College for profit, or college for culture?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

So it is and isn't ridiculous at the same time.

I think your circular reasoning must be explainable by a belief you're holding deep down.

Tell me, do you believe these individuals who are not capable of gaining knowledge outside their immediate interests are worthy of a college education?

I always thought college was meant for intelligent individuals who have already gained high proficiency in the skill of self-learning. That was, until I stepped foot inside a college center.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

What kind of idiot do you have to be to not know how to learn, or even more to the point... to be instructed on how to learn? That's just ridiculous.

Why is it rubbish ?.....

Here ...

In fact, research suggests that explicit instruction in critical thinking may make kids smarter, more independent, and more creative. - See more at: www.parentingscience.com...

www.parentingscience.com...

What makes sense to you may not make sense to someone else, thinking skills are taught, sometimes though they are not learned

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Tell me, do you believe these individuals who are not capable of gaining knowledge outside their immediate interests are worthy of a college education?

I believe there are very few people who are not capable of gaining knowledge if they are taught how to do it- and yes, everyone is worthy of a real college education.

When we were kids, and asked our parents "what does this mean", they said "LOOK IT UP!"

I always thought college was meant for intelligent individuals who have already gained high proficiency in the skill of self-learning. That was, until I stepped foot inside a college center.

Not sure what your point is. There are far too many "colleges" that leave out the broad-based education that is required in a quality university.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Awesome post. Thanks....!

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

You missed the point. They know how to learn. What is being taught is a certain style of learning, which is perfectly acceptable. What I had issue with was the implication that people learn how to think in school. That just makes no sense. People learn how to think long before they ever reach a classroom. They may be guided into particular styles of thought, but that doesn't mean it's the best way for the individual to process information and go about their lives in this world.

I just have issue with the snootiness that surrounds academia. Institutions reek of group thinking patterns that lead way to confirmation bias, and then they use their supposed prestigious status to try and push other people onto the same erroneous thought processes. It just weirds me out. I get weirded out the same in church as I do in some school settings. Very constricting.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

What I had issue with was the implication that people learn how to think in school. That just makes no sense. People learn how to think long before they ever reach a classroom.

I'm pretty sure I said they "learn how to LEARN" - not learn 'how to think'.

I think you're confused. "Critical thinking" is not the same as just general 'thinking'.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Learn how to learn, huh?

Do you not see the problem with this statement?

You said, "TEACH YOU HOW TO LEARN".

Let's put two and two together. You use all caps, then confuse the original statement.

Now you're not teaching, you're showing people how to "learn how to learn".

This isn't circular for no good reason. I wonder if you can learn how to unlearn. I'm more for teaching that right now.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Learn how to learn, huh?

Do you not see the problem with this statement?

No, I don't.
No problem with that statement at all.

Learning how to learn means whether you are in class or not. It is taught from childhood by good parents.

Critical thinking is being able to look at what you are being "taught" and not take it as truth until you do further research.



A good education TEACHES YOU HOW TO LEARN. You learn how to LEARN.....

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Man, you seriously believe that most people can be given a high-quality education and that this ideal leads to something good.

Such a lack of common sense right there. I'll just leave you to your blind faith.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Whatever. Snooty or not - education in the USA needs to go further than rote basics.
It needs to expose kids and youths to how they can "Look it up!" even if their 'teacher' doesn't have the answers. Furthermore, a good teacher will always welcome questions -
good teachers learn a lot from their students by paying attention to their questions and THINKING critically about them.

End of convo with you.

It's very clear that you don't have kids, and that you don't know much about teaching them.


'Learning how to learn' vital for student survival

"Learning how to learn" is the single most important teaching objective for universities as they prepare students for a 21st-century version of Darwin's survival of the fittest, a conference has heard.

Instead of adapting to the physical environment, today's graduates need to be flexible and able to respond quickly to an ever-changing intellectual environment, Alison Halstead, pro vice-chancellor for learning and teaching innovation at Aston University, was due to tell the Higher Education Academy's annual conference in Manchester this week.

"Today's students need much more than knowledge of their subject," Professor Halstead told Times Higher Education.

"In today's world, two of the key skills we need are to be flexible and adapt willingly and quickly. This agility enables us to survive according to Darwinian arguments. However, it is not the physical environment that we need to adapt to, but the intellectual one."

The biggest challenge to that objective is that young people are "spoon-fed" knowledge for school examinations, Professor Halstead said.

*mic drop*

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

My god you have proved so many of my points with each successive post. You're nearly 6ft under by now.

Circular Reasoning

So let me get this right, the fool in your club must know what he's talking about, right?

To be fair, I totally get what he's saying, and would agree, but damned you have a really hard time trying to get your point across without being large hypocrite. You're mostly putting up strawmen and making far-reaching assumptions. It's just weird, man.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

suck it up, buttercup. Kids need to know how to learn stuff even if their teachers aren't talking about it, or are lying about it.
Deny Ignorance.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I just hope you come back to this with a clear head and realize how far down your own rabbit hole you traveled. Go look back at the post title, and see what you choose to focus on. You wanted to win the debate, so decided to go all tunnel vision and off-topic.

Good work.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

What kind of idiot do you have to be to not know how to learn, or even more to the point... to be instructed on how to learn? That's just ridiculous.

I could be wrong,but I think Buzzywigs meant that University's teach you how to conduct extensive research and effective methods to learn new or updated knowledge on a given subject or course that can be effectively applied to your academic pursuits and/or career oriented goals. Not a hard concept to wrap one's mind around.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: NateTheAnimator

See this is one thing I don't get why the hell am I paying for a job and why doesn't the company take any responsibility for paying for my education especially if it's to benefit you more than anything else.

What kind of ass backwards society are we running?

It's not that easy for everyone to run their own business anymore you know?

Because in US culture it's just not feasible. It's not like in Japan for example, where you work for a company, are loyal to them, and they're loyal to you in return (but even that has been tested in recent years). In the US the whole employer/employee relationship is less of a partnership based on loyalty, trust, and a potential lifetime of work and more of a mercenary relationship based on the short term.

I think I was alive to see the start of this with the 80's, but maybe it goes back further. What I saw growing up was WW2 vets and baby boomers in the mid-end of their careers. The WW2 vets got their pensions, the gold watches, and sometimes some other perks after 40 years of service. Once those guys were gone though Reaganomics hit, and everyone was out for themselves.

Why should a company invest in you if you're going to take those skills and move on to a better job after getting a little bit of experience? They pay the cost, a competitor reaps the rewards. Instead the corporation sees the better business move to be the contractor pays for their own education, and anything else needed. It's less risk and overhead for the company, and they would be paying the same wage either way.

One of the saddest days of my life, was watching my dad, then 50ish after working his way up from literally the lowest job in the company to the highest through 25 years of hard work with the same company get replaced by a kid fresh out of college, with no experience. That incident didn't end his career (just with that company), but it taught me a lot about how companies view even their top employees. In business in the US there is no loyalty between employers and employees, I'm not sure who broke the trust first, and I'm not sure it matters. That's the way it is though, so that's the way it needs to be approached.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
There are people with more than 1 degree who have crap for success in their careers, and in my field perhaps dozens of certifications which amount to very little if they can't go the extra mile and perform on the spot. People need to see through the standards and supposed correct path and forge their own as it makes sense to them. I create opportunities, not wait for a piece of paper to present to another employer looking over hundreds of applicants who have that same near worthless piece of paper.

This has gone way more personal than I would prefer already with the previous reply so I'll continue the trend. I'm once of those with multiple degrees and what I would consider crap for success. I have 4 degrees (they're all somewhat related so there's a lot of crossover knowledge). I have had the opportunity to work on some very cool things:
I got to work at RIOT and do some stuff for League
I got to work at SOE and do a lot of stuff for EQ which it was still a relevant game
Civilization 4 which I play nightly (old game, but probably the best game this millennium) has an upper difficulty AI based strongly around my playstyle at the time, because I got to work on it with the developer and I was really good at the game at one point.
I've gotten to design/render 3d cartoons, animated with motion capture.
I've gotten to make database driven apps, fully designing the back end and multiple front ends for different user access levels.
I've gotten to take house blueprints, fully convert them into 3d models of homes, and offer virtual tours of a home before the first beam is even brought to the site.
And others.

In every case however, it's simply contract work. These types of jobs claim a permanent position will happen after an initial hire, but as I've found, actually doing the job is the best way to not make it full time because then they have nothing else for you to do. Full time positions in this case would inherently involve not doing some of the work, and then saying it needs more time, rather than being knocked out in a couple weeks. No good faith from the employer on hiring, and if the employee actually completes the job properly, the reward is being out of a job.

hey - just another swipe at useless degrees in irrelevant subjects

onver the last 24 hours - i have conducted a straw poll of 20 associates - and with 8 responses [ and a further 5 apriori ]- i think i can make a case

i just asked one question : did you have a job carreer lined up before you left university

and with 11 yes and 2 no the trend is pretty clear

of course - all job offers were conditional on them getting a first - or i some cases 1st or 2nd

the only bias is that the 5 i already knew would say yes - were the reason for the question to the other 20

further bias is the fact that most of my friends - and all the respondants have degrees in STEM feilds

i think that this is indicative of the ` big picture ` - but i would say that

but i would like to see a ` real ` poll conducted on a 2000 graduate poll group - with industry standard safeguards against bias

College is a scam anymore. The notion these institutions are not-for-profit, regardless of their tax filing status, is a farce beyond all reason! It's a "club" you buy your way into to get a piece of paper so you can get a job. They know it, you know it and everyone else knows it.

I went to college 30 years ago, and even then it had all the trimmings of an elitist "club" which left a bad taste. Now I see college grads who can't even spell the simplest words let alone write a complete sentence. I was interviewing people for a position we had open a while back and was just SHOCKED at what I saw. Resumes with glaring spelling and grammatical errors...on a persons OWN resume!! What with spell-check and every other modern tool available the simple fact some of these "college grads" couldn't even get their own resume right was/is stunning! And it's not just resumes and new hires either. I see it every day, "college" grads who are incapable of forming a coherent thought, making a reasoned argument or getting their head around the simplest of problems. It's unbelievable.

I find myself saying out loud..."How did some of these people EVER make it through college?????" The truth is, they probably didn't, at least not the type of "college" I remember.

Everywhere you look now days there's a college. They're on-line, they advertise on TV; they pander to every Tom, Dick and Harry imaginable. And people think they're not for profit???? Seriously?? They're ALL ABOUT profit, and nothing else.

It is no longer about the "education" component, it's all about the shingle on the wall (no matter how one gets it). They are mills, machines, churning out degrees for anyone who has enough money to buy their way in. And, if one doesn't have enough money to pay, they'll even arrange for the federal government to pay for them (at the taxpayers expense). It's sham, a flim-flam operation.

Oh, and about that position I was interviewing for...I wound up hiring a guy with NO degree. He could speak, he could write and he has SKILLS. He's practical, disciplined and reasoned...far more than I saw in any of the other candidates who had a "college degree". All those other candidates acted like they were "ENTITTLED" (intentional spelling/grammar error) to a job because of their degree as they were members of the "club", right?

HOGWASH! You BET it's for profit, not necessarily for the bottom line, but for the players in the game.

a reply to: onequestion

College/University should be about education and experience and available to all our children, and not just the ones who's family can afford it. Education should never be about profit and debt.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

nice annecdote bro

but without context ie :

what was the vacancy you were hiring for

what had the graduates degrees in ?

what skills did the none grad have ?

i know a young lady who can juggle 5 snooker balls - its a skill - but she is not in the circus so it has only entertainment value . however the fact that she has a degree in mech eng. secured her current job working for the rail network

see - context is everything - and to add to my post above yours she has now replied - confirming that she had a promise of employment if she recieved a 2nd - she did - thus " straight to work " [ after agreed 2 month juant across america ]

so thats 12 yes - 2 no

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

nice annecdote bro

but without context ie :

what was the vacancy you were hiring for

what had the graduates degrees in ?

what skills did the none grad have ?

...

Vacancy - Project Engineer Electronic Systems Aviation (Field) (non-PE)

Degrees (interviewed)- Computer science (worst), Electrical Engineers (somewhat better), Other (terrible)

Candidates - 40+

Non-Degree (Hired) - Extensive CAD experience (systems), hands-on technical experience, excellent understanding of theory and application. Excellent writing and communications skills. Superior understanding of technical drawings, specifications and contracting process. Outstanding problem solving skills and practical solutions. Excellent time management skills. Superior ability to focus on 'big picture' while not losing track of details and not get stuck in the weeds.

ETA - He also has a spectacular understanding of BIM/Asset Management which wasn't even a requirement, but was highly desirable. You can't even FIND people (anywhere) with this skillset!!

BTW...there's a comma after "annecdote", and it's spelled with only (1) 'n'...anecdote.