<p>High level computers sytems design and programming is well beyond the ability of being taught in most tech schools of the junior college variety. Many of the smartest kids from the best college computer sceince departments are doing these jobs and it is done at such a higher level of thought and complexity it requires brillliant profs teaching brilliant students some of the tricks and theories of the work. Many people leading these work teams have high level PhD’s.</p>
<p>AuburnMathTutor…the one thing I do agree with is that college is about an education and not strictly job training. But I don’t agree with the other things you have posted. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not agree with this “separation” that you suggest. Someone who is studying to be a musician, must study music theory. They should not have to go to college to study that and then study performance elsewhere. These are intertwined. The study of performance also involves theory and history in the music field. Not to mention…unless a stand alone conservatory, most music degrees still involve studying other subjects in college beyond music as well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do NOT agree. My D earned a BFA (included both musical theater and drama). Is theater ALL that she studied? Nope. She had some liberal arts as well. Further, her degree was not ALL skill oriented. While she did study voice, dance, and acting, she also took many courses in theater studies which were academically based and not performance based (or skill oriented as you called it). I don’t get your “separation”. The degree and the studies involved many things. Academic knowledge (or theory or whatever else you want to call it) was mixed with skills and performing arts. My D did not want a “trade” school or in this case a “conservatory” only. She wanted an entire college education. She got that. She also got training. Both. No need to separate these things out. It wasn’t like her education was all skill training. It was academics and skills. Both are needed in her field, in her view (mine too).</p>
<p>Also, it sounds to me that you want college just for those who want to study liberal arts…history, English, biology, sociology, physics, and so on. And what about any other fields of study? Those kids are relegated to CCs or trade schools? My kids wanted a college education. The fact that their fields of study include some skills along with the academic end of their field, is part of their total education. They were NOT just interested in learning skills. They valued the liberal arts itself. Their college education was not ONLY in their field of study or major either! But even within the major, it mixed theory and practice.</p>
<p>Even when I went to college and majored in Child Study, not all my coursework was in my major! Further, within my major, it mixed theory and practice. I also became a certified teacher through that department, in fact.</p>
<p>barrons, take it easy, I am a computer programmer with 30 years of experience on all possible platforms and different languages. There is some scientific applications that are of variety that you are talking about. Most programming in a world, however, uses much more common sense than anything else. However, to get a good job in a field, does reguire degree and high GPA. And since most applications are in business, not science, it is a good idea to get some business background at college level.</p>
<p>AuburnMathTutor, I guess I did misunderstand your post, or at least misrepresent it a bit. We certainly agree, though, that “teaching” is not an academic subject, and that being certified as a teacher is a far cry from being educated.</p>
<p>"Brainwash is to accept others opinions that are not based on your life experiences. "
- All schooling is brainwashing by your definition. I’m not sure I understand.</p>
<p>“High level computers sytems design and programming is well beyond the ability of being taught in most tech schools of the junior college variety. Many of the smartest kids from the best college computer sceince departments are doing these jobs and it is done at such a higher level of thought and complexity it requires brillliant profs teaching brilliant students some of the tricks and theories of the work. Many people leading these work teams have high level PhD’s.”
- That seems to be to be an accident of the system. Trade schools could be 15 year programs, for all I care, and could very well be more prestigious or whatever than “universities”. It’s not an ego thing. It’s about preserving the integrity of a college education. And academics could go work in trade schools, if they were qualified, and professionals could work in universities, if they were qualified. Visiting lecturers, if you will. The brilliant students and brilliant teachers would be just as brilliant at institutions tailored to their interests.</p>
<p>“I do not agree with this “separation” that you suggest. Someone who is studying to be a musician, must study music theory. They should not have to go to college to study that and then study performance elsewhere. These are intertwined. The study of performance also involves theory and history in the music field. Not to mention…unless a stand alone conservatory, most music degrees still involve studying other subjects in college beyond music as well.”
- I don’t see why this is true. It might make you a better musician, it might make you a more well-rounded, efficient, or knowledgeable musician, but you can play music without ever studying any theory, as far as I know. All you need is an instrument and (at most) some sheet music, or perhaps better a radio to listen to other music to get ideas.</p>
<p>“I do NOT agree. My D earned a BFA (included both musical theater and drama). Is theater ALL that she studied? Nope. She had some liberal arts as well. Further, her degree was not ALL skill oriented. While she did study voice, dance, and acting, she also took many courses in theater studies which were academically based and not performance based (or skill oriented as you called it). I don’t get your “separation”. The degree and the studies involved many things. Academic knowledge (or theory or whatever else you want to call it) was mixed with skills and performing arts. My D did not want a “trade” school or in this case a “conservatory” only. She wanted an entire college education. She got that. She also got training. Both. No need to separate these things out. It wasn’t like her education was all skill training. It was academics and skills. Both are needed in her field, in her view (mine too).”
- It’s my opinion that while your daughter may need both, both should not be combined in a single institution. Now, if you teach a little theory in a trade school (or assume some theoretical knowledge) and do a little practice in a university (or assume some skills), that’s one thing. But when you have university courses devoted to skills, that’s where I draw the line.</p>
<p>“Also, it sounds to me that you want college just for those who want to study liberal arts…history, English, biology, sociology, physics, and so on. And what about any other fields of study? Those kids are relegated to CCs or trade schools? My kids wanted a college education. The fact that their fields of study include some skills along with the academic end of their field, is part of their total education. They were NOT just interested in learning skills. They valued the liberal arts itself. Their college education was not ONLY in their field of study or major either! But even within the major, it mixed theory and practice.”
- I like CS, Physics, Math, Economics, English, etc. Does that mean I should be able to study them all at the same time if I want? Is it fair that college majors have so many courses in them that it’s not possible to octuple-major? No. It’s a matter of degrees, not absolutes. If you like music theory and practice, either choose one (go to uni. or trade school) or do both (dual-enroll, take night classes, etc.) I don’t see any problem with that. Then again, for people who only want to be actors, should they have to do theory? And for people who want to study theater, should they be made to act? Not if you ask me.</p>
<p>“Even when I went to college and majored in Child Study, not all my coursework was in my major! Further, within my major, it mixed theory and practice. I also became a certified teacher through that department, in fact.”
- That’s an accident of the system, not the essence of how education must work. For jobs that require a heavy dose of theory AND practice, if there really are any such jobs, I would recommend requiring 2 degrees - a university degree and a technical degree. Or let a university degree be a desirable “extra”.</p>
<p>“barrons, take it easy, I am a computer programmer with 30 years of experience on all possible platforms and different languages. There is some scientific applications that are of variety that you are talking about. Most programming in a world, however, uses much more common sense than anything else. However, to get a good job in a field, does reguire degree and high GPA. And since most applications are in business, not science, it is a good idea to get some business background at college level.”
- What is taught to any CS major that couldn’t be put into a technical school and done better? Math? Have good math faculty, and teach it for CS majors. Humanities? Have a two-semester sequence that condenses all liberal arts core courses. Etc. etc.</p>
<p>“AuburnMathTutor, I guess I did misunderstand your post, or at least misrepresent it a bit. We certainly agree, though, that “teaching” is not an academic subject, and that being certified as a teacher is a far cry from being educated.”
- I do not believe that the material covered in education majors isn’t of an academic nature, and therefore should not be taught in university. I believe there is a difference between instruction and education. However, I wouldn’t say that education majors don’t get an education. Of course, it’s possible that some don’t.</p>
<p>Example.</p>
<p>I’m a CS major. In college, I have learned how to write programs in Java (among other programming languages). Is this knowledge academic? No. Is knowing the difference between OOP and functional programming academic? Yes. It’s fundamentally different. I would have much preferred, personally, to learn Java on my own time, and have taken two theory classes (theoretical CS, math, or software engineering theory) instead. I hope to end up in academia. Sure, there are worse things to know than Java programming, but it’s never going to be particularly useful to me. Should I have learned it?</p>
<p>“All schooling is brainwashing by your definition. I’m not sure I understand” - I clearly said “opinions”, not facts. There are a lot of interesting facts to learn at school and otherwise. Opinions should be formed very slowly based on family value system and experience. OK, here is example. 8 years old has no place in political demonstration. 8 years old does not have knowledge base and experience to take one stand or another. However, they can be brainwashed into position of their teacher, parent, or whoever else. The same could be said about some positions (political or non-political) of 20 years olds who, for example, never had a chance to fully support themselves, be independent. Brainwashing is forcing a person to take a position based on somebody elses opinions.</p>
<p>"What is taught to any CS major that couldn’t be put into a technical school and done better? Math? Have good math faculty, and teach it for CS majors. Humanities? Have a two-semester sequence that condenses all liberal arts core courses. Etc. etc.</p>
<p>You are talking about a school that does not and will not exist. In you theory you could teach any major just as well at the JC level and be done with it. Their is a hierarchy of colleges for a very good reason. Top profs want to be at places where they teach other top students and work with other top profs. They want research funding to support their further study. You don’t get any of that at any tech/JC school today. </p>
<p>Should you have learned Java? Who knows, should you have learned French? Russian. Are they academic? Obviously anyone who has the time and ability can learn just about anything on their own. College just speeds up the process and gives you a nice piece of paper to prove you learned something. That is a red herring.</p>
<p>@MiamiDAP I agree that there’s a lot of computer engineering that is much more involved than a two semester sequence, but I don’t agree that you’ll never get jobs if you’re self-taught. My partner does exactly that, as do many of his long time friends and coworkers. They’ve been in the industry here in California for 25-and 30 years and they can command high salaries wherever they choose to go. We’ve got friends without CS degrees or formal training at Google, Apple, Palm. My partner has worked at Motorola, Nvidia, among other places, and he’s never had a computer class in his life. </p>
<p>I think it’s much <em>harder</em> to be successful without an education starting in the field these days, but for those guys who were here when the industry was getting started, there has always been space for people who were very good but self-taught, and probably always will be.</p>
<p>"But leaders, visionaries, creators…these people are educated, and society couldn’t advance without them. "</p>
<p>What does this mean? Society has advanced greatly due to science. If by ‘leaders’ you mean politicians; most politicians have law degrees… If by ‘creators’ you mean inventors… your engineers are inventing new products every day (eg ipod, cars, movie effects).</p>
<p>The college experience rocks and is invaluable to your development, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that educated-but-not-trained people are the ‘leaders, visionaries’ and ‘creators’ that advance society. I know plenty of liberal arts majors who went to college to get drunk and laid. Most of them are very non-leader people these days.</p>
<p>Just remember that people with degrees are not better than anyone else just for having some vague concept of ‘education’ that does not tie into their job-related abilities.</p>
<p>It seems that AuburnMathTutor would have you learn French speaking/writing/reading…which is a skill at one place and learn French literature and history at another! Most colleges with a French major include both aspects in the major. Same with theater…there are performance training and the study of theater itself…not to mention the required liberal arts courses in other subjects. Let’s discuss architecture. Most degree programs involve history and theory but also technical and design skills. Would you have to attend one school to study history and theory and another to study design? Wow. </p>
<p>I don’t think you know much about music either. Any professional musician has had to study music theory in order to be well skilled as a performing artist. My D is paid to play piano and you betcha that she has studied music theory. As a singer, she also has had to study theory. Many fields of study (including even education majors) involve the study of theory and practice.</p>
<p>As well, you seem to be forgetting that a college education is NOT only your major. Most students study liberal arts courses outside their major, no matter the major. It is not all or nothing.</p>
<p>Is it just me, or is there an anti-fun bias among some of the posters to the thread? It seems like part of the subtext is “Too many people go to college to have fun, and that’s not fair. College should be about work, about preparing for work, and work only.” </p>
<p>I don’t care what people study in college – art theory, English lit, civil engineering, medicine. I was brought up to understand that the idea of a time in young adulthood that people have less responsibility and more freedom and are able to “cut loose” is part of modern American culture. I recognize that some cultures (and American subcultures) don’t think it appropriate or respectful for young adults to have such a time in their life. If that’s your agenda, hey, that’s fine, I guess. I just wish people would be honest about that and say, “I don’t think that young adults should have fun while preparing to take on the responsibilities of full adulthood. Fun is for children.”</p>
<p>TrinSF…I think of college as way more than the academic education received there. It is a growth experience in many respects. I did not care the major my kids chose or what courses they took (one even attended a college with an open curriculum) but I knew they received a wonderful education and the total four year experience was very valuable. that’s all I care about. It is not job training but the education received in their interest areas and the liberal arts as well and the social and emotional opportunities for growth. Even their extracurriculars they did at college which were very important to them as well.</p>
<p>TrinSF:</p>
<p>You can have plenty of ‘fun’ outside of college. I don’t consider taking liberal arts classes to be ‘fun’ or a form of ‘cutting loose’.</p>
<p>You can have fun and study for your profession at the same time.</p>
<p>We’re talking about ‘education’ here vs ‘training’.</p>
<p>I think fun is a totally different discussion.</p>
<p>TheodoreGrey: We’re very different people, clearly. Everyone in my household does find liberal arts classes “fun”. I’m thinking of taking up Persian. I really wish my Big Public U offered it, but they don’t – and Classical Greek isn’t being offered this year, either. I want to take those things because they’re enjoyable, because it’s <em>fun</em> to learn new languages. My son took up Latin in part because it was fun. My daughter loves studying psychology, even though she’s planning to be an artist. Yes, I think that taking a course just for the love of learning is a form of cutting loose, but that’s not what I was talking about. </p>
<p>College is, as someone else has pointed out, more than just classes. I’m a student, and I’m also on a quiz team. My son is a college student, but he also heads a student organization that runs Magic: The Gathering tournaments on campus. I think that part of college <em>is</em> about fun, and I don’t think the two things can be separated. I don’t think that it’s a different discussion. And I don’t think that high education has to be about studying for your profession. I’m going to school to be a theologian. Do I think that I’ll get a job <em>as a theologian</em>? No. I think I’ll probably do more technical support, because I love doing that. I didn’t study to do that job – I’m just naturally good at it, enjoy doing it, like helping people out, and like doing work that I feel good about at the end of the day. </p>
<p>The fact that you say that “fun is a different discussion” sort of proves my point. The four year American college experience is, in part, about fun – about enjoying a period of pleasure in early adulthood. “Bright college years,” the Yale alma mater calls them. I think that part of the point of technical schools is to remove the enjoyment aspect from that process, to try to separate out “job training” from the traditional mix of study and play that characterizes American four year colleges. Traditional images of college – football, coeds, students lounging on the grass on wide green lawns – are not images of studying for profession. They’re about the idea of a life-phase when even those raised in the middle class get to experience the more leisurely life of the upper classes, before they begin a lifetime of work and family and responsibility.</p>
<p>AuburnMathTutor: The main thing I’m struggling with about your concept of separating pure theory and application is the reason why. I just don’t understand your reasoning why you don’t think skills should be taught in modern universities. Perhaps I have not read what you have written enough to discern your answer, but clarification would be much appreciated.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that while college can be great for intellectual expansion and development, for those outside of the elite, or at least moderately wealthy, exclusively teaching the theoretical really isn’t a realistic model for the entirety of secondary education. It would be truly absurd for someone who is poor to middle class to pursue further education at a financial loss that has no practical application. I like our current system in that education and training are mixed, so that while I do get to learn about fascinating subjects and expand my mind, I’m also doing it for realistic ends. I’m not entirely sure what I’m saying, except maybe that it’s okay to look at college through a mercenary lens, but it’s unfortunate for some that miss the experiences along the way.</p>
<p>hyperJulie: To me, that’s why financial aid and need-based scholarships are important – they help level the playing field and keep education for its own sake for being a luxury of the rich, thus preventing us from having <em>as much</em> of an rich intellectual overclass. (It still exists, but it would be <em>much</em> worse if there was no financial aid.) I admit my biases, though – multiple members of my family are benefiting from that sort of aid to pursue LAC education with no financial loss. I understand being mercenary about educational choices. I do, however, get annoyed with the idea that educational choices should not exist for folks on aid – that there should be no Pell Grants for liberal arts, for example. It’s sort of the educational equivalent of “public housing should be ugly, awful, and meager, because the poor don’t deserve ‘nice’ places to live!”</p>
<p>hyperJulie…I just want to tell you that even a college major that doesn’t appear to have some “practical” application should be considered, no matter your economic background! I think the college degree itself can be a stepping stone to a realistic end as you call it and to having a career and making money. Many job fields want to hire a college educated student…even if the major is English, Pol Sci., Psychology, History, Biology, French, Art History, and so on. A college education imparts a certain level of thinking and writing skills and other skills that are applicable to a range of professions. I don’t think these majors are just for those who are financially well off. For my own children, I never cared what they majored in. We don’t plan on supporting them after their education is over. For example, my younger D is 20 and just graduated with a degree in theater. We stopped supporting her after graduation day and would have no matter her major. She is supporting herself in her field. It is not as if she had to pick a certain field that had “realistic ends” or else mommy and daddy would support her. She could pick any field of interest. And the rest will follow. I feel she has a college degree and that will be a plus in life. So far, she is truly working professionally in her field of interest as well.</p>
<p>I think right now the sad truth is that most kids with a liberal arts type degree are in a world of hurt getting work enough to live on their own. Especially with an avg college debt of $20K or so. This has been true during most recessions.</p>
<p>barrons: Hmm, you think so? In fact, stats are that folks with a college degree have lower unemployment rates, even during the current economic problems. It doesn’t matter what sort of degree. Additionally, there are studies that show that a 4 year degree gives one greater employment flexibility than a technical degree or certificate, in part because they can apply for a wider range of jobs. </p>
<p>Oh, and of course, I know people never talk about on CC, but for Federal (not private) student loans, there are income-contingent and income-based repayment plans, including new ones recently put in place. At some income levels, your monthy payment is $0. That’s not a forbearance, that’s an income-based repayment plan.</p>