what's wrong (and right) with a college education?

[nostatic]

When I was at Claremont, one of the sales pitches on visitation days was just what you mentioned: students working directly with faculty. I ran a research group with 8 undergrad students. I taught them lab techniques myself, and worked next to them on our projects. They presented results at academic conferences, and a few of them are on peer reviewed pubs with me. That kind of opportunity isn't usually available at a large state/research institution unless a student is *very* pushy and stellar.

But most students and their parents don't really understand the difference between a smaller liberal arts college and larger state and/or research institutions. And I reject the argument that a liberal arts education limits your possibilities. I went to a not-top tier liberal arts undergrad institution and got into Caltech for my ph.d. Most of my incoming student colleagues at Caltech came from liberal arts schools (albeit more prestigious ones like Grinnell, Carleton, Swarthmore, etc.).

As public tuitions rise, the gap between them and private shrinks, and the liberal arts school can exploit this *if* they partner with larger institutions to provide some "value added" in certain areas, and also can contain costs so they don't price themselves out of existence. But how they do that and still hire good faculty and support research and teaching...difficult.

[Nathans_Dad]

I think the German system makes a lot more sense than our current system. Here is what I would propose:

Mandatory schooling from K-8th grade.
At the end of 8th grade you take an aptitude test and get career counseling to determine your interests and abilities.
Education paths then split.
Some go to "High School" which is really a college prep. This could be seamlessly joined with "college".
Some go to one of various vocational schools for jobs where true college education isn't needed. Mechanics, electricians, plumbers, low and mid level office staff, medical techinicians, etc, etc, etc.

Heck even most business managers would likely be better off going to 2-3 years of a school strictly aimed at business than going to 4 years of high school and then 4 years of college with a business degree.

The time saved from deleting some years of high school are spent in an apprenticeship (paid) in your chosen profession. So you graduate from your vocational school at the same age (18) with 2-3 years of specific schooling under your belt and another 1-2 years of on the job training.

Not everyone needs a college degree. By making college the universal mark of success, we have forced more and more students to attend college and thus diluted the intelligence pool of those who do go. College can't be all things to all people nor should it be. I would say college should be shorter, more focused and much more difficult. Heck I went through my 4 year school without studying much at all and still got into med school...

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Heck I went through my 4 year school without studying much at all and still got into med school...

Remind me not to get a referral to you

There are pluses and minuses to the european system. Tracking unfortunately hurts late bloomers. Not the end of the world, but there are plenty of stories of people who get on fire later than 8th grade. I would want to make sure that there are ways for people to "start over" or make serious mid-course corrections. Asian systems track even earlier, and I think this is even more dangerous, mostly from a social/cultural perspective. The pressure put on children to perform early in life causes pretty significant problems. Having a kids future hinge on the results of a test given at age 6 or 7 is not a good route imho.

[stevepaa]

Interesting comments. I too have several degrees and relished the courses outside of math and engineering. I saw no politics being displayed and see no basis for comments of such. I see no need for a time limit as the number of people who want to stay longer in school is insignificant. One can't require faculty to do all the teaching as classes can be quite large at some campuses.

I returned to graduate school after teaching 7th & 8th grade science and math and did note that some basic teaching skills were lacking in some of the faculty. Most could use some tips from real teachers on classroom management.

As in the 60's and 70's some people are just not cut out for college and perhaps the percentage of those that should not be in college has risen. I do note that the cutbacks in funding in K-12 has done away with PE, metal shop, wood shop, auto shop, music, etc in many schools. I think people have been very short sighted in cutting this funding. These programs are necessary to enable some kids to see what they might do other than college.

I question peer review of faculty by outside agencies. I do not understand the basis for such a viewpoint.

[VaSteve]

Originally posted by nostatic
Remind me not to get a referral to you

There are pluses and minuses to the european system. Tracking unfortunately hurts late bloomers. Not the end of the world, but there are plenty of stories of people who get on fire later than 8th grade. I would want to make sure that there are ways for people to "start over" or make serious mid-course corrections. Asian systems track even earlier, and I think this is even more dangerous, mostly from a social/cultural perspective. The pressure put on children to perform early in life causes pretty significant problems. Having a kids future hinge on the results of a test given at age 6 or 7 is not a good route imho.

Where's snowman?

Not everyone needs a college degree. By making college the universal mark of success, we have forced more and more students to attend college and thus diluted the intelligence pool of those who do go. College can't be all things to all people nor should it be.

In my area DC, a college degree alone won't cut it. A master's is the new college degree.

[legion]

I disagree wholly with "tracking" I was a total slacker in middle school, and the first three years of high school. My overall GPA in college was 3.68...not too bad for a former slacker. I would have been relegated to the hamburger flipping track based on my performance when I wasn't mature enough to appreciate it.

[Nathans_Dad]

Agreed that late bloomers might be hurt by early stratification, but where do you draw the line? Some people still say they are just "late bloomers" because they slacked off in high school and now can't get into college. Seems to me uf the parents of those junior high kids knew what was at stake they might impress that on their kids.

And as an aside, college is completely worthless as a prelude to medical school except as an academic exercise to see who can take a test and who cannot. The only course that I remotely use right now from my college days is Biochemistry, and that course was also required my first year of med school. Made it easier for me, but 4 years in college prior to med school is silly.

There should be a 2 year program where you get your chemistry, biology, math, english, etc out of the way and then you go straight into med school for the rest of the education.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad


There should be a 2 year program where you get your chemistry, biology, math, english, etc out of the way and then you go straight into med school for the rest of the education.

I'm for that IF they revamp med school curriculum to include social/cultural aspects of medicine. Which they currently don't, or do a very cursory/poor job of. I think that the 4 years of college can be critical to the emotional and social development of a person. We need docs that are better able to deal with the social/cultural issues, not just better technicians. And they should be freed from the ridiculous business demands, but that is another thread

[artplumber]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
There should be a 2 year program where you get your chemistry, biology, math, english, etc out of the way and then you go straight into med school for the rest of the education.

Legion,
That is the point of my prior posts about K-12. There is entirely too much slacking going on in those years. Children live up (or down) to our expectations. I bet that in a euro style system you would not have been a slacker.

Todd,
Have to agree with Rick at least on the amount of studying in college. But I disagree with him that college is worthless except for two years. There are plenty of combined schools for college + med school, but they turn out very one dimensional individuals. I enjoyed learning about ancient British history, and discussing philosophy etc in college.

At least in the hard sciences English doesn't matter that much. Best professor I ever had was from mainland China, and could only speak mathematical english. By the end of the first few weeks my class could understand him completely. It was funny when he subbed for other profs because none of the other classes could understand a word through the accent. Only guy to ever finish the textbook on/before class was done and cover every theorem.

[scottmandue]

Just my two cents from "the other side".
Went straight from being a high school slacker to working the the family air conditioning business. When I turned thirty went to a trade school to get an electronic technician certification then did the leapfrog from job to job to end up working for the state as a tech at a science museum.

If my career path was decided in eight grade I would probably be a fine fry chef right about now.

I do have several friends and colleagues with degrees and for most of them it works just fine.

My concern is that the education system is so money orientated... we have rich dunderheads attending universities wasting space in classrooms that will end up working at daddies corporation while a brilliant underprivileged child who may have the capabilities to come up with the cure to cancer or a renewable non polluting energy source languishes away at a trade school because that is all his parents can afford.

[HardDrive]

I find it difficult to write about this subject without spitting fire, so I will keep it short.

1) Most of the professors I have had, both in my undergrad and my masters program, were rotten instructors. They may have been brilliant, but they were not good presenters of the information.

2) 90% of the courseware was dated crap, and utterly worthless.

3) Some tenured professors could give a crap less.

4) Many teaching assistants CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH well enough to teach.

5) The US collegiate system fails to produce students who can read and write effectively.

I STRONGLY support people getting a liberal arts education. People need to know how to analyze data, to interpret ambiguous situations and make decisions. Teaching people dated 'facts' is not helpful. Teaching people to think and communicate is critical.

[legion]

Originally posted by artplumber
Legion,
That is the point of my prior posts about K-12. There is entirely too much slacking going on in those years. Children live up (or down) to our expectations. I bet that in a euro style system you would not have been a slacker.

I disagree. I went to a rich, uppidity high school where a good half of the kids were trying to rack up items to put on their applications to Harvard. Overacheiving was expected. These kids weren't having any fun in high school and were under tremendous pressure. I was rebelling against this. Thankfully I figured out that I should actually put in effort in time to recover and get into college.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by legion
I disagree. I went to a rich, uppidity high school where a good half of the kids were trying to rack up items to put on their applications to Harvard. Overacheiving was expected. These kids weren't having any fun in high school and were under tremendous pressure. I was rebelling against this. Thankfully I figured out that I should actually put in effort in time to recover and get into college.

I disagree...Just kidding. I understand the rebellious attitude. I think that if you could figure it out even in the setting where there is a large safety net (like the USA), it would have been much more obvious to you in an "only grades matter" situation. The crazy thing about schools like Harvard etc is the ease with which one can get in if one has the right pedigree. The remaining slots become that much fewer - hence the pressure to differentiate oneself from classmates.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fun", but too much is made about "fun" in this country IMHO.

[legion]

Classes were ridiculously easy in high school, but there was a definite group of kids that had to get an A in every AP class, be a member of student council, play a sport, volunteer, play an instrument...they didn't have any time to themselves. Hence no fun.

I was an ungrateful bastard in high school. I would have rebelled against the status quo, regardless of what it was. I'm just glad "the system" allowed me to recover when I did come to my senses.

[scottmandue]

FWIW I would like to comment on one of my co-worker who is pushing seventy and has taught architecture, art, and design classes at a university level. Problem being he never got tenure because he kept taking jobs in the real world. Seems he thought the only way for a teacher to keep up with the latest developments was to go out and work real jobs in the field.

He took the job here to get vested for his benefits.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad

Not everyone needs a college degree. By making college the universal mark of success, we have forced more and more students to attend college and thus diluted the intelligence pool of those who do go. College can't be all things to all people nor should it be.

Particularly in the arts, where one's style might have been established long before college age. If that is the case, college becomes more about networking than actual learning.

As to dilluting the intelligence pool - I don't agree. College is as much about learning as it is exposure to others.

An example of what could be the potential watering down of college, yet instead raised the bar of colleges nationwide was the Army GI Bill.

Before it, college was for the elite. But after WW II, the soldiers returned home and enrolled, enriching the university setting to the point it represented the "everyman." Needless to say, the soldiers not only brought intelligence and worldly experience with them - in some cases obliterating the curve, so to speak, but they also rang in a form of thought and philosophy never before considered in the college curriculum.

Unfortunately, with the rising cost of college, we are receding right back to the dark, elitist years before the Army GI Bill.

[dd74]

BTW: if anyone knows, do most public school districts nationwide have high school-to-college counselors? I think L.A. Unified School District got rid of all theirs because of budget cuts.

[artplumber]

Originally posted by legion
...I was an ungrateful bastard in high school.

I'm holding myself back.....