“That’s fine. Jobs today require a degree. It’s uncharitable to expect more because life is hard enough.”
- Yes, this is part of my original stipulation. However, I think that having separate technical, vocational, etc. schools could work. I think this is how it is done in Europe, for instance, perhaps not as much as I have called for, but still.</p>
<p>“For some it is just job training, for others it is something else. Nobody can decide for a person, what it is for that person… except people who support him / her (financially and otherwise)”
- This is true, but I’m not blaming the individual students as much as I am blaming the system that forces them to go to college when they have no desire to do so. If things were to change to my “system”, sure, people would still be in college who had no business being there, but with the option to get technical/vocational/professional training instead, I believe the problem would be reduced.</p>
<p>“How about music theory? Are you suggesting that someone should learn about music theory, but never link it to the actual experience of performing or composing a piece of music?”
- I think music theory is a fine thing to learn. And I think music performance (playing an instrument) is <em>equally</em> fine to learn. However, one is academic, and one is a skill. It is my opinion that academic subjects should be studied in college and skills should be learned outside. You can play instruments without theory, certainly. Why not the other way?</p>
<p>“Wow. How is that any less of an art than other arts?”
- It’s not. What other arts do you think I would include in my list? Painting seminars? Don’t do it in college. Making sculptures? Do it somewhere else. I don’t have a problem with arts, or anything else I’ve said shouldn’t be done in college, but it’s about separation of concerns.</p>
<p>“Why should any of these things be “learn it by yourself” things? What’s your problem with people learning fields that don’t particularly interest you?”
- I’ve never said the fields don’t interest me. I love computer programming, creative writing, etc. And I didn’t necessarily mean that people had to learn these things on their own; people can go take courses at technical or trade schools if they want a group setting, or set up an organization, or whatever. It’s just not academic enough for me to have formal university classes.</p>
<p>“Good grief, different strokes for different folks.”
- I didn’t say people shouldn’t study any of those fields, just not at a university. They’re not, in my mind, university subjects. It’s like hearing TV shows on the radio. Sure, you can do it, but it’s not really meant for the radio. You can make radio programs, but it’s different. I don’t think that the differences between pure and applied degrees is arbitrary.</p>
<p>“But, AuburnMathTutor, at least you don’t have promiscuous relations.”
- At least I didn’t admit to it…</p>
<p>“What a laugher. Boss’s don’t have time to teach you what they already expect you to know. That would be a huge waste of time/$$$$ for any company. In the old days companies had some training programs when they actually hired liberal arts grads and they spent lots of time and money doing so. Now they expect you to come in ready to work from Day 1.”
- That’s an accident of the current system. Here’s an idea: instead of going to a university for 4 years, go to a company that needs accountants, and pay the company what you would (or more) in tuition to the university. In the mean time, work as an unpaid intern for the company. Then, the company can offer you a job, and if you take it, you can work off your college tuition, possibly at a reduced rate. I guess this is sort of like an apprenticeship system. I tend to think that 4 years of on-the-job training for that kind of job would be at least as good as 4 years of university study for that. Is this laughable?</p>
<p>“This is from 30 years of experience of a programmer. You will not get single job offer as a computer programmer if you follow “Computer programming (learn it on your own time if you need to)”.”
- Of course, if you’re doing what I say, you’re not looking for a job doing programming, so this point is moot. If you want to be a programmer, go to technical school.</p>
<p>“More so, the best places still want you to have at least a bachelor with high GPA, yes, even after 30 years of experience and tons of very good references from local businesses. But… you can continue on dreaming.”
- This is a thought experiment. These expectations are accidents of the current system. If my system were adopted, then after a transitory period, people would not expect a university education for such a position.</p>
<p>“I do not agree. College is about becoming educated and more knowledgeable about the world. If PART of the degree includes some skills, I don’t see what is wrong with that. Even high school involves some skill learning in addition to worldly knowledge.”
- Well, high school is different from college. As far as skills being important to a functioning adult… of course I agree. But just because something is important doesn’t mean it necessarily needs to be taught in school. Also, just because something isn’t taught in school, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t know it. Finally, I don’t have a problem with universities assuming certain skills (for instance, the ability to program for a theoretical computer science major), but (excessive) time shouldn’t be spent covering the practice of it (there is a theory of programming, for instance, the OOP paradigm).</p>
<p>“I can’t believe you included TEACHING on that list! Wow. I am a certified teacher, though my undergrad degree was in Child Study, but led to certification and my grad degree is in Education. I certainly would want an educator that teaches my kids in K-12 to have a background in children and education! Teaching is more than just knowing the subjects at hand.”
- My answer is simple: professional/technical/trade school. Teaching school. You enter in the general program, and then specialize as you go through it. You can teach some theory, but I was under the impression that much of teaching is applied and practice. If one wanted to study the theory of teaching academically (and possibly go on to be a teacher) in college, I suppose psychology programs could accomodate that.</p>
<p>“I also have a kid of my own who just graduated with a degree in theater. Theater is not the only thing she studied but she did do a professional program in that field. Her life is immersed in that field and always has been. She learned a GREAT deal at college. I am happy to say she graduated and is working in her field as a professional and I don’t think she’d ever be where she is now with it had she not gone to college and studied it in the way that she did there (even if she had talent prior to college).”
- I’m sure you can study theater on an academic level. Alternatively, I’m sure you can get apprenticeship, other kinds of practice, or open trade/technical/vocational schools for theater.</p>
<p>"I can’t run down every area you listed but if you say you can learn these things on your own, that could be said about history or science too. Anyone can self study anything. But college educates you in a way that is different than self study. "
- You can learn anything on your own, including academic subjects. But if you’re going to institutionalize it, and you’re going to have universities, it makes sense to me to keep academics separate from applications.</p>
<p>“There is one thing on AuburnMathTutor’s list I agree with: teaching, at least for older kids.”
- You completely misunderstood my post. I do not think any major is worthless. I believe some are academic and some are not, and that the ones that are not academic should be separated.</p>
<p>“My high school (private) deliberately avoided hiring teachers with teaching degrees feeling that what little useful things they might have learned was at the expense of being versed in the subject they were teaching.”
- If that’s true, it’s a problem with the actual content of the degrees, not with their being a training program for teachers. I’m all for training teachers specifically how to teach. The fact that teacher education is less than ideal supports my point.</p>
<p>“In my case, while i became a certified teacher, my degree was not in teaching or education. It was in Child Study which involved the study of all aspects of young children, including teaching.”
- I’m not familiar with the content of your degree, but it sounds like that what you did is what I would recommend. “Child Study” sounds like a specialized type of degree in psychology/communication/etc. that could be kept tolerably academic for a university setting. Then, after college, if you want a job, you can do what you need to do to get one.</p>