Canada-Man
Reviewer
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2015
- Messages
- 2,289
In this revealing documentary, veteran correspondent John Merrow takes you behind the ivy-covered walls of our colleges and universities to see if they are delivering on their promise.
- Thread starter Canada-Man
- Start date
In this revealing documentary, veteran correspondent John Merrow takes you behind the ivy-covered walls of our colleges and universities to see if they are delivering on their promise.
C
cristycurves
Guest
I sent this to someone who I know may have some insight, not sure if he'll watch it, if he'll have the time, if he does and replies I'll give you his perspective-thanks for the post
W
Wanker
Guest
I could get into it this weekend. Thanks for the post.
MisterAsianLover
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,478
Government is heavily involved in post-secondary. It is their 'Foundation for Friends' ponzi scheme.
Of course it will go down the tubes. All things that involve government eventually go sour. Government is the purest form of evil on this earth.
If you believe in government but not in the devil, I ask: What's the difference between the two?
Of course it will go down the tubes. All things that involve government eventually go sour. Government is the purest form of evil on this earth.
If you believe in government but not in the devil, I ask: What's the difference between the two?
papasmerf
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2010
- Messages
- 33,614
I was working in a college dorm and was looking for a room.............it was explained to me that I was in the gender neutral section of the dorm and I needed to go to the North side where it was co-ed.................I looked at the young person and said: Gender Neutral??????? I must have missed the memo that we could now be neutral where it came to gender........ He look perplexed.
C
cristycurves
Guest
I said I'd pass it on to a friend and he did respond here is his reply:
[TABLE="class: Bs nH iY, width: 1368"]
[TR]
[TD="class: Bu"]
Here's my take and apologies for the essay -
Over the past 30 years there has been a sea change in the expectation of what universities do. It has shifted from education to vocation (i.e. a degree is now looked on not as something you do to become "educated" but rather a credential you get to get a job). In terms of the skills that graduates have, employers have always said "they can't do this or that" but the difference was 30 years ago job training was considered the employers responsibility. Now they expect graduates to come in and know everything a seasoned employee would - not gonna happen. Experience and training are still necessary.
It is very easy for employers to pass off their current failure to adequately train employees as a failure of post-secondary education. Everyone wants to point the finger at everyone else. Employers have largely backed off on-the-job training because of the increased hire and fire environment - if employees do not stay in one organization for a long time it is not in the employers interest to invest in them. So it's a bit ugly really.
There are now twice as many 20 years olds at universities as there was in 1990. So if you want to ask about standards, well yeah, do we think that twice as many students are capable of getting through degrees that had 30% failure rates 20 years ago? Well no. Of course, now we have large drop out rates (not a surprise given there are so many students that start university that probably don't have the skills at that time). Universities do try to maintain standards, and if I'm honest I think a lot of the top level ones are much the same as ever, where things have really changed is second-tier universities and colleges that survive based on bums on seats. it is a mutually conflicting system - economics dictate you adjust to keep as many students as you can while academic standards push you in the other direction.
The expectation of what professors do has also changed. 20 years ago they were hallowed gatekeepers - determing who was capable of jumping over the bar to be part of the hallowed academy (sorry for Harry Potter wording - deliberate!) Now when students fail the professor is called a bad teacher and has not put enough effort into getting students through their course. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction as now professors have a conflict of interest - do you maintain standards and risk students failing and the university suffering reduced income or do you lower standards to ensure an income stream. It's a bit like the change health care went through where there is less incentive for preventative medecine now. By and large *most* faculty say "to hell with it" and try and maintain standards, but slowly and surely these pressures seep in.
There have been big steps forward in the quality of teaching at universities though. I am a far better teacher than any of the profs I had. I have authored books on teaching and learning as well. Educational research is now used far more as well. But there is only so much difference that this can make. But I do think the quality of teaching is better now than it was.
That said, it's also true that universities exploit part-time staff to reduce costs. In some cases they are not very good as teachers in other cases they can be better than full-time profs. It's a mixed bag.
The issue about whether research leads to more rapid promotion or not is entirely dependent on the type of university. A primarily research-oriented university will obviously pride itself on the quality of research and you know the students likely get a bit of a raw deal on the quality of teaching, but that isn't always the case (MIT is really innovative in teaching, for example). If you are at a strongly teaching-oriented university, then quite probably the faculty are encouraged and incentivized on the basis of their teaching.
The bigger problem IMHO is that society needs to decide what it wants universities to be. Right now business people are driving that discussion through control of political processes and the argument is basically that universities should provide skills for the workforce (think of this as the vision for what universities do, it is something that in theory should be set by society). Many faculty, on the other hand, view universities as being places where students go to learn and extend their knowledge and develop their problem solving intelligence (you can call this the mission of a university is in practice that is what it currently does). There's clearly a divergence between the mission and vision. Universities are aware of this and it produces a real split personality in how they are governed. in reality you want *both* but it is very hard to see how we can reach a middle ground where we get students able to think critically (which is not easy and takes effort) versus giving them sufficient vocational skills. Nonetheless, some of us try!
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: Bs nH iY, width: 1368"]
[TR]
[TD="class: Bu"]
Here's my take and apologies for the essay -
Over the past 30 years there has been a sea change in the expectation of what universities do. It has shifted from education to vocation (i.e. a degree is now looked on not as something you do to become "educated" but rather a credential you get to get a job). In terms of the skills that graduates have, employers have always said "they can't do this or that" but the difference was 30 years ago job training was considered the employers responsibility. Now they expect graduates to come in and know everything a seasoned employee would - not gonna happen. Experience and training are still necessary.
It is very easy for employers to pass off their current failure to adequately train employees as a failure of post-secondary education. Everyone wants to point the finger at everyone else. Employers have largely backed off on-the-job training because of the increased hire and fire environment - if employees do not stay in one organization for a long time it is not in the employers interest to invest in them. So it's a bit ugly really.
There are now twice as many 20 years olds at universities as there was in 1990. So if you want to ask about standards, well yeah, do we think that twice as many students are capable of getting through degrees that had 30% failure rates 20 years ago? Well no. Of course, now we have large drop out rates (not a surprise given there are so many students that start university that probably don't have the skills at that time). Universities do try to maintain standards, and if I'm honest I think a lot of the top level ones are much the same as ever, where things have really changed is second-tier universities and colleges that survive based on bums on seats. it is a mutually conflicting system - economics dictate you adjust to keep as many students as you can while academic standards push you in the other direction.
The expectation of what professors do has also changed. 20 years ago they were hallowed gatekeepers - determing who was capable of jumping over the bar to be part of the hallowed academy (sorry for Harry Potter wording - deliberate!) Now when students fail the professor is called a bad teacher and has not put enough effort into getting students through their course. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction as now professors have a conflict of interest - do you maintain standards and risk students failing and the university suffering reduced income or do you lower standards to ensure an income stream. It's a bit like the change health care went through where there is less incentive for preventative medecine now. By and large *most* faculty say "to hell with it" and try and maintain standards, but slowly and surely these pressures seep in.
There have been big steps forward in the quality of teaching at universities though. I am a far better teacher than any of the profs I had. I have authored books on teaching and learning as well. Educational research is now used far more as well. But there is only so much difference that this can make. But I do think the quality of teaching is better now than it was.
That said, it's also true that universities exploit part-time staff to reduce costs. In some cases they are not very good as teachers in other cases they can be better than full-time profs. It's a mixed bag.
The issue about whether research leads to more rapid promotion or not is entirely dependent on the type of university. A primarily research-oriented university will obviously pride itself on the quality of research and you know the students likely get a bit of a raw deal on the quality of teaching, but that isn't always the case (MIT is really innovative in teaching, for example). If you are at a strongly teaching-oriented university, then quite probably the faculty are encouraged and incentivized on the basis of their teaching.
The bigger problem IMHO is that society needs to decide what it wants universities to be. Right now business people are driving that discussion through control of political processes and the argument is basically that universities should provide skills for the workforce (think of this as the vision for what universities do, it is something that in theory should be set by society). Many faculty, on the other hand, view universities as being places where students go to learn and extend their knowledge and develop their problem solving intelligence (you can call this the mission of a university is in practice that is what it currently does). There's clearly a divergence between the mission and vision. Universities are aware of this and it produces a real split personality in how they are governed. in reality you want *both* but it is very hard to see how we can reach a middle ground where we get students able to think critically (which is not easy and takes effort) versus giving them sufficient vocational skills. Nonetheless, some of us try!
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
oldguyzer
Reviewer
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 15,067
Holding a total of six post-graduate degrees, I can quite directly tell you that those who want to get themselves educated (not be force fed an education) can get it today, and in the past few decades. The processes and facilities are there, all that's need is a desire and some natural talent to learn. Forcing people to learn never works.
MisterAsianLover
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,478
Companies should train workers, not the taxpayer.
It makes no sense for a community college to be funded by the taxpayer so that people can take a 2 year course in Administrative Assistant Studies - a.k.a. secretarial work.
If a person can't perform routine office duties after having graduated from highschool, what is the purpose of highschool?
Why can't our highschools teach some trades such as Electrican and Automotive Tech? Why do our kids have 12 years of schooling and then need another 3 or 4 years of post secondary training, given that over half of the programs aren't highly skilled?
Yes, if you want to be an engineer or a forensic accountant, I understand you need additional training. But, if companies need 1,000 office workers in Mississuaga, why do those workers need 4 years of university, funded by the taxpayer?
It makes no sense for a community college to be funded by the taxpayer so that people can take a 2 year course in Administrative Assistant Studies - a.k.a. secretarial work.
If a person can't perform routine office duties after having graduated from highschool, what is the purpose of highschool?
Why can't our highschools teach some trades such as Electrican and Automotive Tech? Why do our kids have 12 years of schooling and then need another 3 or 4 years of post secondary training, given that over half of the programs aren't highly skilled?
Yes, if you want to be an engineer or a forensic accountant, I understand you need additional training. But, if companies need 1,000 office workers in Mississuaga, why do those workers need 4 years of university, funded by the taxpayer?
MisterAsianLover
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,478
We have 1.2 trillion dollars of combined federal and provincial debt. Our debt keeps increasing. We, at least most of the time, run deficits. These deficits eventually have to be paid. At what point do we try to economize and realize that we can't fund everything we want to fund?
What happens when we run out of economic wealth, print too much currency, have massive inflation and have to do what Cyprus did in directing taking from people's current bank savings?
Eventually, we will run out of money. We can't fund our healthcare needs as it is. The education racket will eventually run out of money. This is all a tax. If our education systems are so superior to other places around the globe, why has our economy lagged for so many years?
Why aren't we growing productivity at 5 - 10% per year if we are training all these great minds in our universities and colleges? I will tell you why. Because we aren't getting value out of these institutions. They are costing us a fortune and our economy is not getting the benefits that those in education promise.
What happens when we run out of economic wealth, print too much currency, have massive inflation and have to do what Cyprus did in directing taking from people's current bank savings?
Eventually, we will run out of money. We can't fund our healthcare needs as it is. The education racket will eventually run out of money. This is all a tax. If our education systems are so superior to other places around the globe, why has our economy lagged for so many years?
Why aren't we growing productivity at 5 - 10% per year if we are training all these great minds in our universities and colleges? I will tell you why. Because we aren't getting value out of these institutions. They are costing us a fortune and our economy is not getting the benefits that those in education promise.
MisterAsianLover
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,478
We have approximately 20,000,000 people in the labour force. With a 1.2 trillion dollar debt, that equates to $60,000 in debt per working person.
And don't forget, people have to pay - through income taxes - for all their current consumption in year 2015. So, how can we afford to run current deficits, plus carry a debt load of $60,000 per working person?
And then, when you ask STATISTS to reduce the size of government because their isn't enough money to pay for it all, there answer is to raise taxes even more.
Yes. Giving government more money is the answer. That will work out well.
And don't forget, people have to pay - through income taxes - for all their current consumption in year 2015. So, how can we afford to run current deficits, plus carry a debt load of $60,000 per working person?
And then, when you ask STATISTS to reduce the size of government because their isn't enough money to pay for it all, there answer is to raise taxes even more.
Yes. Giving government more money is the answer. That will work out well.
