Following on from the post on opportunities for young people, it occurs to me that modern education is a con. It is an industry set up and run for the benefit of those within it, the teachers, lecturers, examiners and so forth. There is a constantly inflating demand for “qualifications” possibly from those too dim to assess people or too mean to employ people and allow them to develop, as discussed elsewhere.
I worked in IT. I have a degree, in Computer Science as it happens. I worked with people who left school at 15 with no qualification or at 16 with O levels. They were darned good people. So what did my degree get me? I can’t remember applying very much of it. I do remember (for example) spending weeks learning ever more sophisticated ways of sorting data, culminating in (iirc) the Reverse Polyphase sort, which relied on tape drives that could read backwards as well as forward. When I started work I discovered that you used a utility called Syncsort, chucked the data and some parameters at it and the result popped out the far side. No one had mentioned that!
So why did I spend all of that time getting a degree? Well I was their manager so it did do me some good but perhaps from a snobbish, management perspective of “we can only promote them so far because they don’t have a degree”? I may be being unfair, I admit. There may have been some useful, practical stuff in there but I’m sure it could have been passed on in about a year. So why do we encourage modern youngsters to spend 3 – 4 years getting a degree, getting into huge debt to do so and it’s stuff all use to them at the end of it? Whilst the “degree in knitting” may be a joke I did overhear a conversation last week. A lady’s daughter will be starting her final year and has to choose her subjects in Arts & Crafts carefully or her mother, half jokingly said, she will end up with a degree in knitting.
But now we have “prison officers need a degree” (one I read last year)! Why!!?? I am conservative in my approach to education as it is that child’s future and that is a great responsibility, but isn’t it time to start ripping the overall process to pieces and taking control out of the hands of the people who have got us into this idiocy?
Start now, use both sides of the paper if necessary :-)
John
|
|
I cant understand how you can go to university to get a degree in computing, and not come out with a basic MSE or CCNE qualification.
|
I think education itself is a fine thing, its just the utter rubbish they teach which is the problem.
Strikes me that basic plumbing, how to handle money, how to grow your own veg and many more practical skills would benefit youngsters ( and likely engage them more too ) more than a level of maths that most people will never use or learning about how trees grow - thats what Discovery Channel is for!
|
"learning about how trees grow - thats what Discovery Channel is for!"
Thanks W, you made me laugh! And I have no idea how trees grow :-)
John
|
I reckon kids will learn more about the world we live in by sticking them in a cinema running the Discovery Channel than by some bit of this, bit of that method.
The quality of production and the often engaging presenters make many progs worth watching as an adult - my wifeand I were watching some prog about getting venom from sea snakes and rock fish the other night - we were both glued to it, it really is facinating learning how the venom is released and seeing someone get stung by a box jellyfish too. Scary but great to watch.
Contrast that with a class of 30+ and a whiteboard, is it any wonder kids dont learn?
|
Hmm, kids, cinema, Saturday morning. The official name was "matinee", the practical name was "riot". :-)
John
|
|
I was firmly put in my place by a six year old recently, on describing a building as a rectangle I was informed in no uncertain terms that it was a cuboid and a rectangle is flat! Third year primary level stuff I am infomed.
|
Would she like to join this forum?
John
|
>> Would she like to join this forum?
>>
>> John
>>
Astute assessment! Her name doesn't start in i or Z. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 21 Feb 11 at 14:23
|
...Astute assessment! Her name doesn't start in i or Z. :-...
Capital I, please.
And when you've done that, consider how to separate the post from the poster.
|
>> ...Astute assessment! Her name doesn't start in i or Z. :-...
>>
>> Capital I, please.
>>
>> And when you've done that, consider how to separate the post from the poster.
>>
>>
>>
:-))))
|
On our course we were actually taught a lot of MCSE material in one of the modules and were told if we wanted the qualification to go and out and buy the books etc.
A lot of education is a con and a lot of it isn't. It is up to the person to make the most of it, I didn't so I cannot be bitter about it, I have only myself to blame. It just annoys me when people like my sister and go through the exactly the same process but with a bit more luck do so much better.
I have always been very hard working but always found maths difficult which has held me back. I found the software engineering side of things quite difficult as they involved maths, but I never found programming hard as that is logic.
It is not fair to say education is a con but there are lot of miss leading advertising. Driving training is a classic example of this.
|
My son is 4 and he sits and watches the animal progs in silence, its ever so cute.
I know people are scare of technology taking over, but actually, it allows access to a wide range of info and I think in many subjects, traditional teaching is becoming redundant.
Wanna learn about history, watch History channel. Writing an essay about an even that you scarely know anything about based on a handful of bits of info doesnt enthuse anyone to find history interesting, but it really is.
|
Very interesting topic.
The problem with modern education is that it can't prepare students for tomorrow's challenge with today's technology.
Unless you are studying history or similar subjects, knowledge often becomes obsolete by the time you graduate with it!
In our parents' and grandparents' times, education was often static. The way you learnt things, people were already doing same thing in same way for last 50 years.
However, in todays world, when technology changes every month, technical courses can't keep up.
Computer science should not prepare a student for Microsoft or Oracle certification! The purpose of computer science is to teach the students fundamentals of computing which includes algorithms and theory of mathematics. Microsoft may be replaced tomorrow by Google but basic reasoning behind algorithms will stay exactly same.
Also problems in real lives are different from what one would learn in school. In academic life, you usually have one correct answer for given problem. But in real life, there is no single correct answer. You have multiple options from which you need to choose one depending on situation. You never know if other options would have been any better.
I was recently brooding about doing an part time MBA. But then it seemed most universities are trying to sell the course as a product! Course fees are very high (£20k over 3 years for part time and £35k for a year if done full time). I also discovered that in most MBA courses offered in UK, international students (mainly from Asia/Africa) make up over 70% of the class! The post MBA salaries are also nothing to be excited about (it is not easy to change complete job profile by just doing an MBA - especially 1-yr MBA which is offered in most UK universities).
What if you decide not to go for a degree?
Simple - your CV won't even be read!
If there are 10 applicants for a job with 8 having a relevant degree and other 2 no degrees at all (and degree holders not asking for any extra premium), non degree holders just have no chance (this assumes all have similar experience). Even if non degree holders have slightly more experience than degree holders, still they will be turned down.
|
That was sort of the problem with my course, they did go into compression and stuff like Huffman encoding and all the stuff I didn't like. We had to TCP/IP and other protocols in depth but that hasn't changed for 20+ years or so. We weven did TCP/IP V6 in depth 6 years ago and that still hasn't replaced TCP/IP V4.
The technology behind the ideas often dosn't change, e.g Anroid development is just Java, once you have learnt C++ (again 20 years old, and even older in C form) it is very easy to move on to a new language.
I think the problem with my course is there was too much 'coding' and enough science behind the coding.
I really wish I did a more pure computer science topic but my interest was in the human interaction side of things.
I am often looking at universities and college websites but I still have not seen any course which convinces me to spend any money. I am a lot wiser to the promises and claims they make now.
|
"Computer science should not prepare a student for Microsoft or Oracle certification! "
Absolutely it should.
"The purpose of computer science is to teach the students fundamentals of computing which includes algorithms and theory of mathematics."
Disagree, completely unused practical skills once you leave.
This is the problem with university and higher education. Its run by academics. The purpose of university is to have skill to work from day 1. It should be run by businessmen.
|
>> This is the problem with university and higher education. Its run by academics. The purpose
>> of university is to have skill to work from day 1. It should be run
>> by businessmen.
>>
You are wrong.
University is by definition an academic pursuit. An appropriately taught course does prepare students for life "on the outside", but the emphasis is on the student, not the university.
I studied computer science because I wanted a greater theoretical understanding of computer systems, not because I want to spend the rest of my life servicing the things. There was a strong division at Leeds between "Computer Science" courses and "Computing" courses, and the academic nature of the CS courses dovetailed nicely into the physics modules I studied (Joint Honours).
Fortunately, the new government appears to be making headway towards sorting this out by streamlining students at 14 towards more practical or academic pursuits, rather than forcing all students through university in an attempt to force up numbers in international league tables. It's interesting that in the drive towards 50% of young people attending university we now rank behind Eastern Europe in education standards, and almost at the top of the table in youth unemployment.
To suggest that university leaves people without core skills is laughable, and simply implies that these people who did fail to acquire skills would have struggled anywhere.
I left uni after 3 years with a good basic grasp of computer science and advanced physics; an excellent understanding of quantum computers and medical physics; a professional grounding in software development (which I use regularly), the ability to weld, solder, and build precision instruments using CNC machine tools; excellent public speaking skills; and the ability to write technical articles. On top of this, I represented the University at national sporting events, organised numerous club trips, and still had a great social life while working part time.
And Rattle - Android development is not "just Java", but uses the Dalvik VM, its own APIs, and a different development philosophy. Just sayin'
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 22 Feb 11 at 10:29
|
>> >> This is the problem with university and higher education. Its run by academics. The
>> purpose
>> >> of university is to have skill to work from day 1. It should be
>> run
>> >> by businessmen.
>> >>
>>
>> You are wrong.
Then why are so many graduates unemployed. Or should that be unemployable
some I have known were not customer safe.
|
>> Then why are so many graduates unemployed. Or should that be unemployable
some I have known were not customer safe.
Alfa Floor was pointing out what N_C says lower down: there is a fairly radical distinction between education proper, and training for a job or profession. University is supposed to purvey the first, not the second. The real tragedy is that it quite often doesn't even do that because (again as N_C points out) some of the students can't read, write, count or think rationally after 12 years in (usually) two schools, and shouldn't have been admitted to university.
There's another factor too. A lot of people who are quite at home with intellectual gymnastics and get good degrees can't apply what they know to the real world because they can't cope with the real world and are useless with physical objects. This wouldn't matter much with arts subjects but with something like engineering or IT it's obviously a disaster except for genuine academic high flyers, who are quite rare. Beware the 'engineer' with clean fingernails.
What is 'customer safe' by the way? Too rough and horrible to be allowed near customers, or too incompetent to be let loose on their kit?
|
Customer Safe? great phrase.
Its the ability to placate, backtrack, propose, guide, without dropping you, your company or your service or product in the goo.
Actually a tough skill to learn and utilise.
|
>> placate, backtrack, propose, guide, without dropping you, your company or your service or product in the goo.
Ah... 'Never mind the quality, sir, just feel the width...'
Heh heh...
|
The other person for whom education is a benefit is the Government as it keeps people off the unemployment figures.
>>isn’t it time to start ripping the overall process to pieces and taking control out of the
>>hands of the people who have got us into this idiocy?
They've done it in Egypt, they're doing it in Libya...
|
I really can't see why anyone should be considered for a University education when they haven't mastered basic English, spelling and Maths.
Surely after 12 years education that should be a basic minimum qualification to leave with?
Pat
|
>> I really can't see why anyone should be considered for a University education when they
>> haven't mastered basic English, spelling and Maths.
>>
>> Surely after 12 years education that should be a basic minimum qualification to leave with?
>>
>> Pat
>>
If that were the case, some would never be able to leave school!
|
The education budget is massive - check your council tax bill.
The return is dreadful.
Too many 'pupils' who don't want to learn anything, do want to be disruptive, and 'know their rights'.
I would kick all of them out of school permanently, shut half of the schools, and sack half of the teachers.
A vast amount of money would be saved, and those remaining in school - both pupils and teachers - would be motivated, want to be there, and would get something out of the process.
|
"The education budget is massive"
My sister's husband is a head teacher and earns a smidge under £90k. He has two deputies.
I think that's shocking.
|
It has changed some what now as the government realised this was happening but when I was at primary school it was assumed the secondary school would sort out all their failures, the secondary school assumed the primary school would do it.
As a result I think more basic English is taught in secondary schools now. I was really taught English at all at school, all we did was watch videos all day. Again they would not get away with it now.
Maths is a funny subject too, my sister can do all sorts of fancy equations but when it comes to adding up in a supermarklet I can do it a lot quicker. I can buy 20 items and know exactly how much it should come to at the till which is a vital till because they are always making mistakes.
|
I need to declare an interest. Since late last year, I've been working as an engineering lecturer.
The thing that people in this thread are missing so far in this thread is that degree level education should be a process of education rather than training. Students at the end of their course should be able to investigate new developments in their field and assess them critically.
In this way, it doesn't matter that a computer course is obsolete by the time the lecturer's slides have been prepared, as the investigative, study, analysis, and critical evaluation skills are entirely transferable and recyclable.
While I may enjoy delivering a lecture on, say, the intricacies of designing vehicle brake systems, I'm fairly sure that perhaps only one or two out of the 100 in the lecture will ever actually do it for real. However, the broader skills of understanding a complex issue, deciding what's really important, carrying out some appropriate numberical analysis, and applying this to real decisions is absolutely transferable, and I would be confident that very nearly 100% of the room would go on to make use of those skills.
I slant my lectures and tutorials towards encouraging the students to take control of their own learning, and being active in finding new developments in research journals and published media, rather than relying upon me to simply "pour in" knowledge. Quite a number of the students hate it because they want an easy passive life where the notes are transferred from my book to theirs without passing through either of our brains!
However, I do agree there is a bit of a con. We have students enrolled on degrees who really should be doing HNCs - they aren't up to it, and really would benefit more from training rather than education. As I've mentioned beofre, I do feel sorry for the students - they are innocent victims in this.
|
Ace post NC and spot on.
For once I don't feel any temptation to tease you.
|
Yes NC, I think you have it right. I think that, as a country, we have suffered massive qualification inflation with the students as the un-witting victims.
John
|
>> They've done it in Egypt, they're doing it in Libya...
so far they have achieved nothing in Egypt, and a sudden population slump in Libya,
|
>> >> They've done it in Egypt, they're doing it in Libya...
>>
>> so far they have achieved nothing in Egypt, and a sudden population slump in Libya,
Exactly my point, RF.
Interesting reading Alfa Floor's post and Zero's. Both of which I think are correct. Given they sit on two opposing sides, some may find that surprising. But:
1. University is about education. Not vocational training.
2. Not everybody is capable of benefiting from education, requiring instead vocational training.
So a degree in CS should not give you exemptions from Microsoft training. But anybody who thinks it should, should NOT be doing a degree, but should instead be doing vocational training.
There is no way that 50% of youngsters are capable of doing degrees. What's worse, we all pay for their beer as well as their degrees. How come? Well, anybody who graduates from beer drinking and nothing else (but with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt) into stacking shelves will never repay the debt. So the nation paid for the beer. It's ironic that full grants are back for the stupid/feckless but not for the intelligent. I think that's the wrong way round.
IMO funding should be on this basis:
Those Universities ranked in the top two places, students should get a flat rate 5k p.a. grant and no fees.
Those in the top ten, a 2k grant and no fees.
Those 11-20, no grant, and no fees.
Those 21-40 3k p.a. fees.
Those 41-60 3k p.a. fees and no student loans
Those 60-100 10k p.a. fees and no loans
Those 100+ 15k p.a. fees and no loans
If you're bright then the state should subsidise your education. If you're not, then you're welcome to pay to put yourself through a degree if you insist. Quickly those universities which rip off students (generally ripping off the poorer and less well educated in society who would be better without wasting their time and money) would go out of business. This would create an entirely meritocratic university system.
|
>> So what did my degree get me?
Ah, well, it shows an employer that you've some basic inteligernce and adility to learn things.
|
|
I have always thought that it is a great pity that universities don't or (can't) teach common sense.
|
|
Have you met some teachers? Some of them havent got enough common sense to go aroun themselves, let alone teach it. Not all of course, but I do have a fair experience of teachers outside the classroom and they are often as out of touch as MPs.
|
I don't think the figure is anything like 50%. The 50% aim was for higher education. That covers a very wide area and there is a big difference in standard between a 1 year HNC and a three year honours degree. Even some NVQs (level 4 onwards) is consiered higher education.
Also out of the percentage that go to university a large number fail to graduate (either drop out or fail) and then a large number get a lower level degree such as a Thora Hird or a Desmond.
The statistics vary wildy for different universities. Oxbridge for example awards much more higher level degrees and has far less drop outs than say an ex HE institute with university status.
|
Education is a con trick - Zero
