Unlocking Creativity: How Technology is Revolutionizing Academic Scholarship

  • Context: Schools 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ZapperZ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    College
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
73 replies · 13K views
twofish-quant said:
I'm thinking about being on the committees that generate these sorts of reports. One thing that I found pretty striking was on the committee of people talking about vocational education, there didn't seem to be anyone that was a plumber or electrician.

OK, I see your point.

Also there did seem to be a major problem with the report. If it is the case that people are failing out of four year colleges because they are unable to meet general education requirements, then I'm not sure how they are going to make it through a two year vocational program.

Fair enough. The initial point still stands, though. If these people are unable to meet general education requirements then there are only a few possible problems:

1. College is not for them.

2. They have had poor secondary education. (Given the state of of US public schools, this is quite possibly the case.)

So the question is:

The students who are not thriving in college, are they:

1. not cut out for any skilled career, vocational or college trained?

2. college able, but just poorly prepared for college/

3. vocation able, but just poorly prepared for vocational school?

4. a mix 2 and 3?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I quite often talk to the mature students at my university, and every single one of them who is doing their first degree is there because there was a glass ceiling in effect at their work where no-one without an honours degree could get promoted above a certain level. And this certain level was fairly low. Those with degrees were going straight to the management level, giving out orders to those who had the years and years of experience. I guess that hacked them off a little, too. If I was in my late twenties or thirties and had been in a job for years I also wouldn't like 21 year olds with no experience making the orders. But that's life and I guess the system is fairly effective in keeping social mobility down.

So it's fairly obvious why parents really, really push their children to get a degree. Because without it, unless they are a one in a million entrepreneur or something, they aren't going to amount to much without it.

Of course, the plumbers and electricians might have the last laugh when everyone else's jobs are outsourced.
 
Shaun_W said:
So it's fairly obvious why parents really, really push their children to get a degree. Because without it, unless they are a one in a million entrepreneur or something, they aren't going to amount to much without it.

But if they really don't care about college then there is no point for parents to push them. They don't really know the benefits of college and won't do well because they aren't motivated enough. If they're happy being plumbers or ditch diggers then let them be. Just ask mathwonk.
 
Fizex said:
But if they really don't care about college then there is no point for parents to push them. They don't really know the benefits of college and won't do well because they aren't motivated enough. If they're happy being plumbers or ditch diggers then let them be. Just ask mathwonk.

The problem is that plumbers and ditch diggers require a large amount of skill and even low/no-skill jobs require a lot of motivation (probably more so than being a college freshman). If you aren't motivated enough to go to college, you just are not going to get a job digging ditches or doing plumbing. If you miss a class, no one cares, but if you miss a construction or plumbing appointment than really bad things happen.

Also plumbing requires a fair amount of skill, and most ditch digging today involves power equipment which can be extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.
 
G01 said:
OK, I see your point.

The other point is that most European countries have rather strong labor movements in which there is a path by which someone that becomes a plumber can get into a position of political or economic power. The US has very week labor movements, so if you start out as a plumber it's not clear to me how you will be able to either be a Congressman or influence one.

Also, knowing the vocational-technical system in China, people that come out of vo-tech high schools all are able to do algebra and often calculus and can also write essays and reports.

1. College is not for them.

In that case, they are screwed, because pretty much any non-minimum wage job today in the US requires post-secondary education. Also, if they problem is a discipline issue, then they are really screwed, because even minimum wage jobs require that the person involved be able to follow instructions and show up to work on time.

[QUOTE[2. They have had poor secondary education. (Given the state of of US public schools, this is quite possibly the case.)[/QUOTE]

That's probably the case. People get annoyed when colleges are used for remedial courses, but if colleges don't do it, then someone has to.

The students who are not thriving in college, are they:

1. not cut out for any skilled career, vocational or college trained?

2. college able, but just poorly prepared for college/

3. vocation able, but just poorly prepared for vocational school?

4. a mix 2 and 3?

Dunno, I think you can ask them. Also it could be that colleges are just not set up to teach the general education skills that students need. The problem is that general education is *extremely* labor intensive, and it's not a high priority for most education institutions.

One reason I'm allergic to these sorts of reports is that the blue-ribbon committees that write them seem to me totally nutty when they talk about physicist-training. I'd be quite interested in how a plumber reacts to these sorts of reports.

Also, having worked with plumbers (and tried it myself), I don't think that becoming a master plumbing requires less effort than getting a post-graduate degree. If you get a two year associate degree that gives you enough skill that you can handle basic things, but you aren't going to be opening up your own business without another few years of experience.
 
twofish-quant said:
That's probably the case. People get annoyed when colleges are used for remedial courses, but if colleges don't do it, then someone has to...

Dunno, I think you can ask them. Also it could be that colleges are just not set up to teach the general education skills that students need. The problem is that general education is *extremely* labor intensive, and it's not a high priority for most education institutions.

Well, I guess in order to fix the problem of making sure people are getting the right kind of post secondary education, we need to fix the secondary education system first.
 
G01 said:
Well, I guess in order to fix the problem of making sure people are getting the right kind of post secondary education, we need to fix the secondary education system first.

Trouble is that if you have an 18 year old, he's going to be 30 by the time you've "fixed" the secondary education system, and it's already too late for him.

Also, if you wait until you've fixed the system, then nothing is going to get done. What's going to happen is that you are going to spend five years arguing about what needs to get done, another five years putting in some sort of political compromise that no one is happy with, and then after another five years, you've found that even that compromise has been watered down so that nothing got done.

Personally, I'm not interested in the ideal education system since we'll never have it. I'm not interested in "reforming" the system, since "reform" to me means "let's argue for a few years and then find that we don't agree on what needs to get done."

What I'm interested in are things that are "actionable" what can be done (or more importantly what can *I* do) right now to make things slightly better than they were before. For me, that means focusing on the physics Ph.D. employment part of the problem since that's the part that I know best.
 
I remember being fresh out of high school having a full-time job and going to college. I was making decent money and I really didn't care too much for more school (I only enrolled because my parents wanted me to). I spent the next 5 years traveling the country working dead-end jobs that I didn't like. It got to the point where I was homeless so I moved back home and enrolled at the local community college. Last semester (fall) I received straight A's taking a dc theory math course, an introductory course in hydrodynamics and a sustainability class (with a couple other non-related classes to get full-time units).

Sure, college isn't for everyone. It took me 5 years of living a hard life to realize what I wanted to do and the only way for me to achieve my goals is to get a PhD in Physics. I'm still far off from achieving said degree but after the things I've done, it's a walk in the park. Life experiences have done more to strengthen my character and have given me the resolve to rationalize my dream. I don't need some Harvard committee telling me what I want to accomplish isn't worth it.
 
Out of all the things a parent can do for a child, encouraging them to get a college degree in something worthwhile is one of the most important.
 
Not worthwhile for the parent but the encouragement of something the child finds worthwhile. So many times the parents live vicariously through the child and that child grows up doing something that they don't care too much for. I was pushed growing up to get into the medical field. I honestly considered it, but; what it boiled down to was, the math and science behind it all. So the pursuit of the unknown and an understanding of what is known that compels me to go to school. There is always something to learn and discover. Whether what I discovered is something already classified or not isn't the point. It's new to me.
 
Newtonsenigma said:
Not worthwhile for the parent but the encouragement of something the child finds worthwhile. So many times the parents live vicariously through the child and that child grows up doing something that they don't care too much for.

On the other hand sometimes the parent lives vicariously through the child and it works out well.

I should point out that one of the reasons that colleges exist is that there needs to be a safe place that kids can just be away from their parents for a few years to figure out what to do. Professors get annoyed when they have to do young-adult babysitting, but if colleges don't do this, the only other institution that I know of that does young adult baby-sitting is the military.

I think encouraging people to go straight to work instead of going to college is a bad idea for a lot of 18 year olds. There are a very large number of college freshmen that aren't terribly mature, and if you put them in a work environment, they will end up in a far, far, far worse situation than if you just put them in college where the environment is more protected.
 
Newtonsenigma said:
Life experiences have done more to strengthen my character and have given me the resolve to rationalize my dream. I don't need some Harvard committee telling me what I want to accomplish isn't worth it.

Exactly. Let me change from Harvard to MIT, since being an alumni, I have more standing to scream about it, and maybe change it.

The trouble is that if you apply to the MIT undergraduate program right now, you'll find your application rejected. MIT will not admit students older than average into the undergraduate program, and I think that's a very bad thing, and being a master plumber or construction worker is not something that Sloan thinks highly of when they look at MBA applications.

The problem that you'll find is that because you (wisely) spent a few years doing things other than college, you are outside of the mainstream, and so you'll find it harder to get the physics Ph.D. than if you had stayed on the assembly line. Personally, I think it's a bad thing, and I think *that's* the problem that needs to be addressed because students that are making decisions are faced with "now or never" issues.
 
I've come across that quite a bit. Just to get enrolled there were so many hoops I've had to jump through, success contracts and the like. If I do well this coming semester all the bans on units will be lifted as well as financial aid being awarded. So I know all about the discrimination against counter-culture people.
 
Last edited:
Newtonsenigma said:
I've come across that quite a bit. Just to get enrolled there were so many hoops I've had to jump through, success contracts and the like. If I do well this coming semester all the bans on units will be lifted as well as financial aid being awarded. So I know all about the discrimination against counter-culture people.

If you can write up something that explains the issues that you ran into and what you had to do to get around them, that would be extremely useful for me and I'm sure a lot of other people.

Also, I have a lot of sympathy because I'm more or less in the same boat. After I got my Ph.D., it seemed pretty obvious that I just wasn't going to get anywhere with through the standard academic route, so I have as much interest in tearing down the current system as you do.
 
the knowledge is in front of you..on the internet
you don't need college to obtain it
 
elfboy said:
the knowledge is in front of you..on the internet
you don't need college to obtain it

I've never seen anyone derive a new field theory based off of wikipedia.
 
for one I had to see a counsellor to do that I had to bs my way because I hadn't taken the placement test. That involved showing up at the office around 0500. They didn't do appointments and there was a limited number of slots available for that day. Filled out an academic success contract, take that to financial aid where I was put on a two semester probationary period where I have to get better than 'c's in my classes, I also had to take a college success class (utter ********) where I "learned" how to take notes. make a schedule, ect... BTW the counsellor never filed a grade for me and a glitch in the webadvisor system put me on academic dismissal. Back to the counsellor's office I go, turns out the counsellor took a copy of my recent transcript, with all 'a's from fall and asks the president of the college if I'm the type of student that needs to be kicked out of school. He said, "no" and it was changed. So now I'm eagerly awaiting this coming fall semester to see if financial aid has some excuse for not wanting to help me out. I've kept all my documents thus far so I can refute any claims they have against me.
 
Last edited:
The last time I was enrolled was 5 years ago and I had a few 'F's. but my new gpa is 2.0. I'm going to retake those classes when they become available. But, funny tid-bit, I got an F in introductory algebra( I was working and never bothered dropping) but was able to enroll in a technical math class that covered algebra and trig. I ended up retaking the Assessment Test and placed in a higher math class. I thought that was kind of funny.
 
Pengwuino said:
I've never seen anyone derive a new field theory based off of wikipedia.

I've seen people use wikipedia as a mathematics textbook in my daily work.
 
elfboy said:
the knowledge is in front of you..on the internet

A lot of it isn't. For example, you can read about how to ride a bike, but you actually have to ride a bike to get that knowledge.

You don't need college to obtain it

It makes things a lot easier. For example, a lot of research journals are stuck behind paywalls, and getting admitted to college is one of the easier ways of getting access to research material and databases. It also helps when you want to study to find a coffee house with nice comfy chairs and people that are also studying.

I think that people are stuck with the idea that the most important thing about college is classroom instruction, whereas colleges and college towns provide a lot of important functions that don't involve direct information delivery.

The fact that the raw information *is* mostly on the internet changes things because it makes more important things like comfy chairs and lockers in libraries and student health services.
 
Last edited:
The trouble is that if you apply to the MIT undergraduate program right now, you'll find your application rejected. MIT will not admit students older than average into the undergraduate program.

Uhh, this is not true. If anything, they encourage letting students take a year off, giving everyone who accepts an admissions offer the opportunity to take a year or two off before starting at MIT, and there are definitely people here older than average.
 
Pengwuino said:
I finished college

That just means none of us are the smartest man in the world, duh!

Now if only you dropped college you would've known that you have the potential to become the smartest man in the world.

This is one of the reasons I don't like Psychology, a lot of studies are simply just waste of time and money
 
twofish-quant said:
The trouble is that if you apply to the MIT undergraduate program right now, you'll find your application rejected. MIT will not admit students older than average into the undergraduate program

I do not believe this is the case.
 
I use to think all MIT undergrad applicants are those who in high school who already took the four years of college math and other science courses (during high school) and applying them again.
 
@flyingpig:

That's definitely not true because MIT offers all the basic math and science classes and they are always filled up to the max with students who haven't taken them before.

There are some precocious students at MIT but mostly it's just people who took the standard stuff in high school but did very, very well, and then it's a few others who just got lucky during admissions.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I do not believe this is the case.

Can you introduce me to three MIT undergraduates who are in their 40's?
 
shravas said:
Uhh, this is not true. If anything, they encourage letting students take a year off, giving everyone who accepts an admissions offer the opportunity to take a year or two off before starting at MIT, and there are definitely people here older than average.

A year or two. Sure, Ten years after which you've gone to community college and become a plumber. No.

Again, if you can introduce me to an MIT undergraduate that has taken ten years off to attend community college and become a plumber, then I'll reconsider my statement. The one statistic that I could find which I'm trying to verify is that 1% of MIT undergraduates (i.e. around four people) are older than 25.

Again to quote Newton's enigma...

"I was making decent money and I really didn't care too much for more school (I only enrolled because my parents wanted me to). I spent the next 5 years traveling the country working dead-end jobs that I didn't like. It got to the point where I was homeless so I moved back home and enrolled at the local community college."

This is the type of person I think that MIT *should* admit, and I think it's unfortunate that he doesn't have a change of getting in.

Now if you think that MIT has valid reasons for not admitting people in their 40's that have done things other than to straight into college, that may be a valid point, but that's a separate discussion. My point is that MIT doesn't.

One reason that I think the topic comes up is that MIT is making money from executive education and I get flyers all of the time offering alumni only professional development courses by MIT. It's fine that MIT is starting to get into the business of executive education, but if it offers only executive education courses and doesn't try to offer "calculus for plumbers" I think it's a betrayal of what William Barton Rogers and Margaret MacVicar intended.

But that's not a big deal. One thing that is truly inspirational for me is to actually go back and read what William Barton Rogers was thinking about when he started Boston Tech. He had a decent professorship at William and Mary, but he left because he just couldn't do what he wanted there. The reaction of the Virginia legislature to his ideas to create a technical institute to exploit the coal deposits in what is today West Virginia was basically "what's the point of building machines when we've got slaves?"

What I'm trying to figure out is whether or not what I want to do is "too weird for MIT" and whether I'm better off trying to get it done at the University of Phoenix, CMU, BYU, or the American Museum of Natural History.

The other cool thing about William Barton Rogers was that he was in his sixties when he started MIT, so I've still got time. :-) :-)

http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/mithistory/pdf/objects-plan.pdf
http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/mithistory/pdf/scope-plan.pdf
 
Last edited:
twofish-quant said:
Can you introduce me to three MIT undergraduates who are in their 40's?
I don't think this would prove anything, to be he honest. In terms of their pre-university achievements, there's probably not that many great applicants in their late 20's or 30's and MIT doesn't accept second-degree students. So even if what you said was true, I believe the latter would have a much greater effect on the age of students there. But if you were scolding this policy, then I second that :smile:
 
twofish-quant said:
Can you introduce me to three MIT undergraduates who are in their 40's?

I can't introduce you to one MIT undergrad in their 20's. I don't know any.

However, when I was there, there were a handful of non-traditional students. A couple former military, an artist, a former homemaker and recent divorcee in her 30's. You claimed that these people do not exist.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
However, when I was there, there were a handful of non-traditional students. A couple former military, an artist, a former homemaker and recent divorcee in her 30's. You claimed that these people do not exist.

I revise my claim to say that they are highly unusual, and that they shouldn't be.