Should the Obama Generation Drop Out?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Should the Obama Generation Drop Out?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28murray.html
22 comments
The author is assuming that what employers look for in a degree is a specific skill. It is not. It is a general ability to deal with hard, ill-defined work, and the persistence to keep at it despite the length of it (4 years seems awfully long when you're 18). It's about the ability to socialise with widely different groups of people and get along with them.
University isn't about job training, no matter how some people might want it to be. It's not about what you learn, it's about learning to learn.
University isn't about job training, no matter how some people might want it to be. It's not about what you learn, it's about learning to learn.
Colleges should focus more on serving needs and less on ineffective preaching. My experience as a TA in 101/102 level courses is that there is no use at all in subject requirements to encourage a breadth of knowledge in students. These only serve to teach students that university is largely bureaucratic bullshit. Give students the freedom to choose the courses they want. Requirements just encourage lowest common denominator behavior in both students and academic departments.
I would argue that allowing anyone to choose whatever courses they want (outside of degree requirements) would not discourage lowest common denominator behavior. It would facilitate that even more (e.g. Accounting + Non-stop PE).
But, since our job is also not to support the LCD but the GCD, I would still support this. I would have taken more Japanese, or possibly another language, if I didn't have to take Geology. I likely would have also substituted more Philosophy for Communications. That would have been a better supplement to my CS coursework and wouldn't have made me a less well-rounded person.
But, since our job is also not to support the LCD but the GCD, I would still support this. I would have taken more Japanese, or possibly another language, if I didn't have to take Geology. I likely would have also substituted more Philosophy for Communications. That would have been a better supplement to my CS coursework and wouldn't have made me a less well-rounded person.
That is my point! I am all for not discouraging Lowest Common Denominator behavior. You can't prevent it. Actively trying to prevent it causes such LCD behavior to leak into and pollute the efforts of GCD students. Instead, universities should focus their effort on serving the needs of those who want to learn. Coercion just backfires.
I could've done a much better job in my Computer Science 101/102 courses if I could just teach the people who really wanted to study the material, and not people who just wanted to get out of the math requirement.
I could've done a much better job in my Computer Science 101/102 courses if I could just teach the people who really wanted to study the material, and not people who just wanted to get out of the math requirement.
The author of this article, Charles Murray, is best known for writing "The Bell Curve", which argued that biological factors determine intelligence, and intelligence determines success. I don't agree with his premise that only 10% of university students are innately capable of a hard-science curriculum. Intelligence is just a coefficient to effort. Being a genius certainly helps, but most people could get through a science or engineering program if they were willing to put in the work.
OTOH, he is correct that BA degrees have little relevance in the modern economy. They persist as a relic from the role liberal-arts colleges played before WW2 in conferring educational pedigrees on upper-class men. Higher education is much more egalitarian today, but we're still aping the educational practices of that era.
As a general rule, I don't think anyone should spend the time or money on a degree that they aren't going to use after graduation.
OTOH, he is correct that BA degrees have little relevance in the modern economy. They persist as a relic from the role liberal-arts colleges played before WW2 in conferring educational pedigrees on upper-class men. Higher education is much more egalitarian today, but we're still aping the educational practices of that era.
As a general rule, I don't think anyone should spend the time or money on a degree that they aren't going to use after graduation.
Nobody is forcing anybody to get a bachelor's degree.
Or, nobody _should_ be forcing anybody to get a bachelor's degree. It should be completely up to the kid going through the schooling to make up their own mind.
I can't tell you how many times I've gotten stuff (work, tips, useful stuff, etc) not through my schooling but through the people I know, but I'm still going through my bachelor's degree/master's degree hopefully a few of these/PhD because I want to.
If you don't like what you're doing, do something else while you're still young. You most likely have a place to live (parents) and some form of ambition, but if you decide to go through a useless bachelor's degree (I'm not saying that bachelor's degrees are useless, just getting an unused bachelor's degree is) that's your problem and you don't have the right to complain. Just do something about it!
Or, nobody _should_ be forcing anybody to get a bachelor's degree. It should be completely up to the kid going through the schooling to make up their own mind.
I can't tell you how many times I've gotten stuff (work, tips, useful stuff, etc) not through my schooling but through the people I know, but I'm still going through my bachelor's degree/master's degree hopefully a few of these/PhD because I want to.
If you don't like what you're doing, do something else while you're still young. You most likely have a place to live (parents) and some form of ambition, but if you decide to go through a useless bachelor's degree (I'm not saying that bachelor's degrees are useless, just getting an unused bachelor's degree is) that's your problem and you don't have the right to complain. Just do something about it!
"You most likely have a place to live (parents)"
Lots of young people are turned out of home when they reach adult age. I wouldn't assume that any particular nineteen-year-old has anywhere else to live but a place where he is paying rent.
Lots of young people are turned out of home when they reach adult age. I wouldn't assume that any particular nineteen-year-old has anywhere else to live but a place where he is paying rent.
"Lots of young people are turned out of home when they reach adult age."
I'm 30 and I've never met or heard of one in the last fifteen years or so. I'm sure such young people exist, but I doubt there are "lots" of them anymore.
I'm 30 and I've never met or heard of one in the last fifteen years or so. I'm sure such young people exist, but I doubt there are "lots" of them anymore.
"I'm 30 and I've never met or heard of one in the last fifteen years or so."
What circles do you hang out in?
I'm considerably older, and perhaps I've lived in more different places too.
What circles do you hang out in?
I'm considerably older, and perhaps I've lived in more different places too.
wow, my experience is just the opposite. I'm 40, but I'm guessing its not a generation thing as I have plenty of friends from age 20 through 60. Where do you live and what social circles do you run in? I am legitimately curious here. You may have discovered a pocket of utopia.
Friends?
This seems like a good follow-up to the thread elicited by pg's article "After Credentials."
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=399863
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=399863
Except for the freakishly gifted, all of us are too dumb to get through college in many majors.
Disagree strongly. Most people are too undisciplined to get through the "hard" majors, or too uninterested to get through the "softer" ones (e.g. engineers who claim they couldn't have done a history major).
I agree that not everyone should be going to college. A proportion higher than 10% doesn't make sense to me. However, I'd guess that 20-40% have enough raw intellectual ability to pass through college with decent grades, and that 5-10% could complete virtually any major. The important point is that, although a quarter or more have the intellectual mettle to get through college, they have no interest in the coursework, and are going through the motions only to be employable.
I'll also point out that American college students are not working full-throttle. At demanding colleges (Ivies, MIT, top LACs) they might average 30-40 hours per week on classes and homework. At "average" colleges-- filled mostly by students who don't belong there for reasons of motivation (to get a job) rather than ability-- it's closer to 10-20.
Disagree strongly. Most people are too undisciplined to get through the "hard" majors, or too uninterested to get through the "softer" ones (e.g. engineers who claim they couldn't have done a history major).
I agree that not everyone should be going to college. A proportion higher than 10% doesn't make sense to me. However, I'd guess that 20-40% have enough raw intellectual ability to pass through college with decent grades, and that 5-10% could complete virtually any major. The important point is that, although a quarter or more have the intellectual mettle to get through college, they have no interest in the coursework, and are going through the motions only to be employable.
I'll also point out that American college students are not working full-throttle. At demanding colleges (Ivies, MIT, top LACs) they might average 30-40 hours per week on classes and homework. At "average" colleges-- filled mostly by students who don't belong there for reasons of motivation (to get a job) rather than ability-- it's closer to 10-20.
At demanding colleges (Ivies, MIT, top LACs) they might average 30-40 hours per week on classes and homework.
Not true, at least as you state it. When I was at MIT, I was spending about 30-40 hours per week on homework for a single class. Not all my classes were this hard, but there was at least one ball-buster per term. And I was far from alone in this regard.
Not true, at least as you state it. When I was at MIT, I was spending about 30-40 hours per week on homework for a single class. Not all my classes were this hard, but there was at least one ball-buster per term. And I was far from alone in this regard.
I kept MIT manageable by (1) majoring in math and (2) settling for Bs. They keep cramming more material into engineering programs without taking anything out. Math was better in that regard. A lot of MIT students even managed to do extracurriculars without having to drop out.
Fair call. MIT is known to be hard and I know nothing about it, so I'll defer to you on this one. I was just listing it on the roster of "demanding colleges". Evidently, MIT is in a league of its own when it comes to being demanding.
From what I've heard, Caltech and Harvey-Mudd are in that league. Some from Caltech would tell you that it's higher there.
I've heard Cornell and Swarthmore are too - those are other colleges with a "throw work at you until you break" reputation. And Harvard is if you want an A, but 80% of Harvard students get Bs anyway, so most figure they'll just settle for that and work about as hard as any other liberal arts college.
Amherst was usually about 20-30 hours/week between classes and homework, except when I took Quantum Mechanics or OS Design, each of which required 20-30 hours/week by itself.
Amherst was usually about 20-30 hours/week between classes and homework, except when I took Quantum Mechanics or OS Design, each of which required 20-30 hours/week by itself.
To quote my freshmen year English professor, "Anything is hard if you do it well."
I went to a decent state school, but I averaged more than 40 hours a week on classes and class work. Most of my classes were computer science, math and physics. I wanted to do well in things that were hard, so it was hard.
But I do agree with your main point: it's not lack of intelligence that prevents people from getting through certain majors. It's mostly a lack of motivation and work ethic.
I went to a decent state school, but I averaged more than 40 hours a week on classes and class work. Most of my classes were computer science, math and physics. I wanted to do well in things that were hard, so it was hard.
But I do agree with your main point: it's not lack of intelligence that prevents people from getting through certain majors. It's mostly a lack of motivation and work ethic.
1) The cultural reason. A lot of politics is cultural; most people have a self image, and pick a party to fit that image. The self image of Obama's party: smart/educated/cultured, not to mention altruistic. Providing education is viewed as a morally virtuous act ("give something back", with "in return for money and excellent job security" being unstated), not merely a professional choice.
De-emphasize education? Sacrilege. It's like suggesting a religious conservative should de-emphasize traditional hetero marriage. Good luck with that.
2) It goes strongly against the interests of Obama and his party: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=W04