Posted: 8/19/2009 8:04:24 PM EDT
| Mind you university core is long behind me, but does it stand up to a cost benefit? Would it make it easier to transform our society's workforce into engineers and the like if one was only concentrating on courses relevant to the field? Lower cost, increased focus etc. Explain why or why not. |
|
Of course, most of my friends put up with people who write in text message slang, which is prolly worse than a high schooler, so there go the english courses. All the history profs do is teach you how ashamed you should be for living in the greatest country in the world. Gov't profs are entertaining, and it's nice to learn about the system, but you should've already learned that in high school. What do you do with a degree in art history? Get a nose ring and pour coffee for a living. The only thing keeping those ass clowns employed is the fact that universities are run by the same leftist douches that want to pay off their friends. |
|
As a retread, I'll say that the core curriculum really isn't that onerous. Anyone would do well do to take these courses, as they all have some degree of applicability over the spectrum of available degrees. Furthermore, there is usually enough flexibility in the distribution requirements to allow for some personal preference, and that those requirements do vary for each of the intended degree fields. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What the hell are you people talking about?  I'm guessing that he wants to take a voc-tech approach to obtaining a bachelor's degree in certain technical fields, such as engineering, or medicine. Two extra very expensive years based on prima donna reagents yammering about well rounded students. Do engineers that India cranks out take all of that? Dave_A is always saying the workforce needs to be fundementally changed into the fields modern economies need. Streamlining the degrees would facilitate that. And focus is key. Developing training at the plant I worked at, I found multi-tasking just got for or five things done poorly. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What the hell are you people talking about? I'm guessing that he wants to take a voc-tech approach to obtaining a bachelor's degree in certain technical fields, such as engineering, or medicine. Two extra very expensive years based on prima donna reagents yammering about well rounded students. Do engineers that India cranks out take all of that? Dave_A is always saying the workforce needs to be fundementally changed into the fields modern economies need. Streamlining the degrees would facilitate that. And focus is key. Developing training at the plant I worked at, I found multi-tasking just got for or five things done poorly. But you would do so at the risk of the engineer being (further) unable to effectively communicate the intent of his latest design, or even properly socialize beyond the walls of the engineering department ( You should hear my Mom's tales of going to company functions with my Dad.) You do have a valid argument. My Dad, a mechanical engineer who retired from Kenworth several years ago, regularly told us of the new hire engineers who were lacking in some foundational concepts of engineering. In their defense, they were being judged by the old guy who cut his teeth in HS shop classes, who spent summers on the Boeing production line, and hobbied in building drag racers while he was in the Navy as an aircrewman/flight mech on PB4Ys and as a hydraulicsman on early jet aircraft like the F-8 Crusader. They generally didn't have the same kind of background. |
|
The way core classes are run, they might as well be done away with. They don't teach anything, they just throw a bunch of information at you, much of it you've already learned in high school. There's no incentive to learn the information, only to memorize key points to pass tests.
If they actually taught the classes to impart the wisdom of the world to students, that'd be cool too, but it would probably hurt the University's bottom line. |
|
Quoted: The way core classes are run, they might as well be done away with. They don't teach anything, they just throw a bunch of information at you, much of it you've already learned in high school. There's no incentive to learn the information, only to memorize key points to pass tests. If they actually taught the classes to impart the wisdom of the world to students, that'd be cool too, but it would probably hurt the University's bottom line. The school already charges for the classes. More likely, that would force the faculty to actually do something other than throw a TA at the class, with a syllabus in hand. I do see a trend towards using some of those classes solely as a threshold value, for determining who will get into more advanced degree training tracks. I'm thinking of some math class requirements, and then the grade obtained, being required for admission in to BS in Nursing programs |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What the hell are you people talking about? I'm guessing that he wants to take a voc-tech approach to obtaining a bachelor's degree in certain technical fields, such as engineering, or medicine. Two extra very expensive years based on prima donna reagents yammering about well rounded students. Do engineers that India cranks out take all of that? Dave_A is always saying the workforce needs to be fundementally changed into the fields modern economies need. Streamlining the degrees would facilitate that. And focus is key. Developing training at the plant I worked at, I found multi-tasking just got for or five things done poorly. Extreme specialization only works if you are absolutely sure of where things are heading. Giving your students the tools to transition between "hats" more easily seems much more beneficial in an economy where things can turn on their heads within 10 years. You are correct that India and China don't do this as much, but in my experience with top engineers from India and China, the ones who are actually competing against high-end work are ones with good grasps on the stuff outside of engineering (most obviously: writing). |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What the hell are you people talking about? I'm guessing that he wants to take a voc-tech approach to obtaining a bachelor's degree in certain technical fields, such as engineering, or medicine. Two extra very expensive years based on prima donna reagents yammering about well rounded students. Do engineers that India cranks out take all of that? Dave_A is always saying the workforce needs to be fundementally changed into the fields modern economies need. Streamlining the degrees would facilitate that. And focus is key. Developing training at the plant I worked at, I found multi-tasking just got for or five things done poorly. Extreme specialization only works if you are absolutely sure of where things are heading. Giving your students the tools to transition between "hats" more easily seems much more beneficial in an economy where things can turn on their heads within 10 years. You are correct that India and China don't do this as much, but in my experience with top engineers from India and China, the ones who are actually competing against high-end work are ones with good grasps on the stuff outside of engineering (most obviously: writing). If an engineer stays focused solely on his speciality, he can't effectively move up through the ranks, to run the company. Or, do you want the guys in the sales department to get into a position where they are dictating what, and how, the company produces? |
|
Quoted:
If an engineer stays focused solely on his speciality, he can't effectively move up through the ranks, to run the company. Or, do you want the guys in the sales department to get into a position where they are dictating what, and how, the company produces? If an engineer can't move up to run the company, that would generally be a bad thing. Many of the CEOs I know are originally engineers. Also, the head of the NSA is one of the smartest people i've ever met, with a PhD in a discipline of engineering that I don't remember (he also has a great sense of humor). Engineers are natural problem solvers, which translates well into other fields. Sales dictating what and how the company produces could definitely be a good thing. If they have a better handle on market conditions and prices, they could definitely increase the efficiency of a business |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If an engineer stays focused solely on his speciality, he can't effectively move up through the ranks, to run the company. Or, do you want the guys in the sales department to get into a position where they are dictating what, and how, the company produces? If an engineer can't move up to run the company, that would generally be a bad thing. Many of the CEOs I know are originally engineers. Also, the head of the NSA is one of the smartest people i've ever met, with a PhD in a discipline of engineering that I don't remember (he also has a great sense of humor). Engineers are natural problem solvers, which translates well into other fields. Sales dictating what and how the company produces could definitely be a good thing. If they have a better handle on market conditions and prices, they could definitely increase the efficiency of a business You're looking at the good end of the spectrum. There, the sales department knows what their company is capable of, rather than making promises they are unable to keep. That suggests that a climate exists where sales and engineering cooperate to satisfy the customer's need and desires. Over at the other end of the spectrum is "Speshul Wepinz" own Todd Bailey: He was a much better salesman, much more so than his ability to produce a quality product.  This is also where "vaporware" originates from. |
|
As useless as you perceive core classes to be, you could probably pass them with ease. Or better yet, show your prowess by CLEPing all that crap. Save a bunch of cash and miss out on all that plebeian buttwork.
ETA: that is, if you can't manage to work to change the system from within. Are narrowly educated technicians better for the workforce than people who can adapt to changing requirements? I think it depends on the field and the person. Plenty of people only need and want a very specific skillset. Do I care if the Paramedic responding to my car crash can quote Shakespeare? Do I care that the Engineer who designed my apartment building has an appreciation for Bauhaus? |