Is College a Rip Off? - John Stossel & Physics Majors

[Mépris]

Which isn't necessarily a good thing, because if you have a "local star" on a messageboard, that doesn't mean his or her words have any value in real life and, secondly, you mistake the argument of power for the power of an argument.

That was a very general statement on my part and I did not imply it to be a good thing (or at least, did not want to make it sound thus). What I wanted to say is that I think this to be some kind of good starting point, as far as message boards are concerned. Sure, not all "local stars" as you put it, will know what they're on about and "Contributor of the Year" is a fairly vague award and one could have won it, say, for their sarcasm or perhaps their humour, which in this context, would not be relevant to the needs of somebody look for college/university advice. In these boards for instance, the awards are far more specific and you have people being awarded with titles such as "Science Advisor" among other things. Also, I would think that the members of the site's 'Staff' would know a thing or two. ;)

I think you're being extremely unrealistic. Everyone will present their own views and that holds for universities, hotlines etc., as well. They don't know everything, and as has been said here often, even the professors themselves are a lot of times out of touch with reality outside of academia, so how do you expect to get a true answer (however you define that) from someone like that, or even worse from a person employed at a university that doesn't really deal with the subject you're interested in, but just gives you general advice. Plus, on messageboards you get to hear of personal experience, from which you can draw a false picture, but since it's a personal experience, there's no real way to verify it. Studies haven't been done on everything, and even if they were, there's only certain variables that are controlled. In any case, you can learn lots by doing research, so I do agree with you on that, but you don't always get a clear picture. And you do have to factor in time constraints, misguidance by either peers, parents or other people, the age and "wisdom" factor etc. high school students are dealing with, not only look at the theoretically optimal environment or how it *should* be done.

Then again, what is true? We could argue about this all day (figuratively) and this would no doubt, turn into some epistemological issue of some sort.

I am not claiming that there is a correct way per se, in finding out about all of these things, without going to university/college first-hand and studying a specific subject or another, but think about it, if one actually made a good effort in finding all of these things out, it would be quite improbable that they get all the information wrong! My point in an earlier post, I believe, was that some of these persons in that video, probably did not research enough and the fact that they ended up without jobs post-graduation, has more to do with them, rather than what others have told them.

First of all, how do you know there aren't any jobs for people graduating with such degrees? Do you have one and have you tried getting a job with it? Or is that, as I presume, just a general impression that you have? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I think this just might be the case here. I think it's safe to say you actually don't know what the market is for those degrees and you're just going off of what little insufficient data you've gathered about them, making rash conclusions. After all, you don't see that many adverts for jobs looking for Physics graduates, but as it's so often spoken of here, it's the skills that matter and you may get a lot of jobs you wouldn't necessarily think of with such a degree. Why would that not be the case for other degrees, as well?

I do not and I agree with you, especially with regards to what you said about the importance of acquiring skills. There's also knowing the right people, which I would think, is another factor in getting that one job, so to speak, set in stone.

If ever you're interested in how I came to this conclusion, here goes. I do not know much about the job market outside of where I live, which is a fairly small place. I haven't done my research yet and that's largely due to me not knowing yet whether I would like to work in my country or try my luck abroad. I am at this point in my life where I am still figuring things out, lots of them and I would rather know more about where I am from right now and how things are looking up here itself, before trying to venture elsewhere. Having said that, my knowledge of the local job market does not go beyond what I have heard from teachers, parents and relatives, and although some of these sources I would consider good, they are not exact statistics. At any rate, over here, most people with French, English, Mathematics or science-degrees are high school teachers, as far as I know. There might be the odd person working elsewhere with that kind of qualification but I doubt they are many. Again, these are mostly what I have heard from others and what I have seen for myself and not the stats speaking. ;)

And secondly, there being too many graduates for the number of jobs is kind of a chicken and egg problem. Are universities made to supply the job market or should the human kind pursue knowledge it wishes to obtain and create its needs (entailing jobs) based off of that?

It's not a black/white thing now, is it? I would guess it's a bit of both.

 

[caffenta]

I'm near-certain there are other people, who like me, have a high-enough interest in both science/applied science fields as well as the arts. It just so happens that along with a few personal reasons, the chances of me earning more are higher in the applied science fields.

And that's very good of you to be interested in both. You will pick a science/engineering major and take some elective classes in the arts. Where exactly is the rip-off part?

Other people are mostly attracted by the creative subjects, just as some people are interested only in the technical subjects. They choose a major based on their primary interest and university provides them an easy way to check other subjects. You never have that opportunity later in life.

And what do people in this thread propose to fix the supposed problem? Eliminate all "useless" majors? Who decides what is useless? You might end up with all science majors eliminated because the powers that be think that engineering is where it's at.

 

[Mathnomalous]

I like Antiphon's idea (page 1) about market prices for university degrees. Maybe fixed prices for different degrees (e.g. $500 for a BA History and $50,000 for a BSME) or let the prices float according to supply/demand. Of course, in the name of hypocrisy, something like this would have to be implemented after I earn a BSEE.

 

[caffenta]

Yeah, great idea. Then everybody would flock to the cheap degrees and only 2 guys per year would show up in engineering classes. That's going to solve all the problems.

 

[twofish-quant]

I like Antiphon's idea (page 1) about market prices for university degrees. Maybe fixed prices for different degrees (e.g. $500 for a BA History and $50,000 for a BSME) or let the prices float according to supply/demand. Of course, in the name of hypocrisy, something like this would have to be implemented after I earn a BSEE.

The problem is...

1) demand for degrees isn't very elastic,
2) it's trivial to arbitrage. Suppose I pay $500 for a BA in History but then I take all engineering classes for my electives. At that point I've got a cheap BA in Engineering
3) information issues
4) social equity issues - people with money can choose whatever degrees they want, and people without money end up with the leftovers

Markets work really, really well in some situations, but in things that involve health and education, markets tend to work really badly, in large part because the assumptions that go into the market framework break down in a big way.

One problem with health and education is that health and education aren't tradable commodities. For example, if I have a block of gold, I can trade that block of gold for a hot dog. I lose a block of gold and get a hot dog. Someone else loses a hot dog and gets a block of gold. Presumably we are both better off, or else we wouldn't have made the trade.

Health and education just doesn't work this way. I can't sell my degree for money, and there is no way that I can sell knowledge in the same way that I sell gold. If I give you a block of gold, I'm out one block of gold, but if I teach you astrophysics, I don't lose that knowledge. So the economics is going to work very differently, and there is no reason to think that what works for tangible goods will work for intangibles.

Something that I should point out is that once you put prices on something, it becomes obvious that people aren't interested in knowledge. I can give you the same Algebra I course that you could get from me at University of Phoenix. What you get from UoP is not a better course, but a piece of paper that you can convert to a job that presumably makes you more money that you paid UoP.

 

[Mathnomalous]

TwoFish-Quant, from what you describe, it seems college is indeed a rip off. To me, it makes no sense that an English major and a Physics major pay the same amount of tuition when, after the degree is obtained, the Physics major is going to profit more than the English major.

I understand your point about the economics of intangibles vs tangibles. The problem is that those intangibles are being attached to tangible assets; for example, it is possible to train myself in an academic field with just a library card, but the person who paid $ to obtain a piece of paper that certifies (s)he learned the exact same knowledge will probably get the job over me.

 

[mathwonk]

post 27 pretty much said it all. was it euclid ? who told his slave to give the mercenary student an "obolus:, "since he must gain something for everything he learns".

 

[Pengwuino]

Wait wait, why do we keep arguing the value of an education based off what you can get in terms of a high paying job upon graduation? That's not the universities problem. It costs relatively the same amount to teach a physics major as it does a philosophy major as it does a political science major. Professors don't see too much variation in their pay from department to department. The facilities are roughly the same. Sure STEM majors require equipment and labs, but at the same time they bring in external funding to counter those costs.

The cost of the degree should be based on how much it costs to educate a person for that degree. If you base everything on how much you are expected to make in your field, then you'll turn every major into systems such as med schools and law schools. You would have to pay engineers more because universities would charge more and as you pay engineers more universities would charge more and you'd be in a nasty cycle.

 

[caffenta]

Wait wait, why do we keep arguing the value of an education based off what you can get in terms of a high paying job upon graduation? That's not the universities problem. It costs relatively the same amount to teach a physics major as it does a philosophy major as it does a political science major. Professors don't see too much variation in their pay from department to department. The facilities are roughly the same. Sure STEM majors require equipment and labs, but at the same time they bring in external funding to counter those costs.

The cost of the degree should be based on how much it costs to educate a person for that degree. If you base everything on how much you are expected to make in your field, then you'll turn every major into systems such as med schools and law schools. You would have to pay engineers more because universities would charge more and as you pay engineers more universities would charge more and you'd be in a nasty cycle.

Wasn't it the point of the original post (college is a rip-off)? I agree that it's not the universities' problem, but apparently some think it should be. I don't see anything wrong with colleges today.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Wait wait, why do we keep arguing the value of an education based off what you can get in terms of a high paying job upon graduation? That's not the universities problem. It costs relatively the same amount to teach a physics major as it does a philosophy major as it does a political science major. Professors don't see too much variation in their pay from department to department. The facilities are roughly the same. Sure STEM majors require equipment and labs, but at the same time they bring in external funding to counter those costs.

The cost of the degree should be based on how much it costs to educate a person for that degree. If you base everything on how much you are expected to make in your field, then you'll turn every major into systems such as med schools and law schools. You would have to pay engineers more because universities would charge more and as you pay engineers more universities would charge more and you'd be in a nasty cycle.

Because a good chunk of those who attend university do so more for economic reasons than for intellectual reasons. Many universities respond to this demand by increasing tuition and promising their graduates better chances of a lucrative career. Let us put it this way, how many people would pursue a Pure Sciences Ph.D. if they were required to pay full tuition for it? How many people would attend a university if they were told they had the same chances of obtaining a job as a high school graduate?

I agree it is not the universities' problem, but they do not necessarily point it out.

 

[caffenta]

Let us put it this way, how many people would pursue a Pure Sciences Ph.D. if they were required to pay full tuition for it?

You do pay full tuition as a grad student. It is part of the stipend you receive as a research or teaching assistant. Check with your department. Degrees that do not have a research side are forced to teach, very often outside their degree.

How many people would attend a university if they were told they had the same chances of obtaining a job as a high school graduate?

Perhaps they shouldn't attend university.

 

[Mathnomalous]

You do pay full tuition as a grad student. It is part of the stipend you receive as a research or teaching assistant. Check with your department. Degrees that do not have a research side are forced to teach, very often outside their degree.

Great. Instead of a RA or TA slot, treat it as an unpaid intern position.

Perhaps they shouldn't attend university.

Hey, I agree. How many people on these forums would follow this advice?

 

[caffenta]

Great. Instead of a RA or TA slot, treat it as an unpaid intern position.

Well, you do get paid, a little. On the bright side, if a post-doc is ever bragging about how much more money he makes, you can always tell him that your portion of the research grant is pretty much the same as his since he has no tuition included.

 

[Antiphon]

The problem is...

1) demand for degrees isn't very elastic,
2) it's trivial to arbitrage. Suppose I pay $500 for a BA in History but then I take all engineering classes for my electives. At that point I've got a cheap BA in Engineering
3) information issues
4) social equity issues - people with money can choose whatever degrees they want, and people without money end up with the leftovers

Markets work really, really well in some situations, but in things that involve health and education, markets tend to work really badly, in large part because the assumptions that go into the market framework break down in a big way.

One problem with health and education is that health and education aren't tradable commodities. For example, if I have a block of gold, I can trade that block of gold for a hot dog. I lose a block of gold and get a hot dog. Someone else loses a hot dog and gets a block of gold. Presumably we are both better off, or else we wouldn't have made the trade.

Health and education just doesn't work this way. I can't sell my degree for money, and there is no way that I can sell knowledge in the same way that I sell gold. If I give you a block of gold, I'm out one block of gold, but if I teach you astrophysics, I don't lose that knowledge. So the economics is going to work very differently, and there is no reason to think that what works for tangible goods will work for intangibles.

Something that I should point out is that once you put prices on something, it becomes obvious that people aren't interested in knowledge. I can give you the same Algebra I course that you could get from me at University of Phoenix. What you get from UoP is not a better course, but a piece of paper that you can convert to a job that presumably makes you more money that you paid UoP.

2). Charge by the course then no arbitrage can occur.
4). The social equity issues are alread there. I would have liked to go to harvard but could only afford a public university.

Markets work just fine in health care and education. You have simply confused goods with services.

By your reasoning markets don't work well for buying cable TV or software.

You are correct that people don't get degrees for the knowledge but for the certificate. I don't hire engineers who have read a lot on their own but haven't got a degree. Why would I?

 

[Mépris]

And that's very good of you to be interested in both. You will pick a science/engineering major and take some elective classes in the arts. Where exactly is the rip-off part?

Other people are mostly attracted by the creative subjects, just as some people are interested only in the technical subjects. They choose a major based on their primary interest and university provides them an easy way to check other subjects. You never have that opportunity later in life.

And what do people in this thread propose to fix the supposed problem? Eliminate all "useless" majors? Who decides what is useless? You might end up with all science majors eliminated because the powers that be think that engineering is where it's at.

I was never for the sentiment that college/university is a rip-off.

The (allegedly) "useless majors" can be studied solely on the basis of academic interest, no? Whatever happened to learning for the sake of learning/personal interest? Being able to get a job through them, I guess, would just be a bonus.

 

[twofish-quant]

2). Charge by the course then no arbitrage can occur.

In that case you have arbitrage between the same course teaching two different departments.

4). The social equity issues are alread there. I would have liked to go to harvard but could only afford a public university.

So why make the system worse?

Markets work just fine in health care and education. You have simply confused goods with services.

Markets are quite broken in health care and education for various reasons.

By your reasoning markets don't work well for buying cable TV or software.

They work only because you have IP laws that enforce transferability. And in many situations that don't work pretty well because you end up with network effects in which you have groups that make monopoly profits. It's called rent-seeking. Increases prices. Decreasing efficiency.

You are correct that people don't get degrees for the knowledge but for the certificate. I don't hire engineers who have read a lot on their own but haven't got a degree. Why would I?

Because you are propping up a system that is basically broken.

 

[caffenta]

I was never for the sentiment that college/university is a rip-off.

The (allegedly) "useless majors" can be studied solely on the basis of academic interest, no? Whatever happened to learning for the sake of learning/personal interest? Being able to get a job through them, I guess, would just be a bonus.

We are in perfect agreement on that. I'm sorry if I made it sound like you were arguing the opposite. I was mostly answering the thread in general.

I recommend to anyone to take a few classes outside their normal coursework if they can. I didn't do it so much as an undergrad, but I did so in grad school and I'm glad I did.

 

[Mépris]

We are in perfect agreement on that. I'm sorry if I made it sound like you were arguing the opposite. I was mostly answering the thread in general.

I recommend to anyone to take a few classes outside their normal coursework if they can. I didn't do it so much as an undergrad, but I did so in grad school and I'm glad I did.

You're going to need more than your word.


Seriously though, I'm glad we do.

 

[Pengwuino]

Because a good chunk of those who attend university do so more for economic reasons than for intellectual reasons. Many universities respond to this demand by increasing tuition and promising their graduates better chances of a lucrative career. Let us put it this way, how many people would pursue a Pure Sciences Ph.D. if they were required to pay full tuition for it? How many people would attend a university if they were told they had the same chances of obtaining a job as a high school graduate?

Yes but as you say, that's not the universities problem. Hell, to steal the cable tv analogy, i only watch a few cable channels but still have to pay full price for all of them (not that that doesn't annoy the hell out of me...). We also do pay full tuition. It's just that various entities find it beneficial to pay students to attend (ie the slave labor of a TA)

 

[Shaun_W]

I think it's a bit of a rip off. It only really exists as a form of proof to employers that I can jump through a certain amount of hoops. I suppose that's quite useful for becoming another faceless cog in the corporate machine, though.

I feel it's very much a case of examination over education. I spend too much time learning how to answer questions the way that the lecturer wants them to be answered, too much time writing and preparing useless lab reports and too much time memorising rather than understanding. It's not really an education any more, though, is it, given that for pretty much any career nowadays you need a degree to get your foot in the door. Universities know this and thus can charge extra because they know that you'll get nowhere without their bit of paper. We're in the bizarre situation where people are essentially paying to get a job!

 

[caffenta]

I think it's a bit of a rip off. It only really exists as a form of proof to employers that I can jump through a certain amount of hoops. I suppose that's quite useful for becoming another faceless cog in the corporate machine, though.

You can't blame universities for this. They did not create this situation. Employers and society in general did.

I feel it's very much a case of examination over education. I spend too much time learning how to answer questions the way that the lecturer wants them to be answered, too much time writing and preparing useless lab reports and too much time memorising rather than understanding.

Making supposedly useless lab reports is standard practice in science. You'll be making plenty of those in your lifetime. And if you're not getting some form of understanding, something's not right. I don't even know how one could stay afloat in any of the physical sciences, or even engineering, just using memorization.

It's not really an education any more, though, is it, given that for pretty much any career nowadays you need a degree to get your foot in the door. Universities know this and thus can charge extra because they know that you'll get nowhere without their bit of paper. We're in the bizarre situation where people are essentially paying to get a job!

Again, this is not caused by universities. You are mixing up cause and effect. Universities want nothing more than to teach for the sake of learning. They are being forced to change their ways to make a degree more relevant to today's job environment, whatever that means.

The real rip-off is the job market.

 

[jeebs]

I don't think so, not as far as physics goes anyway. I did a foundation year leading onto a 4 year physics course (of which I am in the fourth year) and I am in about £35,000 of debt. I think it's worth it, I wouldn't trade the education I've been given for anything. I'm a different person for having gotten it, changed my outlook on everything. Best decision I've ever made.
Tuition fees are tripling in a couple of years here in the UK, but I'd still say that's worth it to avoid a lifetime of ignorance.

 

[twofish-quant]

I spend too much time learning how to answer questions the way that the lecturer wants them to be answered, too much time writing and preparing useless lab reports and too much time memorising rather than understanding.

Sounds like a typical day at the office. Seriously.

It's not really an education any more, though, is it, given that for pretty much any career nowadays you need a degree to get your foot in the door.

There is a reason for this. If your professor tells you to fill out a dozen stupid lab reports, you will do it. You may complain. You may grumble, but in the end, you'll do it. Having a bachelor's degree tells the employer that if they ask you to fill out a dozen stupid lab reports, you'll do it.

This *is* education. Now, it may not be very romantic, and while you are filling out a dozen stupid lab reports, you may be imagining yourself tossing those lab reports at your boss/professor and then traveling to a deserted island and writing poetry.

Universities know this and thus can charge extra because they know that you'll get nowhere without their bit of paper.

And then they structure their education to get what employers are looking for. If you want a brilliant C++ programmer, there is no need to get a bachelor's degree. You can take a quick test, and quickly see if the person is a good C++ programmer.

What you *can't* figure out from a quick test, is whether or not, the person is willing and able to fill out a dozen stupid forms to meet a stupid deadline, and able to sit in a long boring and useless lecture. That's what a bachelor degree proves. It's basically a certification that you can control your emotions, meet deadlines, and manage schedules.

Before the 1960's, people used military experience for that certification. One advantage of college is that people aren't shooting at you.

We're in the bizarre situation where people are essentially paying to get a job!

That's not a bad deal if you get a job in the end. It stinks if you don't.

 

[twofish-quant]

Yes but as you say, that's not the universities problem.

I think it is the universities problem.

Call me old fashion, but I still think that part of the job of the university is to be an "alma mater" (i.e. a foster parent). I don't particularly like the idea of a university as a "service provider" where you pay your money and get a piece of paper.

We also do pay full tuition. It's just that various entities find it beneficial to pay students to attend (ie the slave labor of a TA)

This points out a basic conflict of interest. Someone selling used cars shouldn't be expected to tell you that it's not in your interest to buy a used car. However if a university really is an "alma mater" then it should.

 

[Pengwuino]

I feel it's very much a case of examination over education. I spend too much time learning how to answer questions the way that the lecturer wants them to be answered, too much time writing and preparing useless lab reports and too much time memorising rather than understanding. It's not really an education any more, though, is it, given that for pretty much any career nowadays you need a degree to get your foot in the door. Universities know this and thus can charge extra because they know that you'll get nowhere without their bit of paper. We're in the bizarre situation where people are essentially paying to get a job!

It's not as useless as you think. I haven't written an essay in years and when I had to start writing statements of purpose to enter graduate school, I was in a rough spot. The essays I wrote in high school and a few in college felt meaningless to me, but if I had to constantly write a couple essays every semester, I wouldn't have been in such a crumby position when it came time to write essays that actually were extremely important to me.

And the fact of the matter is people DO get fired because they can't write a good report. I think a lot of the problems start in the K-12 where you have teachers that don't really know what they're doing. They ask students to write a lab report for example. However, they nit pick over whether or not you have an equipment list, if your references were cited using a comma after the book title or a semi-colon, and other completely irrelevant stuff. Then this gets passed on to college students who are taught by other college students who half the time don't care about their jobs as lab instructors and they don't really know what's important in a lab report either.

 

[Pengwuino]

That's not a bad deal if you get a job in the end. It stinks if you don't.

Agreed. And when DOESN'T this happen. Vocational school, community college, online lessons, none are free. Hell even if you go work at a fast food place, you have to pay for your clothing to work there. Open a business? Don't even bother talking about profiting for a couple years!

 

[twofish-quant]

You can't blame universities for this. They did not create this situation. Employers and society in general did.

I don't care who created the problem. I do care about who fixes it. Part of the responsibility of being an intellectual is to accept responsibility for fixing problems that you had no part in creating.

Making supposedly useless lab reports is standard practice in science. You'll be making plenty of those in your lifetime.

And sometimes the reports are useless. Having the patience to do something stupid and useless because authority tells you to do so is part of the skill set that you learn in universities, and what employers look for (seriously).

Again, this is not caused by universities. You are mixing up cause and effect. Universities want nothing more than to teach for the sake of learning.

I don't think that's true. Part of the problem is that a "university" is not a human being, and when you talk about what an organization "wants" it's difficult. You have the paradoxical situation in which everyone in the organization says that they want something, but the organization does something different.

They are being forced to change their ways to make a degree more relevant to today's job environment, whatever that means.

Forced by whom and how? One clever trick is to say I want X, but I'm forced to do Y, which incidentally benefits me. It's even more clever if it happens to be true that you are forced to do Y. So you get the benefits of doing Y, without any of the guilt.

The good news is that once you realize that universities aren't going to educate you, then if you want to be educated then you take it on yourself to educate you. You got a library card. Go into the university library, go to the bookstore, and find some random book and learn something.

The real rip-off is the job market.

Sure. How to fix? There is a fundamental tension in universities. On the one hand, people with money want universities to create corporate cogs. On the other hand, corporate cogs don't really react that well when something new and unexpected happens. You spend your days filling out stupid reports and playing stupid politics, and then one day the economy collapses, and then no one has a clue what to do. It's not in the manual. You are waiting for your boss to tell you what to do, but he or she doesn't know.

Personally, I think that there is a role for someone or something to give you some ideas what to do when the bottom falls out. Being able to fill out reports is great if you have an office job. But what happens if the bottom falls out, and there are no office jobs. What happens if your country falls apart?

What use is physics or French literature? Well, if it gives you something to think about if you end up in the middle of a great depression or if you find yourself in a political prison or a refugee camp.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also if you want a reading list...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674011465/?tag=pfamazon01-20

and the look at the associated books.

 

[twofish-quant]

And the fact of the matter is people DO get fired because they can't write a good report.

Each quarter, I have to write a report that basically says "This is why you should not fire me."

Also being able to write good e-mail and good powerpoints is critical.

I think a lot of the problems start in the K-12 where you have teachers that don't really know what they're doing.

They really do know what they are doing. You learn a lot if you follow around a K-12 teacher. What happens is that they are given a list of points to teach, and they are evaluated on how well they do at teaching them. Everything revolves around the lesson plan.

However, they nit pick over whether or not you have an equipment list, if your references were cited using a comma after the book title or a semi-colon, and other completely irrelevant stuff.

That's because its how they are evaluated. Now you may argue that it would be better if you had people with deep science training teaching K-12. That may be so, but...

1) you are going to have to vastly increase teacher salary
2) people that have deep science training often do not have the skills to teach K-12. A lot of K-12 involves babysitting, and being a Nobel prize winner doesn't qualify you to babysit.

Then this gets passed on to college students who are taught by other college students who half the time don't care about their jobs as lab instructors and they don't really know what's important in a lab report either.

Important for whom?

 

[Pengwuino]

Each quarter, I have to write a report that basically says "This is why you should not fire me."

Also being able to write good e-mail and good powerpoints is critical.

Indeed, a good power point puts the viewer to sleep in the shortest amount of time possible so that they don't realize you don't know what you're talking about!

They really do know what they are doing. You learn a lot if you follow around a K-12 teacher. What happens is that they are given a list of points to teach, and they are evaluated on how well they do at teaching them. Everything revolves around the lesson plan.

...That's because its how they are evaluated. Now you may argue that it would be better if you had people with deep science training teaching K-12. That may be so, but...

I don't even see it as needing a deep science knowledge requirement. A report should tell someone something using a clear, concise explanation. My students ask me some of the silliest questions which I feel is due to how they were educated about reporting. They ask if this size paper is ok, can I use a pen, can I scan a graph, etc etc. I have to tell them to just do whatever you want as long as it forms a good presentation that tells me what I need to know.

Then again that seems to be a bit against what your idea of a bachelors is - a piece of paper confirming you know how to do what you're told. Although I suppose them listening to me and dispensing with the irrelevant parts is another form of doing what you're told...

Important for whom?

I suppose that is the problem. I personally think everyone who reads a report is looking to be convinced of something or to have something explained. So to me, it means people who don't care about the nit picky stuff. Maybe that's a bad assumption?