Attitudes towards votech education [ATTN: Boyish-Tigerlilly]

[metavac]

My theory of computation professor once said something to this effect. "You're being trained as engineers, so you're trained to be precise and expect precision. And when you talk with people in other majors who aren't trained like that, you'll get frustrated with them. They'll think you're being arrogant, and you'll think they're being stupid."

My numerical methods professor would've just left it at "and they are stupid." His class was designated a "communications skills workshop" the semester before, a perceived slight he took quite personally.

[Darth Wong]

Or do you think that educators somehow don't need to know math, science, engineering, etc? Why do you think our education system is so shitty at teaching these things? It's loaded with self-proclaimed "well-rounded" humanities majors who are not in fact well-rounded at all.

At the elementary level, frankly, no, they don't, at least not at a collegiate level.

Oh really? Then why are so many elementary school teachers doing such a shitty job at teaching math and science, if it's so fucking easy for someone with nothing more than a high-school education in these subjects to do?

Don't talk out of your ass; I've been dealing with primary-school teachers in the area of math and science for years and I've learned enough to be absolutely certain that they need more education in these areas. You can get through high-school math while being virtually clueless about what math actually is. You can get through high-school science with little or no impact on your likelihood of being a creationist.

If you spend the first half-decade of a child's science and math education fucking them up by teaching subjects you don't really understand, do you honestly think this doesn't cause trouble down the road?

[brianeyci]

I don't know what to make of this survey. For one, three times as many English majors reported employment in the education space. Two, there are large percentages in all categories not reporting anything at all. Three, this is for BA grads. Might these kids be preparing for their Masters? After all, food service isn't registering in the Masters numbers. Four, seems English majors are doing about as well as Math majors when it comes to unemployment.

Employment as teachers doesn't count. It just means English is a self-perpetuating useless field. If you want to criticize the conclusions or methodology of a government institution, you'll have to do better than that. The key statistic is that English graduates earn 18% less that graduates in other fields. It's pretty easy to get a job in McDonalds or in telemarketing or as an office monkey. The average salary is $29k, compared for $37k for math majors. I don't need to tell you that $29k is total crap.

I would agree that spending four years in college to work as a waitress is wrong, but that reaches beneath the numbers and makes assumptions about what that 9 percent is doing. And I can't find any numbers I can compare to science/technical graduations. This survey is amusing, but I don't think it's particularly illuminating.

I think it is. I can bring in more evidence of English graduates having higher default rates on their student loans than other majors. Regardless, your assumption that humanities is the core of civilized society is wrong. Reading and writing is, and that's taught at the high school level. Do you have a humanities major?

I'll tell you what a humanities major is, since you don't seem to know. It's reading endless works by theoretical specialists to criticize works of art. It's writing four essays the entire year, two days before the deadline when science and math have eight hour a day seven days a week workload. It's writing with passive sentences, Modern Language Association format, and smoking weed to get some "inspiration" so you write an original essay the teacher likes. Humanities rewards proscrastination, and its core skills are outside the academic world, worthless. I am not talking about joe blow technical college or journalism which is not considered humanities by any stretch of the academia. I'm talking about history, English, literature, and so on, taught at major universities by professors with tenure.

Do you still want to defend humanities as being the "foundation of human intelligence?" I don't think so. Take it from someone on the inside. Let me put it this way: if English graduates are doing well, it's not because their university education gave them anything. It's because the world works by cronyism. President Bush is a History major. If that is the case, why should tertiary education work this way at all? It should not be a four year babysitting exercise. Push it all back to high school. High school students can write university level essays with the right training, trust me. But they might not be able to do multivariable Calculus.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

What I find interesting is that so many students at my university in the humanities departments seem to have a very difficult time. I don't understand it, because I don't find it terribly difficult to understand the material. How hard is it to comprehend the governmental structure of Rome?



Edit: Although, we don't use MLA. We use APA and Chicago. We aren't allowed to use MLA. I don't know if others use it. We aren't allowed to use passive sentences in our work either. I was under the impression that no college allows that.

[Howedar]

I don't know. My university cared a lot more about communicating effectively than whether or not you use a certain style at any point in your document. How silly of them.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, passive vs active voice relates to the effectiveness of the communication because active voice is often clearer and communicates the idea directly. Passive is more for if you don't really know, want to hide it, and want to use filler.

That's why they say they don't allow passive voice sentences unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

[Howedar]

That's funny, I've been specifically instructed at two different companies to use the passive voice in test reports because it puts the focus on the test instead of the performer, thereby enhancing communication in that particular instance.

I guess the business world doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground, and instead we should follow stylistic conventions that make no exception for any real-life circumstance. Academia surely knows best on this one. Silly me.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

That's funny, I've been specifically instructed at two different companies to use the passive voice in test reports because it puts the focus on the test instead of the performer, thereby enhancing communication in that particular instance.

I guess the business world doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground, and instead we should follow stylistic conventions that make no exception for any real-life circumstance. Academia surely knows best on this one. Silly me.

Sometimes, use of the passive voice is probably unavoidable. They simply chastise you for using it outside of those cases. Other than that, I don't know why other than what they tell me.

It's not merely the humanities department, for the science and engineering departments have the same requirements. The student writing manual claims it's unprofessional and indecisive.

If they want you to use it in the "real-world," it's not that big of a deal. It's easy to switch back and forth.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Sorry for the double post. Found one of the sample manual scripts.


Why Professors Often Dislike Passive Voice

The primary reason why your instructors frown on the passive voice is that they often have to guess what you mean. Sometimes, the confusion is minor. Let's look again at that sentence from a student's paper on Homer's The Odyssey:

When her house was invaded, Penelope had to think of ways to delay her remarriage.

Like many passive constructions, this sentence lacks explicit reference to the actor--it doesn't tell the reader who or what invaded. The active voice clarifies:

After suitors invaded Penelope's house, she had to think of ways to fend them off.

Thus many instructors--the readers making sense of your writing--prefer that you use the active voice, that you specify who or what is doing the action. Compare the following two examples from an anthropology paper on a Laotian village to see if you agree.

(passive) A new [drug] control system was set up. (By whom?)
(active) The Lao People's Revolutionary Party gradually set up a system of drug control laws.

Here's another example, from the same paper, that illustrates the lack of precision that can accompany the passive voice:

Gender training was conducted in six villages, thus affecting social relationships.

And a few pages later:

Plus, marketing links were being established.

In both paragraphs, the writer never specifies the actors of those two actions (Who did the gender training? Who established marketing links?). Thus the reader has trouble appreciating the dynamics of these social interactions, which depend upon the actors conducting and establishing these things.

The following example, once again from that paper on The Odyssey, typifies another instance where an instructor might desire more precision and clarity:

Although Penelope shares heroic characteristics with her husband, Odysseus, she
is not considered a hero.

Who does not consider her a hero? It's difficult to tell, but the rest of that paragraph suggests that the student does not consider Penelope a hero (the topic of the paper). The reader might also think the student refers to critics or scholars. One might argue that the meaning comes through here--the problem is merely stylistic. Yet style affects how your reader understands your argument and content. Awkward or unclear style prevents your reader from appreciating the ideas that are so clear to you when you write. Thus knowing how your reader might react enables you to make more effective choices when you revise. So after you identify instances of the passive ("to be" + the past participle), you should consider if your use of the passive inhibits clear understanding of what you mean.

The second part deals with science. Their stance on science use of the passive voice is a bit more complicated. Many journals apparently want you to use an objective "active" voice, but some professors in science prefer you use passive.

The point is that you can improve your scientific writing by relying less on the passive. [...] se of the passive may convey to your reader a sense of uncertainty and imprecision regarding your writing and thinking.

Our school simplifies it and tells you outright to limit it. You need to specifically ask your professor if he wants you to use it.

[metavac]

Employment as teachers doesn't count. It just means English is a self-perpetuating useless field.

That would only be true if schools churned out English majors exclusively. English teachers also teach future mathematicians, software engineers, lawyers and fast food service employees. If we take your reasoning at face value and ignore the aforementioned objection, any educator who majored in the subject they teach is participating in a self-perpetuating useless field.

If you want to criticize the conclusions or methodology of a government institution, you'll have to do better than that.

I'm not criticizing the survey, I'm criticizing your use of it to make your point. How can you say English majors are more likely than say Math majors to end up in fast food employment if you can't even compare the numbers?

The key statistic is that English graduates earn 18% less that graduates in other fields.

According to that survey, physicists earn 16 percent less. And law (pre-law?) majors make 36 percent more.

It's pretty easy to get a job in McDonalds or in telemarketing or as an office monkey. The average salary is $29k, compared for $37k for math majors. I don't need to tell you that $29k is total crap.

But $30,700 for physicists isn't?

I think it is. I can bring in more evidence of English graduates having higher default rates on their student loans than other majors. Regardless, your assumption that humanities is the core of civilized society is wrong. Reading and writing is, and that's taught at the high school level.

I never assumed humanities is the "core of civilized society." In fact, nothing I've said could be even remotely construed as such. I said that humanities is foundational to public intelligence, and as I pointed out in my previous post I meant 'intelligence' to mean information.

Do you have a humanities major?

No, I did my undergrad in Math, with a focus on numerical methods and topology.

I'll tell you what a humanities major is, since you don't seem to know. It's reading endless works by theoretical specialists to criticize works of art. It's writing four essays the entire year, two days before the deadline when science and math have eight hour a day seven days a week workload.

That tracks well with my (brief) experience with the humanities, but...

It's writing with passive sentences, Modern Language Association format, and smoking weed to get some "inspiration" so you write an original essay the teacher likes. Humanities rewards proscrastination, and its core skills are outside the academic world, worthless. I am not talking about joe blow technical college or journalism which is not considered humanities by any stretch of the academia. I'm talking about history, English, literature, and so on, taught at major universities by professors with tenure.

I can't begrudge you your personal experience other than to express skepticism regarding the distinction you draw between journalism and the humanities. English and history do feed BA graduates into careers including news and entertainment media, library and archival science, government and others where collegiate proficiency in research, analysis, and writing are required. And that's not counting those going on for graduate degrees. In fact, I wonder if you're more or less drawing a caricature of the humanities academic rather than a working college graduate with a humanities degree.

[metavac]

That's funny, I've been specifically instructed at two different companies to use the passive voice in test reports because it puts the focus on the test instead of the performer, thereby enhancing communication in that particular instance.

That also seems to be an at least anecdotally recognized trend in scientific publications. What audience did you target? I know the training materials my company's prepared are frequently written in the active voice, if only because the targets are operators. We also approached documentation this as well. I pretty sure my first team leader gave us some bullshit statistic to justify why we were having a meeting about writing quality.

I guess the business world doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground, and instead we should follow stylistic conventions that make no exception for any real-life circumstance. Academia surely knows best on this one. Silly me.

I don't know the management science on this, but I guess the focus on flexible writing styles stems from some research into how communication flows in organizations that bring together people with different areas of expertise or otherwise deal with different types of audiences. For my part, a user manual for a sysadmin better not read like an article in Phys. Rev.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Many Humanities majors do have jobs you can go from the degree. The problem is that there are too many of those people getting those degrees and not enough jobs to go around. The market is saturated, and this saturation level fluctuates depending on the particular humanity subject.

Some Humanities, however, don't translate into a job that have the title of what they majored in. Some of these jobs, however, wouldn't necessarily require a degree.




Edit: I don't think he's saying anything that one teaches is a self-perpetuating , useless subject. I think he's saying that if the only real job you can get IS teaching that subject, then it's so. Then you are merely recycling it to new people who will only be able to use it teaching it.

If you want a job in many Humanities, you need to think about an academic career at the Masters + level. That is probably what I want to do after I teach. But I need to get a Masters anyway. Then I can move on.




The Universities like to build up how you can get many jobs with humanities majors. They give you nice big old lists of the jobs you can use with the skills, and many don't seem bad. The problem is you don't really know if they are lying to you, and they don't bother, often, to tell you the chances of acquiring the job due to competition. (At least not here. I had to pry it out of the counselors). That's partially when I double-majored in Spec. Ed (autism). I'd ideally like to teach History, but the Spec Ed. degree can have utility until a history teaching position opens. Then again, my advising agent tells me you can do both simultaneously.

[brianeyci]

In fact, I wonder if you're more or less drawing a caricature of the humanities academic rather than a working college graduate with a humanities degree.

Let me ask you a question. Are you happy with the way the current system is set up?

I am not. In particular, I do not think it takes four years to learn how to do journalism. I can open up any college (which in Canada means a technical college, less than a university) and find a journalism or media or marketing degree. If graduates are taking four years to learn something that could be done in two, that is a waste. Similarly, if they take university to do something that could be learned in high school, that is a waste too.

Are you trying to present an argument, or do you just have a lot of miscellaneous observations of the humanities field that you're making? Because it looks like you're arguing that the current situation is fine, when it is not.

[metavac]

Let me ask you a question. Are you happy with the way the current system is set up?

I'm not unhappy with it, but I don't know enough to tell whether or not the system is inadequately serving students or not.

I am not. In particular, I do not think it takes four years to learn how to do journalism. I can open up any college (which in Canada means a technical college, less than a university) and find a journalism or media or marketing degree. If graduates are taking four years to learn something that could be done in two, that is a waste. Similarly, if they take university to do something that could be learned in high school, that is a waste too.

I think the same could be said of a number of other fields, including math, the natural sciences, and engineering. Americans can attend junior and technical colleges offering two year degrees in all those subjects. I'm tempted to agree with you that the two and four-year delineation between Associates and Bachelors is more arbitrary than rooted in some scientific understanding of proficiency in a subject, but once again I have to plead ignorance.

Are you trying to present an argument, or do you just have a lot of miscellaneous observations of the humanities field that you're making? Because it looks like you're arguing that the current situation is fine, when it is not.

Actually, the only reason I opened this thread was to follow up on a promise to Boyish-Tigerlilly to provide an update on what I've found relating to how Americans value votech education. I don't have an argument of my own to present on the state of humanities education on the whole. All I have is the argument I received in college defending humanities requirements for undergrads going into science/technical study, and since that argument was presented without a great deal of supporting facts I don't know what to make of it.

[Hotfoot]

Oh really? Then why are so many elementary school teachers doing such a shitty job at teaching math and science, if it's so fucking easy for someone with nothing more than a high-school education in these subjects to do?

You're assuming some even have a high school level understanding when often they don't. They may have scraped by in High School, but I can promise you that they did not have to show high school level competance to get their certification in virtually any state in the US. To be honest, the biggest flaw in the teaching of maths and sciences is that the teachers lack any passion for the subjects in addition to any lack of knowledge. They teach the materials as cold hard facts handed down from on high, and if the textbook is wrong, they don't think to question it.

I'm not saying the current level of math and science understanding is adequate, but I think that to expect college-level understanding of math and science is too much to reasonably require for for K-5 educators. You don't need to know calculus to teach simple arithmatic. What you need is better training in applied mathematics so that when you teach the subjects to the kids, they can better understand the material. There's a big push for that now, but still too few people to really do it.

Don't talk out of your ass; I've been dealing with primary-school teachers in the area of math and science for years and I've learned enough to be absolutely certain that they need more education in these areas. You can get through high-school math while being virtually clueless about what math actually is. You can get through high-school science with little or no impact on your likelihood of being a creationist.

Part of that is that the teachers teaching high school level materials are even worse. Getting a competent science teacher for the high school level is like pulling teeth from a pelican, so it becomes a vicious cycle. What should be basic knowledge for any high schooler gets warped or destroyed by craptastic high school teachers. This means that only the people with a natural love for science (often inherited by parents who encourage learning outside the school) go on to college level sciences. Of course, the vast majority of those people go on to well-paying careers in industry, rather than go teach the next generation, which is a whole other problem.

Short version, you're right in saying that elementary school teacher general knowledge tends to sucks ass, hence why primary school knowledge ends up lacking, but I'm just pointing out that it becomes a vicious cycle, generated by the fact that:
A. All grade levels are paid the same, even though the requirements for teaching secondary education are significantly higher
B. Anyone trained well enough in the sciences to teach them at the secondary level can often find a job in the industry for more money, fewer hours, and sometimes better job satisfaction.
C. Anyone who went through the broken system has inadequate knowledge unless they went on to learn more at college or other education methods.

If you spend the first half-decade of a child's science and math education fucking them up by teaching subjects you don't really understand, do you honestly think this doesn't cause trouble down the road?

Far from it, I agree with you. That's one of the biggest problems we have, that primary science and math are commonly taught by rote, without consideration to how a child can USE that knowledge, though that is beginning to change, hence the new demand for science teacher specialties in elementary school. Again, however, they're hard to find. I mean, case in point, you clearly have the knowledge base to be an excellent science or math teacher. Why aren't you one? You could ask this question of a number of people who would be fantastic teachers, and they'll give you a lot of good reasons, which is of course why science education is sorely lacking.

Realistically, while upgrading existing teachers is a nice idea, it's only a stopgap. We need more teachers, especially in specific fields, and we're not getting them, so education is lacking, which means we have a smaller pool to choose from, which means worse teachers, which, well, you get the idea.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

In secondary education settings, if one wants to be a math or science teacher, doesn't one need to have a specialization of at least a bachelors in that field?

I don't understand how a non-math and science professional could be hired to teach a math and science subject. That policy is absurd. What schools do this? In my high school, all the science and math teachers had bachelors or masters in the subject they taught. Do most schools do otherwise? Teachers are supposed to be experts in their given field.

I know now, at least, you need to be "highly qualified" and have specialization in the field you will teach, at least a bachelors (and then you are required to have a masters and continuing education).

How is it legal to hire teachers without a competent degree in their field?

[Hotfoot]

In secondary education settings, if one wants to be a math or science teacher, doesn't one need to have a specialization of at least a bachelors in that field?

I don't understand how a non-math and science professional could be hired to teach a math and science subject. That policy is absurd. What schools do this? In my high school, all the science and math teachers had bachelors or masters in the subject they taught. Do most schools do otherwise? Teachers are supposed to be experts in their given field.

Normally, yes, though qualification standards vary from state to state. The simple fact of the matter is that supply is so scarce that many school districts are forced to make do with sub-standard teachers, either ones that don't know the subject material or ones that are horrible teachers. You can't just NOT teach physics one year, after all.

How is it legal to hire teachers without a competent degree in their field?

They don't even have to hire the teacher. They can just get a sub to teach the entire year by hiring them to sub for the maximum alloted period, giving them a day off in that one class (they'll often use them elsewhere in the school system of course), and then they go right back to teaching the main class. The sub still gets paid the shitty sub wage, but they effectively get an entire classroom for a year.

Ideally, the sub would be a former teacher that retired or something, but you don't always have that luxury.

[brianeyci]

All I have is the argument I received in college defending humanities requirements for undergrads going into science/technical study, and since that argument was presented without a great deal of supporting facts I don't know what to make of it.

I happen to agree that a humanities/social science requirement for technical or scientific fields like engineering or computer science is a good idea. Suck it software engineers, university degrees have needed a social science and humanities credit since the dawn of time so the argument that science suffers because they have to "waste money and time" taking one social science and one humanities credit doesn't have any merit. Science majors take a humanities and social science in year one, so unless your university is truly fucked, it does not delay or get in the way of your graduation at all. It's supposed to be easy, right? You can always take interesting social sciences and humanities related to your field like history of technology, history of mathematics and so on.

Here is the real reason why many science and math and so on don't like humanities. They know the world works by cronyism. They know that it's entirely possible that an English major or business major could end up being their boss. And they don't like it. They wish that the world worked by rewarding people with merit, regardless of who their friends were. And I have much sympathy for that view, and so should everyone. Once a person graduates from high school or university, do you think they give a fuck about the education system being broken, unless they're a parent or have other vested interests in education? Of course not. They're worried that they spent four years working their ass off for nothing. And it's a valid worry. Frosh week went like this. The engineers came in to diss the humanities. The humanities came in to diss the engineers. Humanities dissed the engineers by saying, "shut up, shut up, one day you'll be working for us!" or some such crap. Well the world's unfair, so that might be true. But eventually the smart humanities students, the ones who do not think they're smarter than math geniuses and don't buy into the well-rounded propaganda, tire of this persecution complex.

None of this changes the point that humanities is diluted. If you disagree with this point, I suggest you talk with some of your English major friends not going into education, and see how well they're doing. Tread lightly, because no doubt many of them will be going into telemarketing, low-end office jobs or food service. Graduate school merely delays the pain, unless you're going into education. A manager at a telemarketing company I worked over the summer had a masters in education.

[Starglider]

'Fundamentals of all learning' should consist of:

a) English. For technical fields this is regardless of what country you're in. English language, not English literature, which is entirely optional.
b) Basic maths; algebra, trig, calculus. Everyone should get this from high-school, but if they don't because of sucky teachers it must be fixed. If they don't because they didn't have the aptitude or the motivation they should not be in higher education.
c) Mechanics, for the practice applying maths to something useful (minimum requirement for non-engineering fields).
d) Basic logic. Logical fallacies, intro to boolean and propositional reasoning. Critical and debating skills. Do this properly and the whole 'how to deconstruct fictional works' sinkhole the humanities people insist on can be dumped from the core curriculum.
e) Probability theory; without this you cannot reason objectively (i.e. usefully) about anything uncertain (which is almost everything in fields other than maths and engineering and quite a bit even in engineering). Forget orthodox stats, Bayesian probability theory actually works as a coherent whole.
f) Some sort of minimal design practice, ideally with a (theoretical) safety component, so that everyone understands what the general product design process looks like (what kind of tradeoffs tend to be made, why in general you should listen to what engineers say etc).
g) Cognitive science, specifically, heuristics and biases a.k.a. the hundred most common and insidious human reasoning flaws (as backed up by this fuckton of studies).
h) Foundations of science; what the scientific method is, why it works, what it can and cannot do, plus the basic science grounding you'd expect from high school (again, fix if not present due to incompetent teachers, discard student if not present due to lack of interest or ability).

I'd like to add the following, but it's not really ready yet:

i) Some appreciation of how models work, what reference is, the uses and limits of formal systems, embedding, etc. This is the really useful part of higher level cognitive science and unfortunately it's still in progress. Right now I'd just have everyone read 'Godel Escher Bach' and write a critical review of it. It'd be a lot more useful than having everyone do the same for whatever chunk of Shakespeare your school uses - in fact GEB would be more useful as a contribution to understanding English (or rather, fundamentals of linguistics), never mind learning in general.

A basic knowledge of programming is a handy thing for everyone to have, it's good practice in translating problems into algorithms/formal systems and demystifies computers quite a bit, but it doesn't really qualify as 'fundamentals of learning'. Not until we all get turned into/replaced with AIs anyway.

[Aaron]

What's interesting about this is that so many tradesmen (ie, skilled professionals who usually run their own business) are such retarded bogans. The guys from my graduating year who went into trades are doing *very* well for themselves, but they seem to deliberately make themselves MORE bogan-y, MORE ignorant, like they're trying to identify as closely as possible with the ass-end of humanity. They're not always stupid people, but they seem to lean more towards low-end culture than anything else, which is strange to me. They seem to resist the idea that they're skilled professionals, as though that would be bad in some way.

I don't really know what a bogan is but I'll assume it's an Australian redneck. For the tradesmen I've met it's half and half, half are very intelligent and well read individuals who wouldn't be out of place on this board and the other half are complete retards. But on the same token I know a college graduate that is also a Reservist who wants to go to Afghanistan and kill "sandniggers", so the attitude isn't limited to tradesmen. Although I admit I know very few college and university graduates due to the nature of my former career and the area where I live.

[Howedar]

I happen to agree that a humanities/social science requirement for technical or scientific fields like engineering or computer science is a good idea. Suck it software engineers, university degrees have needed a social science and humanities credit since the dawn of time so the argument that science suffers because they have to "waste money and time" taking one social science and one humanities credit doesn't have any merit. Science majors take a humanities and social science in year one, so unless your university is truly fucked, it does not delay or get in the way of your graduation at all. It's supposed to be easy, right? You can always take interesting social sciences and humanities related to your field like history of technology, history of mathematics and so on.

This... isn't even an argument. This is saying "this is how it's been, therefore it's the right way".

[Starglider]

This... isn't even an argument. This is saying "this is how it's been, therefore it's the right way".

I have no idea WTF he is on about. My university certainly had no requirement for any science or engineering students to take humanities students, nor did Leena's, and as far as we're aware this is true across Europe. Not sure about the rest of the world, but the forced humanities infection into useful subjects may well just be a US anomaly.

[Starglider]

My university certainly had no requirement for any science or engineering students to take humanities students

Gah 'take humanities subjects' even. In my case (BSc CompSci with a 'year in industry' between years 2 and 3), 80% of our first year modules, 75% of our second year modules and 100% of our third year modules were preallocated to our main subject (with some freedom of choice with the department). The remainder could be taken on whatever we liked, with the exception that intro to computers type modules and some modules from the business school were banned for being too easy (the later was a source of great amusement to us and led to much bitching and whining from the business faculty). I took my free modules in psychology and electrical engineering.

[brianeyci]

This... isn't even an argument. This is saying "this is how it's been, therefore it's the right way".

No. It's saying, this is how it's been, therefore it's not the fault of the deluge of current humanities students coming in "infecting" science and mathematics and so on. If you want to say something is wrong, the burden of proof is on you.

My university certainly had no requirement for any science or engineering students to take humanities students, nor did Leena's, and as far as we're aware this is true across Europe.

Unless you have zero flexibility in your subjects at all, the point is humanities "infecting" science and so on is a rather retarded argument. First of all, not everybody has a 3.8 GPA and one or two humanities subjects or choice first year lets you pad your grade point. Not to mention you can take humanities related to your field.

Useful is a rather loaded term. To me, useful is job. I know a computer science graduate who came out, and because the market is saturated with computer science graduates, he hasn't gotten a job for an entire year. Right now over here the winner combination seems to be technical college for two years followed by tons of work experience and professional certification if you want to become a computer programmer, not computer science. Either that, or go to a university with co-op education, same as getting work experience.

[brianeyci]

'Fundamentals of all learning' should consist of:

The problem with everything you're saying is this. Universities are not supposed to be where you get the fundamentals of learning. "Fixing" as you put it bad high schools is not the job of universities. If something is fundamental to learning, it should be available to the entire populace, not just the select few who go to university. High school standards need to be buffed. A new high school diploma has to come out, one that employers respect.

As for expanding on my other point, what I see is really a double standard.

• Engineering and science students moaning about how they have to take humanities or social science credits to complete their degree.
• Engineering and science students wishing humanities students took Calculus and so on, harder science courses, to fulfill their science distribution requirement.

In short they want a science distribution requirement for humanities, and no humanities distribution requirement for science. But people at least need to be consistent with their approach and apply the same standards. And people need to be honest. Does anybody really give a fuck of how fucked up university is, short of parents like Mike or educators? Of course not. Like I said, what science graduates are worried about is humanities/marketing/business students becoming their bosses and their education not giving them the fair shake in life. If that's the concern, then the solution is far more complex than forcing humanities students to take Calculus or getting rid of humanities distribution in science.