Education and labor in the modern world

[Al B. Sure!]

also it doesn't pay to be a jack of all trades or a renaissance man anymore... i found it difficult to pick a major as I was interested in just about everything from pharmacy to political science to philosophy to civil engineering but I knew most majors get you nowhere... I then found out how much people with master's degrees in Finance get paid and I selected that. Give me that 90K starting salary fresh out of grad school and I will be able to study quantum physics, ancient history, sociobiology, and psychology all i want independent of a university.

[:) Smiley]

There is value in being introduced to many topics when multiple career changes are likely over the next 50 years.

[Spiffor]

An education in strict liberal arts isn't useful to many students (though I'm much less pessimistic than you are: most of the lib-arts students I know are actually interested in the topic, and they keep something out of it).

However, a complete lack of lib-arts during uni (for example, when trained as an engineer) can be a very bad thing, when those who received such education start maturing, and start elaborating their ideas. They basically have to "reinvent the wheel" as far as thought is concerned, and it can contribue to them having very naive ideas, or flawed logic, in a way that has been shot down by philosophy long ago. It can lead them to believe things as "fact", which are actually wrong and shot down by sociology/psychology. Etc.

A bit of general education during studies (even in trade schools) is also necessary to cope with a changing career. You're just much more adaptable as a computer scientist if you have a good overall knowledge of the scientific principles behind a computer, than if you are just trained to be a code monkey.
Same can be said for jobs that are less technical in nature: in order to be adaptable when you switch jobs, it is good to know the general context of your new workplace, so that you can both adapt to your tasks and to the company's culture quickly.

[Sikander]

I agree with Elok and Rufus here. Education is a great thing, but the university system was designed for people in the top 10% or so and it falls apart when too many people are not only allowed to take advantage of it but practically required to do so. It is in most cases an extravagent waste of money. Most people would be much better off entering the work force and / or studying things that interest them at a community college or studying those things on their own than having to slog through an often crappy uni intro course.

Language classes are interesting because so few people (in the U.S. at least) are really capable of handling them. The nicest profs would be tough the first semester so that the huge glut of students who had no business being in the class wouldn't be confused about their aptitude and would drop the class for the next semester.

I do agree that education is an imortant component of citizenship, which is why I support a strong component of this sort of education in the K-12 system where the vast majority of people will be exposed to it.

[Elok]

WRT opinions on information outside their spheres (as Koyaa noted), I'd think broad-spectrum education would actually make it worse to some extent. In making a complex subject understandable for your average joe, a great deal of its original complexity must be lost. Just look at the popularized science in a Michael Crichton book, for example. It's not exactly wrong, but it's simplified and doesn't address even a tenth of the varied opinions within whatever field it covers. I tend to see survey courses having the same effect of superficial expertise. Just look at the ignorant crap I post sometimes.

I agree that education can really broaden your mind (in response to others now), but I do think some minds are more receptive to it than others. And some people are just more suited to specific tasks. Even with the likelihood of technology changing in the next fifty years, as Smiley mentioned, how likely are today's survey courses to prepare us for the broad changes of the next half-century? Just a decade ago, we were talking about gene therapy as the next huge thing; stem cells were barely on the map. And how likely are we to remember the specific details that pan out as opposed to the theories or methods that fizzle and fade? I think it saves time and money to put more emphasis on on-the-job training and experience, at least in many cases.

[Japher]

I'd think broad-spectrum education would actually make it worse to some extent. In making a complex subject understandable for your average joe, a great deal of its original complexity must be lost.

Depends on the intent of the use of such education.

I have "MBA in a Box". I haven't read it, mind you, but I have read the introduction and it says something to the effect of ~you don't need to know everything, you just need to know what needs to be done and who is to do it~...or something.

It's like knowing something needs to be done, but not needing to know how it is done.

Or, those poor sods who bring in their next big invention only to find out that it already exists.

Knowing a little bit of everything does help, it doesn't pay, but it helps. And, depending on your profession, it can help to varying degrees... I think it's when we see two different worlds of study collide that we see innovation.

[Japher]

I think it saves time and money to put more emphasis on on-the-job training and experience, at least in many cases.

True. Still, you bring in someone with indpeth knowledge of a certain thing they may find away to apply that outside knowedge to their job. Which may increase efficiency, effectiveness, output, etc...

As an engineer I have a wide range of skills, a good tool box, not too deep though. I know that a lot of things need to be done, and not always how to do those things. However, my area of expertise is really in the manufacturing of biologics... and I haven't taken a biology course since high school. To top it off I am thinking of going into buisness or getting a finance degree. Doesn't sound right does it?

Application and perceived worth are two different things, for sure. When my daughter gets of age to go to college I will not be discouraged if she doesn't want to go. Sometimes necessity is required. It isn't often you hear someone say "Man, we could really use an Icthiologist with a history background," but I bet it has been said.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Elok
No, just honest. Not everyone is a freaking genius. Some people are in fact dumber than others. In my experience, the people who don't really understand the material don't "engage" it, as the newspeak goes. Learning doesn't appear to stimulate their minds, it's just a job they slog through for completion's sake. The four or so years and thousands of dollars they spent to do so are basically wasted, it seems. They could have spent that time gaining workforce experience and moving up the ladder doing a specific task. There's nothing shameful about honest work. Especially when the alternative is such an extravagant waste. Does it make them happier, or more effective in whatever job they eventually wind up doing?

not everyone is good at language. I admit I had a terrible time learning spanish. I don't think I ever got above a B in my spanish classes.

But I was exceptional at mathematics such as Calculus. Sounds egotistical, but calculus is just easy.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
I agree but what sense does it make to force people who aren't interested in these clases to take these classes? they are called ELECTIVES though they are often required.

there are many people to whom college is just an advanced trade school... A & M's and Tech's.

I see this more as a failure of the culture to produce people who are intellectually curious enough to be interested in varied topics than a problem of forcing people to take classes they aren't interested in. It's more a question of what the ideal should be--people who are educated in a variety of subjects, ultimately with the goal of creating a well-rounded person, or people who specialize in a single area to the exclusion of all else and have to rely on others to give them their opinions with no basis to judge their merits. My ideal, obviously, would be the first one.

also it doesn't pay to be a jack of all trades or a renaissance man anymore...

Like I said, society, not economy. Trust me, I know that a jack of all trades doesn't get paid these days...

Originally posted by Elok
WRT opinions on information outside their spheres (as Koyaa noted), I'd think broad-spectrum education would actually make it worse to some extent. In making a complex subject understandable for your average joe, a great deal of its original complexity must be lost. Just look at the popularized science in a Michael Crichton book, for example. It's not exactly wrong, but it's simplified and doesn't address even a tenth of the varied opinions within whatever field it covers. I tend to see survey courses having the same effect of superficial expertise. Just look at the ignorant crap I post sometimes.

I don't have the research at hand, but there are actually studies backing up what I said about overspecialization. The theory is that, once people have gained mastery of a specific area and are constantly in an environment where that area is used to the exclusion of all else (aka a job) they gain a confidence in their knowledge that they apply to all areas of expertise, not just their own specialty. It kind of makes sense if you think about it for a while...and then talk to a professor about anything outside their field...

I agree, though, pop-sci is a whole fun problem of its own...*flashes back to five minutes of The Core he saw while flipping channels*

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dis


not everyone is good at language. I admit I had a terrible time learning spanish. I don't think I ever got above a B in my spanish classes.

But I was exceptional at mathematics such as Calculus. Sounds egotistical, but calculus is just easy.

This is a good point, in a couple of ways. First, it's true that not everyone is good at languages. There's a specific, SAT-like test for language aptitude -- the MLAT -- that measures this. It's given to everyone entering the Foreign Service, and I've met brilliant people with wretched MLAT scores (and language skills) and ordinary minds with off-the-charts MLATs. Apparently, language is governed by the same part of the brain that handles math and music, and maybe its possible to be "language deaf" in the same way it is to be "tone deaf."

Beyond that, though, I think it's also possible to be bad at a particular language. I've studied four foreign languages so far: Russian, French, Turkish, and Tagalog. Most language teachers would tell you that, since I'm a native English speaker, French (a related language) should have been the easiest language for me to learn. In fact, it was the hardest of the four. I suspect that's because I'm a very logical thinker who likes rules and patterns -- and French, like English, is a very irregular language. Russian, Turkish, and Tagaolg, by contrast, all have very regular grammar with very, very few exceptions to their own rules. If I had started with french, though, I might have gone through life assuming I had no aptitude for language, instead of realiszing that it was just that I had no aptitude for French.

But it doesn't negate Elok's larger point, with which I still agree.

[Odin]

The purpose of taking classes not related to your major is to make sure you are a well-rounded citizen. A Bachlor's degree is equivalent to an Associate's degree plus generals, and, lo and behold, people with BAs and BScs make more money on average than people with AAs.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly Beyond that, though, I think it's also possible to be bad at a particular language. I've studied four foreign languages so far: Russian, French, Turkish, and Tagalog. Most language teachers would tell you that, since I'm a native English speaker, French (a related language) should have been the easiest language for me to learn. In fact, it was the hardest of the four. I suspect that's because I'm a very logical thinker who likes rules and patterns -- and French, like English, is a very irregular language. Russian, Turkish, and Tagaolg, by contrast, all have very regular grammar with very, very few exceptions to their own rules. If I had started with french, though, I might have gone through life assuming I had no aptitude for language, instead of realiszing that it was just that I had no aptitude for French.

I wonder if the ease of learning a language depens on how similar it is in morphology to one's native touge. For example, English and Chinese are analytic languages (the later moreso than the former), with phrases broken up into several short words. Compare that to sythetic languages like Greek, Latin, Finnish, and German, in which the phases tend to be bunched up into a few long words (which may be why English speakers often get tripped up saying big words used in technical terminology borrowed from synthetic languages).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Odin


I wonder if the ease of learning a language depens on how similar it is in morphology to one's native touge. For example, English and Chinese are analytic languages (the later moreso than the former), with phrases broken up into several short words. Compare that to sythetic languages like Greek, Latin, Finnish, and German, in which the phases tend to be bunched up into a few long words (which may be why English speakers often get tripped up saying big words used in technical terminology borrowed from synthetic languages).

All things being equal, that's probably true -- though I had an easier time with Turkish (an agluttenating language, like German) than with French, for the reasons I've mentioned.

It also seems to me that students in US schools these days get less English grammar than they did when I was their age (25-30 years ago), and I'll bet that's a factor; if your first introduction to basic grammar concepts is while learning a foreign language, and you can't relate it to what you already know about your own language, you're likely to be doubly lost.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


All things being equal, that's probably true -- though I had an easier time with Turkish (an agluttenating language, like German) than with French, for the reasons I've mentioned.

It also seems to me that students in US schools these days get less English grammar than they did when I was their age (25-30 years ago), and I'll bet that's a factor; if your first introduction to basic grammar concepts is while learning a foreign language, and you can't relate it to what you already know about your own language, you're likely to be doubly lost.

I definitely learned more about english grammar in foreign language courses than I did in english classes.

[Az]

A Bachlor's Degree Is Equivalent To An Associate's Degree Plus Generals, And, Lo And Behold, People With BAs And BScs Make More Money On Average Than People With AAs.

not nearly true.