CSNbbs

Good read. MAC should lead the way, make a name for themselves.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/original...e_the.html

Quite the quote here: "Only in the sciences and college sports---apparently what really matter---is the demand for excellence taken seriously. "

(02-02-2011 03:51 PM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ]Quite the quote here: "Only in the sciences and college sports---apparently what really matter---is the demand for excellence taken seriously. "

Yeah, I caught that too. Quite an indictment on what the humanities made of themselves, and the joke that degrees in "Leisure studies" and journalism are.

As someone who has drifted in and out of higher education in one form or another for 20 years, I never find these articles particularly insightful. Occasionally, there are people like the author who make a name for themselves by criticizing the industry they work in (it is an industry) but are not in a position to make substantial change and/or have greatly benefited for the status quo. The author is a steady contributor of articles of this type.

The changes that are needed won't happen outside of an individual and perhaps departmental level. The institutions will remain stagnent.

(02-02-2011 06:04 PM)bopol Wrote: [ -> ]As someone who has drifted in and out of higher education in one form or another for 20 years, I never find these articles particularly insightful. Occasionally, there are people like the author who make a name for themselves by criticizing the industry they work in (it is an industry) but are not in a position to make substantial change and/or have greatly benefited for the status quo. The author is a steady contributor of articles of this type.

The changes that are needed won't happen outside of an individual and perhaps departmental level. The institutions will remain stagnent.

Economics may be doing for them what they won't do for themselves. Poeple are starting to wise up about the scam college currently is. Change often happens slowly, but it does happen.

I'd bet that the college scene 10-20 years from now is significantly different than the past 25-50 years (where it has been relatively constant)

(02-02-2011 03:41 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Good read. MAC should lead the way, make a name for themselves.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/original...e_the.html

"fifty intuitions"? That helps your credibility. He later states that some people may savor a book like "Adrift" for some reason or other, a book he admits to not having read. How does he then know why someone might savor it? Seems pretty full of himself.

All that aside, it drives me nuts that colleges turn out students who can't spell, write a complete sentence or, as he states, offer an opinion based on some observable and confirmable data and not a "gut" feeling.

Uh? You're telling me college is the same now as during Vietnam?

(02-03-2011 09:51 AM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ]Uh? You're telling me college is the same now as during Vietnam?

The academic structure? Yeah, it's not much different, other than the quelling of non-PC speech. Academics are more watered down now than ever, but that trend was in place back then.

Agree with Dr. Torch, the institutional structure of colleges hasn't changed at all in the last 50 years. Professors are the top of the heap and their position is determined mostly by research and less so by anything else (teaching and service). The tenure system has been a net negative (though there are certainly positive aspects of it) and there tends to be a lack of appreciation for any experience that takes place outside of the ivory towers.

That said, I disagree with Dr. Torch on colleges being exposed as a scam. I used to work at a large corporation with large number of engineers. Because of a government labor act, they had determined that, to be an engineer, you must have a certain degree. Laughably, my undergraduate degree did not qualify. While I didn't face a problem because I had the 'right' graduate degree, one of my good friends has had his career badly undermined by this, as he does work of a mid-level engineer, but has a 3-year technical degree in a field that does not qualify. Basically, he does the work as an engineer and gets paid as a high-level technician. I believe this is commonplace in corporations, as an undergraduate degree is neccessary as a bare minimum for jobs where professional experience can be substituted. As a result, the need for colleges to give those degrees will continue to increase.

How do you fix it? I'm not exactly sure and, unlike the author of the article, I prefer not to pontificate like I know everything. I have ideas, but I don't think they are entirely well devleoped yet.

(02-03-2011 02:34 PM)bopol Wrote: [ -> ]That said, I disagree with Dr. Torch on colleges being exposed as a scam.

The credentialism you mention is part of the protectionism that universities have established. It is the problem.

Accounting, engineering and some of the hard sciences still benefit from college, and obviously you can't practice medicine w/o college and med school.

So, I don't think that all college offerings are a scam, nor will they all disappear. Some people, like your friend, will get burned by this unfortunately.

However, you most certainly do not need a degree to be a computer programmer. And there are many questions as to why bother w/ a degree in _________ Studies. And with coursework watered down, having a degree in humanities/liberal arts now does little to distinguish a candidate, and frankly, does little to enlighten a candidate.

In the end, if a university loses large enrollment in psych, social work, general studies, and business (b/c not all business classes are as rigorous as accounting/finance) that means they've lost a large amount of their overall enrollment. And that's going to change things.

What is funny is that you can become a pharmacist without a bachelor's degree. Instead, you have to take a certain amount of courses in the sciences, math and a few humanities (about 60 credit hours) and then you can apply directly to pharmacy school. I don't know why that wouldn't be true for other professional fields (medical school, physical therapy, law). There is a certain maturity that is forced from having these students get bachelors degree first (as you would be dealing with 23 year olds instead of 20 year olds).

I don't have a problem with some of the degrees you mentioned, except I think the respective departments have made them into money makers by keeping the curriculum light and attracting gobs of students who have no interest in the field but rather prefer an easier path to a degree. I had a student (I teach at a CC) that had a biology degree and said that he couldn't find a job because the bio jobs were going to chemistry majors. If the degree isn't capable of getting a job in the field of study (or another degree is preferred), the reputation of that degree is damaging its value and something should be done.

(02-05-2011 10:55 AM)bopol Wrote: [ -> ]What is funny is that you can become a pharmacist without a bachelor's degree. Instead, you have to take a certain amount of courses in the sciences, math and a few humanities (about 60 credit hours) and then you can apply directly to pharmacy school. I don't know why that wouldn't be true for other professional fields (medical school, physical therapy, law). There is a certain maturity that is forced from having these students get bachelors degree first (as you would be dealing with 23 year olds instead of 20 year olds).

Pharmacy schools in the US no longer offer a bachelor's in pharmacy degree- the introductory degree in pharmacy is a doctor of pharmacy. Some pharmacy schools require a bachelor's degree for admission, but even those schools who don't have a high % of students with a 4 year degree. Overall, as expected, the students with 4 year degrees are more mature and do much better than those with only 2 years of college. [disclaimer- I teach in a pharmacy school]

Don't know about PT or law, but I went to pharmacy school with students who were accepted and entered medical school prior to their completing their pharmacy degree. And Gannon U. in Erie, Pa., had or has a program where a set number of students (12?) were guaranteed a place at the Hahnemann (sp?) medical school after their sophomore year. i.e. MDs only 6 years out of high school. Don't know if that still exists, but it is up to the individual school if it wants to require bachelors degree for its applicants.

(02-05-2011 11:51 AM)klingon288 Wrote: [ -> ]Pharmacy schools in the US no longer offer a bachelor's in pharmacy degree- the introductory degree in pharmacy is a doctor of pharmacy. Some pharmacy schools require a bachelor's degree for admission, but even those schools who don't have a high % of students with a 4 year degree. Overall, as expected, the students with 4 year degrees are more mature and do much better than those with only 2 years of college. [disclaimer- I teach in a pharmacy school]

Don't know about PT or law, but I went to pharmacy school with students who were accepted and entered medical school prior to their completing their pharmacy degree. And Gannon U. in Erie, Pa., had or has a program where a set number of students (12?) were guaranteed a place at the Hahnemann (sp?) medical school after their sophomore year. i.e. MDs only 6 years out of high school. Don't know if that still exists, but it is up to the individual school if it wants to require bachelors degree for its applicants.

Kent St and Akron have a program with the NEOUCOM (Northeast Ohio College of Medicine) where the students can begin medical school after 2 years of undergraduate study. They continue to take classes at their university along with at NEOUCOM and can get a BA/MD in 6 years. I believe, like Gannon's program, is a rarity in the field.

I would think students with 4 year degrees would have an advantage from both traditional maturity and academic maturity. Upper-division science courses (which most med school/PT/pharmacy students with bachelors degrees would take) really help students understand what is expected of them at the next level. Without that experience, they would be at a disadvantage. I'm currently taking a first upper division course at a 4-year school (for the first time) and I've noticed that the students have the bad "freshman" habits they need to break (like starting the homework the night before it is due).

I suppose if you think college is all about the degree and its economic impact, you would come to that conclusion. But I don't think that's what college is all about.

No, a college education isn't just for the economic impact, but it isn't a fit for everyone and there are certain jobs that are unneccessarily demanding a college education, resulting in people in college without much interest and leaning towards "path of least resistance" attitudes towards getting a college degree, which creates an environment of mediocrity as colleges let the students pass through without demanding they improve their critical thinking (which was the point of the original article).

(02-05-2011 10:48 PM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose if you think college is all about the degree and its economic impact, you would come to that conclusion. But I don't think that's what college is all about.

Well, if you're going to suggest that college is about some sort of academic challenge, and how that benefits an individual, that's already out the window.

There is nothing wrong w/ economic impact...often that's a legitimate result from a real academic experience. It's not a coincidence that students can't find jobs...in fact the opposite is the whole friggin hypothesis: Enrollees in most universities departments don't learn squat. In fact, this is to the point where young professors don't know squat so they can't teach anything.

The economic consequences of this are virtually inevitable. People w/ loads of debt and no hope of high enough earnings to pay it back and live independently.

I said neither. College isn't only about the academics... at least at good ones. So much of what I learned did not come to me in the classroom. And I never suggested there is no economic impact or that it's bad, only that it's not the only thing.

(02-06-2011 06:15 PM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ]I said neither. College isn't only about the academics... at least at good ones.

Ok, my bad. But you keep hinting at "somthing". Something that colleges offer that make them a worhtwhile investment. Go ahead and put it out there.

(02-06-2011 06:15 PM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ]I said neither. College isn't only about the academics... at least at good ones. So much of what I learned did not come to me in the classroom. And I never suggested there is no economic impact or that it's bad, only that it's not the only thing.

The most important thing I learned in college was on St Patrick's Day after a Stats exam. I went drinking with a buddy and after several he said "You know-twenty years from now you won't remember a thing about that stats test, but you'll remember drinking green beer with Joey Albers." And he was right. Joey, if you're out there- hope you've had a great life!

(02-08-2011 08:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-06-2011 06:15 PM)OZoner Wrote: [ -> ]I said neither. College isn't only about the academics... at least at good ones.

Ok, my bad. But you keep hinting at "somthing". Something that colleges offer that make them a worhtwhile investment. Go ahead and put it out there.

Personal growth, cultural experience, just being a better human being... all that razzmatazz.