OTMPut
Hall of Fame
http://www.caseyresearch.com/editorial.php?page=articles/uss-education-bubble&ppref=ZHB428ED1211A
How many of you are in this bubble?
How many of you are in this bubble?
It also makes the unsubstantiated thesis that American education is world standard when only a fragment of it is such.
It also forgets that America has de-industrialised and so the lure of STEM is greater for Chinese students than Americans.
The separation of college from professional courses that occurs in America must also favour liberal arts, as in a lot of the world you can start doing a professional course in year one.
You don't graduate high school with only a knowledge of arithmetic. You need to have studied geometry and algebra too. And high school is not expected to prepare you with marketable skills - it is just a constitutionally mandated education.
But certainly the high school dropout rate in the US should be improved on - for the sake of an educated population which is the foundation of democracy. Otherwise they will be just fodder for politicians.
The thing that surprizes me is the number of highschool graduates, even those with reasonably good grades, who haven't actually learned much of anything. Somehow, they passed all the tests to get a diploma without retaining any knowledge and without any ability to communicate effectively.
Even in college, I was shocked at the low level of the material in the basic freshman classes like English comp; we're talking about stuff that I learned in middle school (and I went to public schools in one of the poorest states in the country). Yet, that's where they had to start freshman off at, presumably because large numbers of them didn't have any knowledge beyond that level. Of course, there was a steep curve from there, and that's when people started dropping out.
If even the above-average highschool grads (those accepted to college) struggle with middle-school-level material, what does that say about primary and secondary education in the US?
The thing that surprizes me is the number of highschool graduates, even those with reasonably good grades, who haven't actually learned much of anything. Somehow, they passed all the tests to get a diploma without retaining any knowledge and without any ability to communicate effectively.
Even in college, I was shocked at the low level of the material in the basic freshman classes like English comp; we're talking about stuff that I learned in middle school (and I went to public schools in one of the poorest states in the country). Yet, that's where they had to start freshman off at, presumably because large numbers of them didn't have any knowledge beyond that level. Of course, there was a steep curve from there, and that's when people started dropping out.
If even the above-average highschool grads (those accepted to college) struggle with middle-school-level material, what does that say about primary and secondary education in the US?
A high school diploma doesnt mean anything anymore except that the kid attended school for 12 years.
Most student dream of having a high paying job without knowing what it takes to get there and what those jobs are about. High paying jobs equal high productivity. High productivity requires a great deal of knowledge, skills, hard work, and mental stress.
Students in engineering, computer science, pre-med…have their first class at 8 am finish by 5 pm and stay up till 1 am on most days to catch up with reading and assignments. On the other hand, liberal art students start their day at 11 am and finish by 3 pm. I maybe am exaggerating but just want to make a point. Different lifestyles, different skill sets, different career paths for different people.
With the rising cost of our educational system, students can no longer afford to treat post secondary education as a learning experience. It’s a serious investment, so they better make sure they get the best returns possible. As for their own interests, learning is a life-long commitment; they can always do that later in life.
But it is precisely the 11 am waking up guys who explore new activities, new lifestyles, take risks and create the jobs for the guys who wake up at 8 am. Think about it - if there was no National Geographic explorer hanging upside down from a tree photographing the mating habits of kangaroos, there would be no Nikon engineers building cameras for him.
But it is precisely the 11 am waking up guys who explore new activities, new lifestyles, take risks and create the jobs for the guys who wake up at 8 am. Think about it - if there was no National Geographic explorer hanging upside down from a tree photographing the mating habits of kangaroos, there would be no Nikon engineers building cameras for him.
Unless someone can show (which the article certainly did not) that there are slots in the science majors that are going unfilled, then this article, poof, disappears into much noise about... nothing.
That makes no sense. People go into liberal arts majors for various reasons. It would not be because all the science 'slots' are filled for goodness sakes! Universities are businesses and they study trends among high school students. If more kids wanted to be science majors they would simply increase those departments to meet demand. Or kids would go elsewhere.
"Dad, all the biochemistry major slots were filled....so I decided to take art history instead". Really?
The important thing that this article does not mention is the fact that most people, even most college students, don't have the ability to complete many of these technical degrees, especially ones like astrophysic and various engineering fields (mechanical, chemical, etc.).
I've seen some complex math and science in my life, and I know for a fact that a majority of people do not have the ability to comprehend most of it. Think about the people you've known who struggled with math and science back in highschool. Then, imagine them trying to do another four years of math and science classes that progressively get more and more complex.
The whole reason people with those degrees have high salaries and low unemployement rates is because they are amongst the very few people in the world capable of getting one of those degrees in the first place. Saying everyone should go for degrees in astrophysics and chemical engineering because of their high salaries is like saying everyone should aspire to be professional baseball or basketball players. It's a lot easier said than done.
That said, I think a lot can be done to improve our primary and secondary education. I think one reason there are so many college dropouts is because too many people make it through highschool without learning the things they need to know to progress further in college. They arrive on campus, only to find out that don't have the skills they need.
Excellent post. I'm a current undergrad majoring in history and political science at a major public university. I can't see how this bubble applies to me. I know me, and I know there's no way I could do what it takes to go into an engineering field.
Undoubtedly those who make it through these incredibly rigorous will earn more than will. To be honest, they *should* make more than me; it takes a special bundle of intellect to do the things they do. Maybe I am just part of a bubble that's gonna burst; but when the alternative is majoring in a field that I'm ill-equipped for, I don't think I have much choice.
Excellent post. I'm a current undergrad majoring in history and political science at a major public university. I can't see how this bubble applies to me. I know me, and I know there's no way I could do what it takes to go into an engineering field.
Undoubtedly those who make it through these incredibly rigorous will earn more than will. To be honest, they *should* make more than me; it takes a special bundle of intellect to do the things they do. Maybe I am just part of a bubble that's gonna burst; but when the alternative is majoring in a field that I'm ill-equipped for, I don't think I have much choice.
"The unexamined life is not worth living"
The only thing that is "good for its own sake" is happiness. And happiness may or may not be what awaits all of you successful "tech" graduates.
Any fool can make money, and many fools do.
there are beautiful discoveries like central limit theorem or constructions like abelian groups or brownian motion or fantasy lands like cantor's cardinal numbers that are comparable in beauty to any artform ever created by anyone.
dont ever think art and happiness is the sole preserve of hippies (and math challenged bozos).
I think capitalization is beautiful (for those English challenged bozos).
there are beautiful discoveries like central limit theorem or constructions like abelian groups or brownian motion or fantasy lands like cantor's cardinal numbers that are comparable in beauty to any artform ever created by anyone.
dont ever think art and happiness is the sole preserve of hippies (and math challenged bozos).
"The unexamined life is not worth living"
The only thing that is "good for its own sake" is happiness. And happiness may or may not be what awaits all of you successful "tech" graduates.
Any fool can make money, and many fools do.
What the heck is ‘happiness’ anyway? You ask 100 people and you get 101 different answers and even those change from one year to the next.
Career choices are just various forms of ‘work’. For most people work and happiness don’t go hand in hand.
You are more interested in philosophy than you realize. It would be a pity to waste such an interest. Or more precisely, to explore this interest in an undiciplined manner.
Accounting undergrad here, plan on following up with a masters in MIS (management information systems) or finance. We have a 5 year track that grants the bachelors of accounting and a masters in another field of business.
It always surprises me when people major in those liberal arts fields, such as history or philosophy, and expect a job that pays well. Companies don't hire philosophers to sit around and think. They don't hire historians to talk about the history of America. They want people who can add value to their company. Obviously you can get one of those degrees and do something unrelated to your major (uncle got a history degree, and now he's a marketing exec), but I would guess that's more of the exception.
Agreed. I think you strengthened my point rather than weaken it.
I'm not arguing that people should be lazy of mind. (I find people entirely focused on career and money to be very lazy of mind as much as I view undiciplined "hippies" to be lazy of mind).
But this is an argument where there are no winners. I majored in philosophy, economics, and german language. Major in all. All in 5 years. I also managed to smoke a lot of pot, learn a lot, and make a lot of diverse friends. Even studied abroad for my entire 5th year (otherwise I would have easily been done in 4 or even 3.5, but without the german major and a whole lot poorer for having missed the study abroad experience)
I also later took masters degerees in accounting and MIS and easily earned my CPA (first try, no "review course. Why? Because I actually paid attention and didn't get seduced by those idiotic powerpoint slides).
One thing I can say for sure. All of the "liberal arts" majors laugh at the "boring", "narrow mined" business / career minded students. Likewise, the business / career minded students laugh at how the idiotic liberal arts students are wasting their time.
In my view, both are right as much as they are wrong. Life if long. Plan for it wisely and build strong foundations for a happy life when you are young. It will pay dividends as you get older.
Guess what I do for fun now? If you said read philosophy, classic literature, and carefully listen to quality music, you are right. Is this stuff boring? Should I instead be spending my money on more and bigger crap than my neighbor has? Nothing wrong with that, if that is what you like to do. Not me. Like an idiot, I love the liberal arts I studied. True, I'm probably wasting my life. I can be happy with that.
It depends on what you want from a college education. Traditionally, a college education was intended for the elite, aristocracy who didn't have to work. They sought a college education in order to learn how to think critically, and to understand and appreciate the world around them, and the things in it, not to prepare for a career. Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia so that any Virginian who wanted a college education could get one for free.
Professions were learned through apprenticeship, probably the more effective and efficient method of learning a profession.
That may be true, but a lot of these guys are also just lazy bums not creative geniuses. If they were up all night working on some project or idea- yeah sure. But if they were up all night partying or playing xbox- not so much.
Actually, at this point of my life when the dust is all settled, I can afford to pursue other interests, one of which is philosophy. The subject is much more interesting and makes more sense now.
Professions were learned through apprenticeship, probably the more effective and efficient method of learning a profession.
It would be easy to imagine a system for training engineers that was entirely a function of the corporations themselves.
It's easier and cheaper for them not to do this, but then you get the problem of too few or too inappropriately educated engineers.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/editorial.php?page=articles/uss-education-bubble&ppref=ZHB428ED1211A
How many of you are in this bubble?
It is not true. Corporate in-house training only works for specific skills. That is why corporations don't run in-house academic programs (usually - exceptions are the Services). It is not possible to recreate the teaching and research expertise of a University in-house in every company. In fact, corporations pay for their employees to get educated outside. Recruiting raw talent and training internally means that the company is missing out on getting students who have been trained much more broadly and in new fields which will influence the direction of future work. All major corporations have ties with engineering and finance schools whose faculty produces the students they need with the cutting-edge skills which older people inside the company do not have.
Despite all this pessimism among the older generation, statistics show that the number of hours spent in school has increased over the decades. College admissions are harder than ever, and take into account tests like SAT 2s and APs which did not exist before. It is a myth that earlier generations were better educated, and exists in all countries. Truth is, in those times, many demographic groups were denied/discouraged from getting an education, and everything was skewed to a privileged few. People produce a history examination from 1872 and point out how advanced it was. In 1872, many women and other groups were dropping out like crazy. The number of subjects and the tests to be taken were few. These comparisons are not valid.
Even in poor states, there are good neighborhoods and good schools.
What you noticed is perhaps the social reality from which you were shielded in school. Colleges have policies like admitting some students from every school regardless of scores in order to protect against income disparities. In reality, these people always exist - it is how much you want not to see them is the issue. That is why I am never impressed by a French science olympics championship team with 1 girl and zero Algerian refugees or a high performing team from Japan carefully assembled from the best schools in the country. It means nothing to me.
modern smarphone discourse is an artform in itself. it shuns capitalizations punctuations and is an epitome of minimalism in language.
Students in engineering, computer science, pre-med…have their first class at 8 am finish by 5 pm and stay up till 1 am on most days to catch up with reading and assignments. On the other hand, liberal art students start their day at 11 am and finish by 3 pm. I maybe am exaggerating but just want to make a point. Different lifestyles, different skill sets, different career paths for different people.