We Pretend to Teach, They Pretend to Learn(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
We Pretend to Teach, They Pretend to Learn
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303531204579204201833906182?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
12 comments
Shorter WSJ: "We've been saying for years that those commies in the universities should 'run their schools like a business', but now that they're doing it OMG IT'S BAD!"
Alternate url[0], in case WSJ requests you to log-in/subscribe to read the article.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=We+Pretend+to+Teach%2C+They+...
edit: changed link to point to google search, click on the search result (first result in my case); it should lead to an article that doesn't require a login.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=We+Pretend+to+Teach%2C+They+...
edit: changed link to point to google search, click on the search result (first result in my case); it should lead to an article that doesn't require a login.
Worked for me. Thanks.
It also requires to log-in.
[deleted]
Ugh, "log in to view the rest of the article". Nope.
Paywall
No paywall at Google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3...
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3...
The kind of tripe I hear around the fac lounge sometimes; I get my tea and leave as quickly as I can.
The point of lecture is not to "teach", the same way a high school lecture was. A College Lecture was designed to introduce concepts and clarify questions that occurred in studies.
But "learning" and "teaching" don't really happen in the lecture halls. They happen in the labs, in the after-hour question / answer sessions. After all, it is difficult for a professor to individually answer questions when there are 300 students in a hall (and similarly, most students are too shy to ask a question in front of so many people).
Surprise, college is not the baby-hand-holding that high school / grade school was. Students are expected to learn by themselves, and set up their own study groups. Students are expected to come to after-lecture study halls for clarification.
-------------------
Lets put it this way. The student is the one who is paying for the education. If the student wastes his $30,000+ by partying and socializing all day long, the problem is NOT with the professors.
But "learning" and "teaching" don't really happen in the lecture halls. They happen in the labs, in the after-hour question / answer sessions. After all, it is difficult for a professor to individually answer questions when there are 300 students in a hall (and similarly, most students are too shy to ask a question in front of so many people).
Surprise, college is not the baby-hand-holding that high school / grade school was. Students are expected to learn by themselves, and set up their own study groups. Students are expected to come to after-lecture study halls for clarification.
-------------------
Lets put it this way. The student is the one who is paying for the education. If the student wastes his $30,000+ by partying and socializing all day long, the problem is NOT with the professors.
They covered this; it's sort of a rational choice, in the sense that since college is required for everyone, kids just want their certification. You or I might not like this attitude (I don't) but it's not altogether surprising, is it? Perhaps with the ascendance of such as standardized testing, you just want to get the "right" answers with the least effort.
I was like this in high school (solid B student b/c lazy), but for whatever reason, I grew out of it in college and have since reacquainted myself with the joy of learning. I can understand why the whole thing might seem like a joke, especially if everyone around you feels the same way.
Maybe we should ask questions about why kids' expectations are what they are. I'll bet you they're a lagging indicator of some characteristic(s) of our educational system. As I said upthread, as adults we're beholden to them for making sure they turn out OK. To put it charitably, it's misguided to blame kids for the results of adult decisions.
I was like this in high school (solid B student b/c lazy), but for whatever reason, I grew out of it in college and have since reacquainted myself with the joy of learning. I can understand why the whole thing might seem like a joke, especially if everyone around you feels the same way.
Maybe we should ask questions about why kids' expectations are what they are. I'll bet you they're a lagging indicator of some characteristic(s) of our educational system. As I said upthread, as adults we're beholden to them for making sure they turn out OK. To put it charitably, it's misguided to blame kids for the results of adult decisions.
I've always enjoyed learning, but I despised school and most college courses. Thankfully I'm an autodidact and don't need the school system to learn or else I'm afraid I wouldn't know much of anything. The public school system is in shambles and can barely be counted on to teach the most fundamental of curriculum let alone more advanced courses that should function as the foundation of future college learning. The university system in contrast is less interested in teaching any particular thing than it is in wringing every last cent of tuition out of each student before they either drop out, flunk out, or somehow manage to navigate the various flaming hoops and traps the university's have erected to stand between students and their eventual departure from them.
Nominally the various classes are supposed to provide an opportunity to learn, but in practice they're little more than a set of speed-bumps designed to prolong the amount of time a given student spends at the university. To that end it's really in the best interest of the university to do as little actual teaching they can as opposed to as much testing as possible, and it's largely reflected in the curriculum of many professors.
Once you've cleared the bar of the bachelors however things change somewhat. With most students leaving after attaining a bachelors (or a masters in the case of business students, and a PhD in the case of medical students), those left are destined to become faculty (or at least attempt to become faculty) and to take part in the other major fundraising activity in the university system, the attaining of grants. At this point the emphasis shifts from delaying attainment of your degree to press-ganging you into becoming a cog in the grant generating departments. In the post-grad track you're only as good to the university as the grant dollars you're helping to bring in.
Ultimately the problem boils down to the shift in emphasis of universities from places of higher learning, to businesses geared around extracting maximum profit from each individual customer in exchange for a largely meaningless paper that HR departments around the country still have a fetishistic devotion to.
Nominally the various classes are supposed to provide an opportunity to learn, but in practice they're little more than a set of speed-bumps designed to prolong the amount of time a given student spends at the university. To that end it's really in the best interest of the university to do as little actual teaching they can as opposed to as much testing as possible, and it's largely reflected in the curriculum of many professors.
Once you've cleared the bar of the bachelors however things change somewhat. With most students leaving after attaining a bachelors (or a masters in the case of business students, and a PhD in the case of medical students), those left are destined to become faculty (or at least attempt to become faculty) and to take part in the other major fundraising activity in the university system, the attaining of grants. At this point the emphasis shifts from delaying attainment of your degree to press-ganging you into becoming a cog in the grant generating departments. In the post-grad track you're only as good to the university as the grant dollars you're helping to bring in.
Ultimately the problem boils down to the shift in emphasis of universities from places of higher learning, to businesses geared around extracting maximum profit from each individual customer in exchange for a largely meaningless paper that HR departments around the country still have a fetishistic devotion to.
But the onus is on the institution to only grant degrees to those who deserve it. The worthlessness comes when you start giving bachelor's degrees to people who chose to waste their tuition on partying, and this is what's happening.
But the onus is on the institution to only grant degrees to those who deserve it
Unfortunately, with an ever greater share of universities' budgets coming from tuition, they cannot afford to throw people out. It's also why you see so many summer courses offered where for lack of time they cannot even hope to cover the material appropiately, and it's why you see this proliferation of taught masters degrees. It's disgusting, and it ought to stop.
worthlessness comes when you start giving bachelor's degrees to people who chose to waste their tuition on partying
Taught Masters degrees sold to students whose GPA isn't sufficient to get them into medical school are a different kind of worthless. They are disgusting and reprehensible.
Unfortunately, with an ever greater share of universities' budgets coming from tuition, they cannot afford to throw people out. It's also why you see so many summer courses offered where for lack of time they cannot even hope to cover the material appropiately, and it's why you see this proliferation of taught masters degrees. It's disgusting, and it ought to stop.
worthlessness comes when you start giving bachelor's degrees to people who chose to waste their tuition on partying
Taught Masters degrees sold to students whose GPA isn't sufficient to get them into medical school are a different kind of worthless. They are disgusting and reprehensible.
they cannot afford to throw people out.
Not always true. I flunked out of my last school due largely to depression issues and extreme isolation which led to heavy drinking and low grades. My advisor, who I'd only talked to once before when switching into that major, was so happy to see me go he wouldn't even speak to me when I needed him to sign a form so I could drop out, instead of failing out. Instead just told me he was busy and left me sitting outside his office for an hour and a half before I finally got the point (I waited so long because I at first assumed he was actually busy, and not just blowing me off). Needless to say it's hard to do well at a school in spite of isolation and depression when your professors automatically assume you're just a lazy shit who isn't trying and your advisor won't even let you into their office. I know in his head he was probably "upholding the quality of the degree for the alumni" or some shit, but it's hard to justify that when they're doing so based on snap judgments about students who depend on them and who they've never even really spoken to, and furthermore refuse to. Also, to justify that I'm not actually as much of a loser as this guy thought I was, I should say that part of the depression was due to failing to maintain a 4.0 GPA in my classes (I wanted to go to grad school for physics and felt this was required). I found out later I'd actually been one of only three students to even pass the hardest class, and somehow ended up with a B in it despite thinking I was failing the entire time.
Trust me, they do not give a fuck about you. Unless you can get their name on a paper you're publishing, you're just an ID number and a tuition payment to them.
Not always true. I flunked out of my last school due largely to depression issues and extreme isolation which led to heavy drinking and low grades. My advisor, who I'd only talked to once before when switching into that major, was so happy to see me go he wouldn't even speak to me when I needed him to sign a form so I could drop out, instead of failing out. Instead just told me he was busy and left me sitting outside his office for an hour and a half before I finally got the point (I waited so long because I at first assumed he was actually busy, and not just blowing me off). Needless to say it's hard to do well at a school in spite of isolation and depression when your professors automatically assume you're just a lazy shit who isn't trying and your advisor won't even let you into their office. I know in his head he was probably "upholding the quality of the degree for the alumni" or some shit, but it's hard to justify that when they're doing so based on snap judgments about students who depend on them and who they've never even really spoken to, and furthermore refuse to. Also, to justify that I'm not actually as much of a loser as this guy thought I was, I should say that part of the depression was due to failing to maintain a 4.0 GPA in my classes (I wanted to go to grad school for physics and felt this was required). I found out later I'd actually been one of only three students to even pass the hardest class, and somehow ended up with a B in it despite thinking I was failing the entire time.
Trust me, they do not give a fuck about you. Unless you can get their name on a paper you're publishing, you're just an ID number and a tuition payment to them.
Not all schools are like that. My alma mater had no research program, and all the professors did was teach. Though the student body was largely comprised of partiers, so you may have gotten the same sort of treatment.
That being said, it sounds like you're a proponent of the "alternative routes" that the OP suggests at the end of the article.
That being said, it sounds like you're a proponent of the "alternative routes" that the OP suggests at the end of the article.
I am indeed a huge proponent of the alternative routes method. My criticisms of higher education could go on for a long time, and I'm not even going to try and list them all here. My experience has also been that professors who also do research are not nearly as good teachers as the ones who don't. The best teachers I had were in community college, despite probably not being as "qualified" or well-versed in the subjects as the ones publishing papers, a good number of them actually cared about the students and went out of their way to help you get through the class. Counterintuitively, it seems the more prestigious the school the more self-centered and hostile the professors.
This is true. In research communities they actively tell graduate students not to care about teaching because it looks bad on a CV to have teaching awards, etc.
I'm sorry to hear about your experience. While there are many professors with attitudes similar to the professor you described, certainly not all professors have the same attitude.
For my undergraduate degree, I was lucky to go to community colleges and a small, private college. By and large, the instructors at the community colleges defaulted to such an attitude, but if you had brief conversations with them and let them know what was going on in your life, they were willing to work with you. At the community college level, I've heard of exceptions, but they have been extremely rare (and I come from an academic family that has ties to community college level institutions across the U.S.). At the small, private college, professors actively worked with students and knew what was going in their lives. I only met one exception, and that professor was summarily "let go" after only a semester.
At the graduate level, I've seen exceptionally supportive and exceptionally hostile professors. And I've seen many professors who will be supportive of one or two students to the detriment of others (in the circles I come from it even has a name, the "mini-me"). I had one professor who exemplified the hostile, even when I had a series of well-documented life crises and tried to work with him. While my other professors worked with me, this individual would make no allowances - to include allowing me to miss class to have emergency surgery to prevent imminent quadriplegia. Needless to say, my health crisis took priority. When I returned, I notified my department chair and the graduate school dean. While the professor was allowed to continue to treat students with a rough hand, I was given allowances to get back on track and I subsequently learned that the graduate school changed policies to prevent situations like mine from happening to other students.
I've also had the opportunity to teach several classes. As long as the student keeps me updated and is making forward academic progress, I'll support the student; with the one exception of teamwork. By default, I try to limit teamwork to the bare minimum appropriate for academic purposes, and even then I have tried to work with students who are suffering from external stressors. In graduate school, anything less than a B is tantamount to failing. I've given two students grades less than a B. In both cases, I reached out to the student many times, and made it clear that the student was doing extremely poorly, and tried to find out what was going on and what could be done to get the student across the proverbial academic finish-line. In both cases, the students would simply tell me they had been having a hard time at home, but things had changed there, and they would be more engaged with coursework. In both cases, this happened frequently, and there was never any increased engagement. Denying there is a problem is denying others the opportunity to help you.
So, (a) please do not allow one professor to scare you away, (b) please do keep your professors up-to-date on anything that will impact your ability to meet academic goals, (c) if you don't get acceptable support from your professors, seek help from support services (e.g., the ADA office) and move up the chain-of-command (e.g., department chair), and (d) if you're passionate about physics, find a mentor that can help you navigate your program and move on to an appropriate graduate program!
For my undergraduate degree, I was lucky to go to community colleges and a small, private college. By and large, the instructors at the community colleges defaulted to such an attitude, but if you had brief conversations with them and let them know what was going on in your life, they were willing to work with you. At the community college level, I've heard of exceptions, but they have been extremely rare (and I come from an academic family that has ties to community college level institutions across the U.S.). At the small, private college, professors actively worked with students and knew what was going in their lives. I only met one exception, and that professor was summarily "let go" after only a semester.
At the graduate level, I've seen exceptionally supportive and exceptionally hostile professors. And I've seen many professors who will be supportive of one or two students to the detriment of others (in the circles I come from it even has a name, the "mini-me"). I had one professor who exemplified the hostile, even when I had a series of well-documented life crises and tried to work with him. While my other professors worked with me, this individual would make no allowances - to include allowing me to miss class to have emergency surgery to prevent imminent quadriplegia. Needless to say, my health crisis took priority. When I returned, I notified my department chair and the graduate school dean. While the professor was allowed to continue to treat students with a rough hand, I was given allowances to get back on track and I subsequently learned that the graduate school changed policies to prevent situations like mine from happening to other students.
I've also had the opportunity to teach several classes. As long as the student keeps me updated and is making forward academic progress, I'll support the student; with the one exception of teamwork. By default, I try to limit teamwork to the bare minimum appropriate for academic purposes, and even then I have tried to work with students who are suffering from external stressors. In graduate school, anything less than a B is tantamount to failing. I've given two students grades less than a B. In both cases, I reached out to the student many times, and made it clear that the student was doing extremely poorly, and tried to find out what was going on and what could be done to get the student across the proverbial academic finish-line. In both cases, the students would simply tell me they had been having a hard time at home, but things had changed there, and they would be more engaged with coursework. In both cases, this happened frequently, and there was never any increased engagement. Denying there is a problem is denying others the opportunity to help you.
So, (a) please do not allow one professor to scare you away, (b) please do keep your professors up-to-date on anything that will impact your ability to meet academic goals, (c) if you don't get acceptable support from your professors, seek help from support services (e.g., the ADA office) and move up the chain-of-command (e.g., department chair), and (d) if you're passionate about physics, find a mentor that can help you navigate your program and move on to an appropriate graduate program!
Those are good suggestions, but I'd mention that it's much easier for me now to analyze my situation in retrospect, understand what happened and the mistakes I made, and turn it into a cohesive narrative. At the time I didn't really understand why I was doing poorly or what the root causes were, so while I did seek "support" on a number of occasions, it didn't help. I simply assumed I wasn't smart enough to graduate, much less do physics. In retrospect I see this obviously wasn't true, since I'm happily reading a quantum field theory book in my spare time now and, as I said before, ended up being one of the better students in some of my classes. But if you'd asked me at the time I'd have probably just rambled a bunch of guesses and speculation. I suppose my point is that, even following those suggestions, some people will still fall through the cracks. And also that most of these institutions are just bureaucratic monoliths that aren't built to be flexible with every students particular needs and such. The bias there tends to be heavily towards the institutions, too, since students who do poorly are just deemed slackers or unfit for college, instead of considering it a systemic or structural aspect of the system that favors certain people and situations over others. Even the stereotypical "partiers" who drink their way through college could be viewed as a systemic result of a toxic social environment. I believe there was another comment here to the effect of "this is college and you're done with baby hand-holding," which is true in one sense, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to disregard anyone doing badly in the system or a particular school as acceptable attrition for a just-good-enough educational system.
> Those are good suggestions, but I'd mention that it's much easier for me now to analyze my situation in retrospect, understand what happened and the mistakes I made, and turn it into a cohesive narrative. At the time I didn't really understand why I was doing poorly or what the root causes were, so while I did seek "support" on a number of occasions, it didn't help.
Sadly, this is likely to have been true no matter where you were (e.g., college or workplace). In my experience, in an academic environment simply expressing that there is something wrong and seeking a little bit of help will frequently lead to help. I had several bouts of debilitating depression in the military (way suckier than in an academic environment ;-) ). During one of these, I found out some very powerful information about one leader in our unit (i.e., I learned about something that could have led to him being discharged dishonorably). Thankfully, he recognized my depression, so we made a deal. As a result I was able to get off-the-record therapy from a local, civilian counselor, but there were no concessions at work. While I was in school I dealt with several more bouts of depression. In most cases, simply telling the professor that I wasn't up my normal speed (i.e. never saying I was depressed; in several cases, I wasn't aware that it was happening again) led to delayed deadlines or other concessions. I happened to be in university during a particularly bad bout of depression and a classmate took me to the university clinic. My classmate had a conversation with the doctor before I saw the doctor (I can only imagine what was said). That was the first time I was formally diagnosed, and it was the first time I was prescribed anti-depressants. As I mentioned previously, I have a lot of academic family ties, and I hear about situations like this very frequently. I've never heard about similar support in a non-academic workplace.
> I simply assumed I wasn't smart enough to graduate, much less do physics. In retrospect I see this obviously wasn't true, since I'm happily reading a quantum field theory book in my spare time now and, as I said before, ended up being one of the better students in some of my classes. But if you'd asked me at the time I'd have probably just rambled a bunch of guesses and speculation. I suppose my point is that, even following those suggestions, some people will still fall through the cracks. And also that most of these institutions are just bureaucratic monoliths that aren't built to be flexible with every students particular needs and such.
Remember that institutions, even bureaucratic monolithic institutions, are made of people. In my experience, the people in academic institutions are particularly helpful if they know, or even just suspect, that a student needs help. The biggest single success factor I've seen is having a mentor (hence my last tip). This is not to say that you can succeed without a lot of hard work, but having a mentor helps you find the help that you need, when you need it (e.g., taking you to the doctor to be diagnosed with depression; getting an interlibrary loan ASAP; giving you career advice; letting you know where you rank in your program).
> The bias there tends to be heavily towards the institutions, too, since students who do poorly are just deemed slackers or unfit for college, instead of considering it a systemic or structural aspect of the system that favors certain people and situations over others. Even the stereotypical "partiers" who drink their way through college could be viewed as a systemic result of a toxic social environment. I believe there was another comment here to the effect of "this is college and you're done with baby hand-holding," which is true in one sense, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to disregard anyone doing badly in the system or a particular school as acceptable attrition for a just-good-enough educational system.
This is extremely institution-specific. I have seen and heard about institutions, or departments, like this, but I've experienced and heard about many more that are vested in their students' success, both in and out of the classroom. If you can complete your bachelors degree at a small, private institution, I'd highly recommend it! (I've never heard of a small, private institution that wasn't extremely vested in their students' success in and out of class.) I wish I had known when I was an undergrad that there were "free" options (they aren't actually free, but are extremely low-cost). The only free college that I can vouch for (i.e. I know a successful alumnus who speaks highly of the experience) is http://www.deepsprings.edu/home and it only awards associate degrees. The friend I know who is an alumnus is now a professor in the sciences at a top university. He credits much of his academic success to his experiences at and friendships from Deep Springs.
Sadly, this is likely to have been true no matter where you were (e.g., college or workplace). In my experience, in an academic environment simply expressing that there is something wrong and seeking a little bit of help will frequently lead to help. I had several bouts of debilitating depression in the military (way suckier than in an academic environment ;-) ). During one of these, I found out some very powerful information about one leader in our unit (i.e., I learned about something that could have led to him being discharged dishonorably). Thankfully, he recognized my depression, so we made a deal. As a result I was able to get off-the-record therapy from a local, civilian counselor, but there were no concessions at work. While I was in school I dealt with several more bouts of depression. In most cases, simply telling the professor that I wasn't up my normal speed (i.e. never saying I was depressed; in several cases, I wasn't aware that it was happening again) led to delayed deadlines or other concessions. I happened to be in university during a particularly bad bout of depression and a classmate took me to the university clinic. My classmate had a conversation with the doctor before I saw the doctor (I can only imagine what was said). That was the first time I was formally diagnosed, and it was the first time I was prescribed anti-depressants. As I mentioned previously, I have a lot of academic family ties, and I hear about situations like this very frequently. I've never heard about similar support in a non-academic workplace.
> I simply assumed I wasn't smart enough to graduate, much less do physics. In retrospect I see this obviously wasn't true, since I'm happily reading a quantum field theory book in my spare time now and, as I said before, ended up being one of the better students in some of my classes. But if you'd asked me at the time I'd have probably just rambled a bunch of guesses and speculation. I suppose my point is that, even following those suggestions, some people will still fall through the cracks. And also that most of these institutions are just bureaucratic monoliths that aren't built to be flexible with every students particular needs and such.
Remember that institutions, even bureaucratic monolithic institutions, are made of people. In my experience, the people in academic institutions are particularly helpful if they know, or even just suspect, that a student needs help. The biggest single success factor I've seen is having a mentor (hence my last tip). This is not to say that you can succeed without a lot of hard work, but having a mentor helps you find the help that you need, when you need it (e.g., taking you to the doctor to be diagnosed with depression; getting an interlibrary loan ASAP; giving you career advice; letting you know where you rank in your program).
> The bias there tends to be heavily towards the institutions, too, since students who do poorly are just deemed slackers or unfit for college, instead of considering it a systemic or structural aspect of the system that favors certain people and situations over others. Even the stereotypical "partiers" who drink their way through college could be viewed as a systemic result of a toxic social environment. I believe there was another comment here to the effect of "this is college and you're done with baby hand-holding," which is true in one sense, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse to disregard anyone doing badly in the system or a particular school as acceptable attrition for a just-good-enough educational system.
This is extremely institution-specific. I have seen and heard about institutions, or departments, like this, but I've experienced and heard about many more that are vested in their students' success, both in and out of the classroom. If you can complete your bachelors degree at a small, private institution, I'd highly recommend it! (I've never heard of a small, private institution that wasn't extremely vested in their students' success in and out of class.) I wish I had known when I was an undergrad that there were "free" options (they aren't actually free, but are extremely low-cost). The only free college that I can vouch for (i.e. I know a successful alumnus who speaks highly of the experience) is http://www.deepsprings.edu/home and it only awards associate degrees. The friend I know who is an alumnus is now a professor in the sciences at a top university. He credits much of his academic success to his experiences at and friendships from Deep Springs.
"Deserve" seems to be a highly-loaded word here. If you can't remember anything taught in a class a year after taking it, do you really "deserve" credit for learning it? How would such a thing even be measured, let alone enforced?
Again, this is the job of the university. A degree is a university vouching for the education of a student. So what I mean is the university should only give degrees to those students that the university deems worthy. The problem is that that bar is too low for too many universities, or the bar is in wrong place altogether.
This is a fair point.
However, now that college loans are collateralized, I don't think many college students really feel the pain and stake put into getting a college education.
I took courses at a community college for a stint. The courses I took during the day were drastically different from the courses I took during the night.
The day classes were filled with young college kids, not much different from the classes I took at Ohio State, all "clocking in" to put in their time.
The night classes were filled with professionals trying to get a Business Administration degree. They all work full time. Many have families that they are giving up time with to spend in class. Many are paying for college on their own, or through their jobs. The level of maturity and interest was significantly higher.
Justifying humanities is a bit more difficult. There are no observable practical employment opportunities with the humanities. Instead, they are meant to open up self-awareness, to give words and expression to one's own narrative, and in coming to greater understanding of self, it helps one to better navigate in the world. You don't get into the humanities to be able to get a job. You get into the humanities to get a handle on your life. In some ways, this is a much more profound education than an engineering program that teaches you how to make stuff. And I wonder, what would happen for those night school folks who self-select into humanities?
However, now that college loans are collateralized, I don't think many college students really feel the pain and stake put into getting a college education.
I took courses at a community college for a stint. The courses I took during the day were drastically different from the courses I took during the night.
The day classes were filled with young college kids, not much different from the classes I took at Ohio State, all "clocking in" to put in their time.
The night classes were filled with professionals trying to get a Business Administration degree. They all work full time. Many have families that they are giving up time with to spend in class. Many are paying for college on their own, or through their jobs. The level of maturity and interest was significantly higher.
Justifying humanities is a bit more difficult. There are no observable practical employment opportunities with the humanities. Instead, they are meant to open up self-awareness, to give words and expression to one's own narrative, and in coming to greater understanding of self, it helps one to better navigate in the world. You don't get into the humanities to be able to get a job. You get into the humanities to get a handle on your life. In some ways, this is a much more profound education than an engineering program that teaches you how to make stuff. And I wonder, what would happen for those night school folks who self-select into humanities?
I agree with you re: humanities. I should also say that I think it's a shame if what's "useful" is the only thing that we, as a society, decide to focus on. What about literature, art, and culture? Should we just content ourselves with Hollywood blockbusters and reality TV?
We pretend to publish, they pretend to pay.
- The Wall Street Wall
- The Wall Street Wall
What would make you pay to read this article?
Is it the price? The effort of typing in all your details? Would you be willing to one-click purchase it for $1 ? $0.1 ?
Is it the price? The effort of typing in all your details? Would you be willing to one-click purchase it for $1 ? $0.1 ?
I wanted to read it, and considered paying since it claimed to be a mere $1, then realized my main interest in reading it was simply that it confirmed my prejudices about the (non-)educational system. Kind of silly to pay for an op-ed just to reinforce stuff you already think to be true, as opposed to paying for new information or debunking your false beliefs, so I think I'll save that dollar. Plus there's the google cache link below.
And this is the key reason why micropayment schemes don't work.
If they were effectively priced, the decision cost of trying to figure out if an item was worth purchasing or not would exceed the value of virtually all content.
It's why bundled subscriptions became popular, at a time when these were tied to a service (delivery by the publisher) and a set of enabling technologies (low-cost printing, paper, and ink). Even if a given article within the magazine, or a given issue in the year, left you wanting, the gross price was about right. And the result was achieved: people could share and commonly discuss ideas.
With Web-based publishing, the tollgate which postal delivery afforded is gone, and an alternative business model is wanted. And the result is that we're not discussing the content of the article (pretty light, BTW, from Google cache), but of the publishing model itself.
Twist: Though that topic is HN-worthy in its own right.
If they were effectively priced, the decision cost of trying to figure out if an item was worth purchasing or not would exceed the value of virtually all content.
It's why bundled subscriptions became popular, at a time when these were tied to a service (delivery by the publisher) and a set of enabling technologies (low-cost printing, paper, and ink). Even if a given article within the magazine, or a given issue in the year, left you wanting, the gross price was about right. And the result was achieved: people could share and commonly discuss ideas.
With Web-based publishing, the tollgate which postal delivery afforded is gone, and an alternative business model is wanted. And the result is that we're not discussing the content of the article (pretty light, BTW, from Google cache), but of the publishing model itself.
Twist: Though that topic is HN-worthy in its own right.
It is an opinion piece, and marked as such. I can't imagine being willing to pay for an opinion, certainly not from an author I don't know.
But people will donate to an author or organization that consistently publish (freely) arguments for opinions they happen to agree with.
NRA or ACLU would be examples of such organizations.
But people will donate to an author or organization that consistently publish (freely) arguments for opinions they happen to agree with.
NRA or ACLU would be examples of such organizations.
> What would make you pay to read this article?
I'd have to expect the article to be reasonably capable of surprising me with well researched, well formulated arguments that change how I think about the issue. I don't think a paper that provides such a promise exists.
Being in the position of not having read the article my only information on it is it's an opinion piece about education and it's in the WSJ.
So I don't expect it to be well researched, well formulated, or surprising. "Oh, well, it's an opinion" -well, look: opinions are cheap enough that excellent opinions on the subject, from very intelligent people, are just given away:
http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/decline.htm
And I don't consider all opinions equal in the first place, there are various degrees of being informed, various degrees of bias.
I could write an opinion piece about how gutted I was to go to university and realise that by and large I'd already surpassed the curriculum in my own studies. How I went to university to be asked questions and go and find the answers, not to sit in a lecture hall listening to some toff read their powerpoint stack at us while we tried not to fall asleep. How even if you wanted to try something hard and new, (and could find something,) the fact is that university is competitive vs your other classmates, and if you try something hard and none of your classmates do - given that the courses will offer equal points (points only being given on time in the lectures and not on 'hardness' - all course being scored out of 20 - thus better to take multiple easy courses and score well in them than a few hard courses and score mediocre, even if you've learned a lot more in the latter) then you'll get worse grades than them.
... But, really, would you pay to hear me say that? I hope not.
As long as most papers are written for most people, and most people don't put much study in to events that don't directly impact their lives, the value of such is going to be low to me. Reducible almost entirely to the headline that an event took place - commentary as something skimmed over if bothered with at all.
I'd have to expect the article to be reasonably capable of surprising me with well researched, well formulated arguments that change how I think about the issue. I don't think a paper that provides such a promise exists.
Being in the position of not having read the article my only information on it is it's an opinion piece about education and it's in the WSJ.
So I don't expect it to be well researched, well formulated, or surprising. "Oh, well, it's an opinion" -well, look: opinions are cheap enough that excellent opinions on the subject, from very intelligent people, are just given away:
http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/decline.htm
And I don't consider all opinions equal in the first place, there are various degrees of being informed, various degrees of bias.
I could write an opinion piece about how gutted I was to go to university and realise that by and large I'd already surpassed the curriculum in my own studies. How I went to university to be asked questions and go and find the answers, not to sit in a lecture hall listening to some toff read their powerpoint stack at us while we tried not to fall asleep. How even if you wanted to try something hard and new, (and could find something,) the fact is that university is competitive vs your other classmates, and if you try something hard and none of your classmates do - given that the courses will offer equal points (points only being given on time in the lectures and not on 'hardness' - all course being scored out of 20 - thus better to take multiple easy courses and score well in them than a few hard courses and score mediocre, even if you've learned a lot more in the latter) then you'll get worse grades than them.
... But, really, would you pay to hear me say that? I hope not.
As long as most papers are written for most people, and most people don't put much study in to events that don't directly impact their lives, the value of such is going to be low to me. Reducible almost entirely to the headline that an event took place - commentary as something skimmed over if bothered with at all.
Yeah, the system's fucked up on many facets. Government handing out no-strings-attached-until-it-matters monies by the bucketfuls, your average high school counselor drilling into student's heads to "Apply, apply, apply! You better be applying to colleges and working on those college essays!", colleges more bloated than your uncle after Thanksgiving with bureaucratic puss, disillusioned professors whose wages stagnate while the football and basketball programs get new buckets of cash...
We can go on and on with the external reasons. They're all valid. But could we spare some blame for lazy-as-fuck kids who go to class drunk (if at all) and waste their time playing the new Call of Duty? What about their listless parents who barely ever stuck their nose in their kids' high school lives? You know how at every college orientation they rattle off to you everything that goes on there and all the different clubs, all that shit they shove in kid's faces? They want them to become engaged and take advantage of what the school has to offer. Networking. I despise that word but the more connections one gets and the more they get involved in is how the job's are going to be landed. It's not about what one knows anymore.
That, and being prudent about your program choice helps too. We know art history is cool...but cmon.
We can go on and on with the external reasons. They're all valid. But could we spare some blame for lazy-as-fuck kids who go to class drunk (if at all) and waste their time playing the new Call of Duty? What about their listless parents who barely ever stuck their nose in their kids' high school lives? You know how at every college orientation they rattle off to you everything that goes on there and all the different clubs, all that shit they shove in kid's faces? They want them to become engaged and take advantage of what the school has to offer. Networking. I despise that word but the more connections one gets and the more they get involved in is how the job's are going to be landed. It's not about what one knows anymore.
That, and being prudent about your program choice helps too. We know art history is cool...but cmon.
There was a time when studying at university was about more than simply preparing young people for employment. It was about studying something in depth, at a high level. And actually, I don't happen to think it's a waste of time to study art, or history, or literature.
Now that university has become simply about getting a qualification that looks good on your resume, is it any wonder that people don't take it seriously, especially when the jobs market looks mostly hopeless for young people?
Now that university has become simply about getting a qualification that looks good on your resume, is it any wonder that people don't take it seriously, especially when the jobs market looks mostly hopeless for young people?
> And actually, I don't happen to think it's a waste of time to study art, or history, or literature.
It's not a waste, but it's a waste on many. Basically, there are two core questions we have a species: how we live and why we live. art, history, and literature help answer the why and the how is very clearly answered by the sciences/engineering.
Honestly, people just going to college for a future job is a waste of their time, the professor's time, and college resources.
If I had the time, I would enjoy taking a literature or art class these days.
It's not a waste, but it's a waste on many. Basically, there are two core questions we have a species: how we live and why we live. art, history, and literature help answer the why and the how is very clearly answered by the sciences/engineering.
Honestly, people just going to college for a future job is a waste of their time, the professor's time, and college resources.
If I had the time, I would enjoy taking a literature or art class these days.
I'd love to take another few semester's of Great Books. But would I love to pay $1800 to take it? Not so much.
The current prices for college only make sense if you are preparing for a good career. Very few people would willingly go $50,000 in debt to learn for the sake of pure learning.
The current prices for college only make sense if you are preparing for a good career. Very few people would willingly go $50,000 in debt to learn for the sake of pure learning.
This is why I think supply and demand should apply to college classes.
It wasn't a waste on the San Quentin immates: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6953465
There was a much earlier article... I forgot where. A long article about the power of the humanities for those living in the poverty line. Granted, the participants were self-selected, were open to this, but they were also hungry for this kind of knowledge and wisdom.
Engineering colleges and the modern form of Universities, I think, will split off on its own as what is essential vocational school. And the "good stuff" will be reserved for the elite and the folks who dare step outside the box.
There was a much earlier article... I forgot where. A long article about the power of the humanities for those living in the poverty line. Granted, the participants were self-selected, were open to this, but they were also hungry for this kind of knowledge and wisdom.
Engineering colleges and the modern form of Universities, I think, will split off on its own as what is essential vocational school. And the "good stuff" will be reserved for the elite and the folks who dare step outside the box.
There was a time when studying at university was about more than simply preparing young people for employment. It was about studying something in depth, at a high level.
This. When I was in high school, and college, I assumed this was the reason they taught math as heavily as they did. Kids would whine "but I won't ever need to know calculus" (or, worse, algebra) ... but I figured being able to learn something that deeply, consistently, from many different professors over many years is proof (to future employers, for example) that you can learn something you will need.
This. When I was in high school, and college, I assumed this was the reason they taught math as heavily as they did. Kids would whine "but I won't ever need to know calculus" (or, worse, algebra) ... but I figured being able to learn something that deeply, consistently, from many different professors over many years is proof (to future employers, for example) that you can learn something you will need.
One of the classes that had impact on me at college was "Sources of Social Order." I was a very socially awkward and defensive kid, and it was a beginning for me to understand people better. Of course, it would have been better for me to learn organically on the playground instead of like an anthropologist watching apes, but then we can blame high school instead of university :)
I think the problem is that students aren't even thinking about the job market (or at least the kind of student the OP refers to in the article). They assume it as a given that they will get a job. All the children are above average, and that sort of thing.
Did you read the same article I did? There was plenty of blame to heap on the kids, though it's rational (ctrl-F for mini-max).
The problem is that the article just isn't particularly useful. It's an editorial, so fine, whatever. But it's long on anecdata and short on anything concrete. I'm hesitant to blame students for a system they didn't invent, don't run, and have approximately zero responsibility for. You just aren't thinking on this level at age 18.
Also, if people chose to occupy themselves only with what's "useful" (e.g. not art history), it would impoverish our culture. But I agree that kids need to be realistic about the relationship between their choice and their later prospects-- I agree it is a trade-off.
The problem is that the article just isn't particularly useful. It's an editorial, so fine, whatever. But it's long on anecdata and short on anything concrete. I'm hesitant to blame students for a system they didn't invent, don't run, and have approximately zero responsibility for. You just aren't thinking on this level at age 18.
Also, if people chose to occupy themselves only with what's "useful" (e.g. not art history), it would impoverish our culture. But I agree that kids need to be realistic about the relationship between their choice and their later prospects-- I agree it is a trade-off.
The article gives plenty of blame to students.
The root problem is simple to define -- The assumption that professors have been able to make, historically, is that university students are there because they are motivated. With everyone going to college, that is no longer the case.
Students are there because society at large has demanded that they be there. A college degree has transformed from a certificate of achievement into a proof of purchase that HR departments must validate in exchange for an offer of employment. The Universities are only too happy to play along with the charade as they hoover up increasingly absurd tuitions. The increase in tuition is yet another bubble being driven by "too big to fail" banks, this time saddling what are for all intents and purposes children with crippling lifelong debt which is conveniently immune from bankruptcy protection. Sometime soon the music will stop and all that's left is to find out who's going to be left without a chair. One thing that the previous bubble should have taught us is that it won't be the banks who are left holding the bag, which means it's between the universities and the students.
If I was running a University right now, I'd be very worried. The many and sundry administrators in particular should be asking themselves what's going to happen when universities suddenly find themselves in the position of having to cut their budgets by 50% or more of their current levels due to the sudden lack student financing options and the inability of students to pay even a fraction of current tuition levels. For that matter the worth or need of a degree in a great many fields will likely be called into question quite soon.
If I was running a University right now, I'd be very worried. The many and sundry administrators in particular should be asking themselves what's going to happen when universities suddenly find themselves in the position of having to cut their budgets by 50% or more of their current levels due to the sudden lack student financing options and the inability of students to pay even a fraction of current tuition levels. For that matter the worth or need of a degree in a great many fields will likely be called into question quite soon.
The universities are top heavy with "Associate Vice Provost of Faculty Diversity" and other such bullshit admin pukes pulling down $300K per year for made up jobs, while the actual teaching is done by adjuncts who get literally raped by the universities who pay them a couple thousand dollars a course and cobble together a handful of courses to teach to break into the five figure salary range without health insurance or benefits. It's a travesty.
I don't mean to sound elitist, but it's not like he's teaching math at Courant or CS at MIT. What does he expect from students with the "default" major at a school which accepts 91% of applicants [1]?
[1] http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/...