It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

University reforms: 'dead-end' courses to be named and shamed

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I hope Algebra and every math class after that is on the list. LOL




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
If I had a dollar for every resume' I've seen at the factory I work at that list an education in law enforment, criminology and similar degrees. I would be rich. Most of these folks got these degrees around the time CSI was big on TV along with all the other glorified cop programs.

They all thought they would be the next big criminal investigation person or Las Vegas CSI case worker.

I've even had a couple of them admit it during interviews.

To go along with what others have said, I don't see a problem with colleges and Universities showing the potential or lack of potential certain degrees have......however......a percentage of jobs do NOT require any schooling past high school. Unforturnately, we have programmed people to think that if you don't have a college degree or have not gone to college, you should be looked down upon.

A problem I do not like is the need for a 4 year degree to include physical education classes or (insert useless class here) of some kind. Any class that is not needed to support your degree is a waste of time and money. However it is a revenue stream for the college. I wonder how this would affect scholarships....hmmmm.

College is not made for everyone and everyone should not attend college. Lets face it, some folks should NOT go on to college. Its a waste of time and money.

Colleges and Universities are a business now and its about money now and not about further education irregardless of what the Dean may say or the alumni.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Partygirl
 


College is not made for everyone and everyone should not attend college. Lets face it, some folks should NOT go on to college. Its a waste of time and money.


That is my view.

University/College should be for the high sciences, law, medicine ect;

Instead we have a whole generation graduating with a media studies degree, and then wondering why can't get hired at Tescos.

Our children are being wrongly advised that the benchmark of success in life is a large salary which can only be obtained via a university education, which for the majority of us, would mean debt.

The truth is, the world needs plumbers, check out girls, chamber maids, administrators, cab drivers, police officers, and a host of other jobs which absolutely do not require a university degree. Our young people are being made to believe there is some shame in that.

My partner ( considerably younger than me), chose not to go to university, though he could have got into some of the top universities in the UK. Today, at 23, he is fully employed and well on track in an IT career, utilizing skills he picked up as he went along in his job, starting at the bottom. His salary is higher than the average salary for a graduate, and he has zero debt.

University is not for everyone, and we do a disservice to our young people by teaching them that a degree = money= success=happiness.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Why should the taxpayer be funding degrees in Klingon,David Beckham, Parapsychology, Golf Management, or even Art History?

So many courses are just an excuse to doss and drink at taxpayers expense for 3 or 4 years.

The last government in the UK was so enamoured of everyone getting some sort of degree that the whole thing spiralled out of control.

I strongly advocate further education, but at the end of the day, if it is of little or no benefit to society, why should society foot the bill?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Ghost375
 


That's how I read it.

More drones, less creativity, more like our primary school system. They finally have 1st through 12th graders following rote memorization and not questioning the status quo too much, so now it is time to attack the universities.


For your K to 12 Education comments I am genuinely curious where you got your information/impression of rote memorization, etc.? I ask because I frequently like your comments and find that we think alike on certain things but there are vast chasms between us on other issues! It seems to me that we value rote memorization and actual facts too LITTLE in our k to 12 education. And I say this a Jesuit educated thinker!
who studied philosophy and the arts because it seemed important (and I still think it is).
I am all for leadership, creativity, hands on application in the classroom, but I think our kids also need to actually be held responsible for just knowing stuff. I think that there are times when a teacher should be able to just tell the kids facts (real facts not the questionable kind) and the kids should have to know them. Most teachers I know are finding that evaluations are much more geared to whether the children are working in groups and teasing out the information for themselves. Admirable, for sure. But, a rote lesson: like I often got while in grade school, will likely earn a bad review. So, I am curious about your experiences which found that all is rote.
Also, I hope you don't construe this as off topic. Espcecially since you are a mod!

Thanks



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I was with you on Klingon and Beckham, but Art History? T

hat should not only be a major, but it should be more importan earlier on. Even Golf Course management has a need, and a pretty lucrative possibility if someone takes it seriously and actually pursues that as a career. The same can be said for basket-weaving. If someone takes it seriously, and devotes the education, time, and energy into making it a success, then more power to them.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by watcher3339
 



I am all for leadership, creativity, hands on application in the classroom, but I think our kids also need to actually be held responsible for just knowing stuff. I think that there are times when a teacher should be able to just tell the kids facts (real facts not the questionable kind) and the kids should have to know them.


I agree with you on that. In our primary school system, the first and foremost problem is accountability. There should be a certain amount of information that is required, as a bare minimum to pass to the next grade. Too many school systems these days choose to pass everyone.

My point was that in addition to that standard memorization of facts and formulas, they should expose children to the theory and understanding that makes those formulas possible. They should expose children to some additional reading that questions those facts and opens their minds to other possibilities. The teachers should be knowledgeable enough in the subject matter to entertain inquisitive minds and not just point back to words on a page like they are gospel.

For instance, the Civil War. There are many known facts like dates and names and battles that cannot be disputed. Those should be mandatory to pass a course and get at least a C-. But, the reasoning, and strategizing, and economic impacts, and political backlash, and social implications are also important, and they are not clear cut facts, they are often just opinions. Even young children should get a teaser about those alternative theories, and they should be exposed to the idea that there are other theories and opinions, and they should have teachers that are willing to discuss their questions, even if there is no clear answer.

I could have used a geometry example, or a physics example, or even a literature example. There are facts, and there is theory, and there is circumstance, and the kids should at least get some light exposure to a well-rounded account of their subjects, and they should not be convinced, sometimes by force, that facts are just facts and questioning the facts equals insubordination and failure. I feel too many teachers resort to that penalty, because of their own lack of understanding on the subject matters.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by budski
 


I was with you on Klingon and Beckham, but Art History? T

hat should not only be a major, but it should be more importan earlier on. Even Golf Course management has a need, and a pretty lucrative possibility if someone takes it seriously and actually pursues that as a career. The same can be said for basket-weaving. If someone takes it seriously, and devotes the education, time, and energy into making it a success, then more power to them.


I disagree, where is a societal need (that the taxpayers pay for) for an art historian or a golf course manager?

If a person wants to pursue those options, they can pay for them themselves.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
There is always a fine line between education and job training. Currently, employers don't seem to value the classic "liberal arts" type of education. The concept of hiring an educated person doesn't hold water any more.

However, that are a number of college diplomas that are pretty much a ticket to a good career. Those would be in areas like Engineering, Accounting etc. If you've got the aptitude, you can go to med school or vet school.

If you get a degree in Medieval literature, you won't have a lot of job opportunities.

I work at a University and many of the students that I talk with have good career plans and are studying in fields where they can put their degree to good use.

Just as it's always been, there are people who are going to be successful and those that never seem to be able to figure out which way the wind is blowing.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


In the US, we do pay for our college educations. That is exactly why I don't think the government or corporations should be dictating what classes are offered.

Now, in a country like France, where college is paid for through taxes, then maybe I can see the point of only publicly funding certain courses.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Partygirl

I am reviving this thread, to add current and relevant content:

www.nytimes.com... nlid=49939149&_r=0

COLLEGES REINVENT CLASSES TO KEEP MORE STUDENTS IN SCIENCE
“We have not done a good job of teaching the intro courses or gateway courses in science and math,” said Hunter R. Rawlings III, president of the Association of American Universities and a former president of Cornell University and the University of Iowa. “Teaching freshman- and sophomore-level classes has not had a high enough priority, and that has to change.”

"Multiple studies have shown that students fare better with a more active approach to learning, using some of the tools being adopted here at Davis, while in traditional classes, students often learn less than their teachers think.

"The University of Colorado, a national leader in the overhaul of teaching science, tested thousands of students over several years, before and after they each took an introductory physics class, and reported in 2008 that students in transformed classes had improved their scores by about 50 percent more than those in traditional classes."



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join