[geeks] Education [was: [rescue] Mainframe on eBay]

[velociraptor]

On 9/21/05, Barry Keeney <barryk at chaoscon.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, velociraptor wrote:
>
> > On 9/21/05, Barry Keeney <barryk at chaoscon.com> wrote:
> >
> > >   Too many kids go into fields they like without understanding
> > > the likely job market they'll enter with that degree.
> >
> > I disagree, entirely.  A university education is not intended to
> > be trade school, though that is what everyone is trying to turn
> > them into it seems.  Universities and colleges are supposed to
> > be producing well-rounded individuals that can go into the world
> > and make their way, whatever field they choose, not prepare
> > individuals for a specific job in their chosen field.
>
>   First I'm not saying a english degree or any degree doesn't
> have value, if only to the person who gets it thats fine.
>
>   Well rounded - yes, Knowing something of the field they studied
> - yes, teach them one thing and expect them to use it to get a job
> in a unrelated field - no.
>
>   An english degree won't get you a job as a engineer. And
> just because you have a degree in english doesn't mean I
> should hire you as a computer admin/tech/trainee etc.
>
> > People are talking about sophomores in HS needing to know
> > what career they are going into.
>
>   Well HS is the place where kids should start thinking/
> looking for that they might want to do and start working
> on the skill they'll need to make that happen.
>
>   As a sophomores I decided I like science, so I took classes
> I didn't need for high school but would help with college.
> I also looked at other areas, art, music, the trades..
>
> > Easier to turn them into micro-
> > serfs that way, I guess.  It's very sad to me that people are so
> > discouraged from doing what they love and instead pointed at
> > chasing the almighty dollar.  It's also not surprising that
> > corporations are trying to put the burden of "skills" training on
> > colleges/universities so they don't have to spend the money
> > themselves.
>
>   I grew up in the real world, sorry. I paid for the school
> I did get out of my OWN pocket, No grants, no loans, no parents
> cash. I want VALUE for my money. If you're going to teach me something
> it should either something I want to learn knowning it won't
> help me make a dime more or help me make a living in that field.
[snipped remaining comments]

I grew up in the real world too, thanks.  You are making an invalid
assumption about my background, given that I am one of two people
in my rather large family that have a college education.

The thing you are advocating is teaching to the tools, and my opinon,
born out by experience (both by example and by trying to hire) is that
this is the underlying problem.

Again, university is not trade school.  My argument was not that
English degrees were suitable substitutes for Engineering degrees.
My argument was that University is to be a broad foundation (in what-
ever major) so a person can come out of school and make their way
in the world working in that field.

As an example, why do architecture degrees still teach drafting on paper?
Why don't they go directly to Autocad, TurboCad, etc?  No one actually
uses manual drafting anymore in the "real world".  They do so because
there are things architects need to know how to do themselves--and
computer programs allow the students to "cheat" on the basics.

Likewise, how long ago was it that the "spreadsheet" du jour was Lotus
1-2-3?  You know back when Access wasn't even thought of, and the
PC db program was DBase III (or IV if you were a masochist).  Or,
getting back to the computers (and Jonathan's gripe)--what's the latest
language they are peddling--Java?  Before that it was C, before that it
was Fortran or COBOL.

My point is that these things are TOOLS.  TOOLS CHANGE.  Students
who are not taught to understand the theoretical underpinnings, to solve
problems, to apply critical thinking processes to problems, to be creative,
and to adapt, will be left in the dust.  Pure and simple.  In the example
of CS and/or Computer Engineering, giving them the impression that
Java is "The One" is just not a reasonable thing given history.

Jobs change, careers change, tools change.  Technology is a moving
target.  Students need to be taught to be flexible and adaptable.  Training
them to work in (biology | computers | engineering | medicine) as if they
were trades[0] is not only doing a disservice to the student, but also a
disservice to public tax dollars, and to society as a whole.  Things are
changing faster than ever, and having people who only understand today's
tools is not a Good Thing, IMO.

=Nadine=

[0] By "trade" I mean, a person who understands one type of system end-
to-end (HVAC, electricity, etc), can install and service it based on
instructions
given to them, but doesn't have the theory to invent/create/analyze these
systems for other applications, etc.  Given enough experience and interest,
they might be able to make recommendations, but that would not be typical.