NYCPHP Meetup

[David Krings]

Kristina Anderson wrote:
> I'm sure most of you already know this but essentially, in times past 
> in the United States (and I have to assume hundreds of years ago in 
> Europe, as well, although that apparently has changed), the 
> undergraduate university degree was seen as a "gentleman's education", 
> teaching a liberal arts curriculum that essentially prepared you for no 
> useful trade and was sharply contrasted by any "utilitarian" 
> or "vocational" education, which taught a trade or skill specifically 
> for the purpose of earning money by working (which young gentlemen 
> attending university back then usually did not do, but moreso sat 
> around on their rear ends reading arcane texts in the original Latin, 
> drinking heavily and perhaps going into politics...some things have not 
> changed!).

Do I assume right you refer to the Studium Generale (no, not General Studies, 
which I think is a joke that one can get a degree for that)? Yes, that was the 
typical type of study in european universities for centuries. It wasn't meant 
to prepare for "a" profession or trade, but do so for all of them. Students 
were taught everything that the western world knew at the time. Of course, 
after the knowledge explosion after the 17th century this was no longer possible.
Back then there was also no need for large amounts of university graduates. 
That has changed drastically and is one reason more why programs specialized 
into various branches and need to specialize even more. Even the vocational 
training changed a lot over the past 100 years in Germany, my grandfather went 
to a business to learn by doing, I too went to a business, but also spent 
considerable amount of time in specialized schools to learn the theory.


> And vestiges of this system clearly survive to this day even though we 
> now have a much higher percentage of students continuing to the college 
> level, and many of them with expectations that "going to college" will 
> teach them "what they need to know to get a good job".  That isn't the 
> function of the university, the function of the university is to 
> provide a broad based liberal arts education.  That's why even a B.Sc. 
> student in an engineering discipline is expected to take 80 or 85 
> credits of miscellaneous "useless" liberal arts or general courses at 
> US universities.

Yes, but this is how things were done in the past and it may have worked then. 
I think US universities with a few exceptions don't generate the talent that 
the industry needs today, neither in quality nor numbers. I clearly see the 13 
years K-12 as the place for a broad education that satisfies the needs for a 
liberal arts education.

> Therefore you can see that the reasoning behind this curriculum is NOT 
> that US university students are "not ready for higher education" after 
> high school or that "university is a continuation of HS" in the US [to 
> paraphrase from below]...it's that we here in the US have always had a 
> particular notion that liberal arts WAS a university education, and 
> that "vocational" or "skills" training was not something that any 
> respectable person had to worry about until AFTER 4 years at university.

OK, but that is exactly why especially in the IT field a lot of work goes 
overseas or talent from overseas gets brought here. Just read the complaints 
from the C level managers in the various technical magazines, unless they 
happen to have a university that is willing to cooperate with companies in 
order to produce graduates with the skills and knowledge needed.
I think that after 4 years of university an engineering graduate is supposed 
to be capable of performing engineering tasks and not need yet another 4 years 
hands on training before he or she is starting to be useful. Who would you 
hire? A 4 year grad that spent 4 years or one that spent only 2 years on the 
subject?
As mentioned before, the liberal arts education is better placed in elementary 
and high schools and I think 13 years ought to be enough to learn and master 
what is needed. If someone decides that more training in writing or reading or 
math is needed, fine, take an extra course or two. I'm not saying that those 
courses are useless or a waste of time, I just think that they ought to be 
considered extra and not be part of a degree program. Ajai described it nicely 
in his replies and he may just be right that the perspective that we have of 
knowing both systems allows us to see the difference.

> Vocational training is all well and good and yes, does make 
> attractive "workers", but will not replace a solid well rounded 
> university education.  

That is because also the vocational training here in the US generally sucks. I 
spent three and a half years as radio- and TV technician apprentice. I worked 
in a business and also spent considerable amounts of times in specialiced 
schools. We not only learned the theory, math and science needed, but also 
business economics, occupational safety and additional hands-on work. We 
learned how to make circuit boards, how to drill them, how to bend, cut, and 
drill metals and other materials. While working in the business I did not just 
sit in the shop fixing TVs and VCRs, but also sold devices, went out to 
customers, and installed cable TV and satellite dishes. That means I also had 
to learn how to open and close roofs and install electric outlets following 
code. I even got the same basic training as an electrician. I don't know how 
it is in NY, but in CT you don't need any of that in order to even open a TV 
repair business. I germany you need a craftsmen's masters degree for that, 
which means more schooling and tests. And that is the norm at least for the 
past 60 years. I prefer that, especially when it is for example for a car 
mechanic. I want someone with proper training to fix my breaks and not just 
some schmuck off the street who knows what a wrench is good for. I know that 
the shops here in NYS need a special license, but I do not know what that 
includes. I know from other states that the "licensing" includes paying a fee 
and nothing else.

See, the US has excellent universities like MIT, CIT, Harvard, Yale, but can 
these universities produce enough graduates to satisfy the needs of the US 
industry? Definitely not, so all the other universities need to fill the void 
and when you look at the rankings of the other US universities in 
international comparison others tend to be better or as good. I did look at 
the various international rankings. Universities in non-english speaking 
countries tend to show up around the 30th place and below. Excellent 
universities like IIT were even absent on the lists I've seen. I did see 
Leiden and Barcelona in some, but so far at the bottom that I wonder if 
language and location played a role. There seems to be no fully independent 
organisation that compares universities.

David